You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'covenant' tag.
Jim Cassidy, Jeff Waddington, and Camden Bucey were joined by Lane Keister for the Castle Church podcast this week that focused on the Federal Vision. This is a helpful introduction to the issues and they give some bibliographic leads on their website. Read the rest of this entry »
HT: Bill Chellis at DRC.
1. That Synod DECLARE that we stand in solidarity with our Reformed and Presbyterian brethren in rejecting as contrary to the Scriptures as summarized by our confessional standards the theological views that are generally associated with the movements identified as “the New Perspective(s) on Paul” and the “Federal Vision”.
2. That Synod REAFFIRM our commitment to the biblical, historical, and confessional, Reformed doctrine of justification– sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christus– which requires the imputation of the active obedience of Jesus Christ as an essential component of that righteousness which is the ground of our justification and is received by faith alone.
3. That Synod RECOMMEND to our ministers and members the study of the reports of the PCA, OPC, RCUS and Mid-America Reformed Seminary.
4. That Synod REQUEST our Sessions, Presbyteries, and other examination boards to be diligent in their examinations of potential office holders as to the critical areas of theology that are associated with the new views.
Committee:
Dr. Richard C. Gamble
Dr. Alan Noell
Rev. David Reese, Chr.
Rev. Scott Wilkinson
postscript: The cynic in me knows that the first reaction from the FV boys will not be, “Oh my, yet another NAPARC denomination has soundly rejected the FV and NPP.” No, the immediate reaction will be, “They still don’t understand us.”
Wait for it. Five, four, three, two, Hold your ears, one….
postscript #2: Not that we’re keeping score but so far the OPC, PCA, RCUS, URCNA, OCRC and now the RPCNA have all rejected the FV.
Don’t know what this is about? Start here. More resources here.
The question comes (paraphrasing):
Since Scripture says, “believe,” (e.g. Acts 16:31) it seems that we are commanded to believe. If the command to believe is an imperative and an imperative is “law,” and if the answer to the command “believe” is faith, then faith must be a type of obedience. If so, aren’t faith and obedience essentially the same thing?
Re-post from the Old HB archives January 2007. I’m reposting this in response to the discussion occurring in response to this notice.
—
The question comes concerning the relations between Theonomy and the Federal Vision. There is reason to think that there is some connection between the two movements. Severall well-known theonomists are also proponents of the FV. One of the FV leaders recently described the current FV controversy as a renewal of the theonomy argument. Interpreters on both sides have seen connection between the two controversies and movements. Read the rest of this entry »
Pastor Tim Blackmon writes:
Good morning,
I hope this finds you well. I just finished Covenant, Justification and Pastoral Ministry and was blown away by your chapter on Law and Gospel. In 13 years of pastoral ministry, I’ve not seen this emphasized and I’ve personally paid scant attention to this most crucial distinction. Just wanted to say thanks for work well done!
Tim
Tim Blackmon
Pastor
River Rock Church (CRC)
1145 Sibley Street
Folsom, CA 95630
Thanks Tim!
According to Stefan at The Confessionalist.
Daniel and the fellows are reading CJPM. You can get your copy from the WSC bookstore by clicking on the image to the left.
In talk radio the host is supposed to “re-set” the show at regular intervals. He is to remind listeners to which show they are listening and on what network or station. One reason why the host does this is because some listeners are just tuning in. Read the rest of this entry »
At the PB the question was asked:
We know that there are at least two categories of people within Scripture, the elect, and the non-elect. However, it might be apparent that there is a third class of people, those who have taken the physical sign of the covenant but are not elect. Read the rest of this entry »
In his brilliant work, Christianity and Liberalism (1923), J. Gresham Machen called for the “liberals” (many of whom could just as aptly be called broad evangelicals) to be honest about their views and to leave the Presbyterian Church. Thirteen years later, it was Machen who was unceremoniously tossed out via a kangaroo ecclesiastical court. Read the rest of this entry »
R. Scott Clark
Recent Comments