By now you may have heard about a new archaeological discoverydetailing when camels came into usage in the Southern Levant. Dr. Ben-Yosef noted that the camels were not domesticated in that area until centuries after the time of Abraham. Passages like Genesis 24:10-33seem to disagree.
What should Christians do with this new data? Some of the extreme conservative theologians have reacted to this finding by denying the relevancy of this study on the specific possessions of Abraham. Others wish to dismiss the scientific discovery entirely and just depend on the Biblical text. However, are either of these approaches really the most logical? Several leading theologians have argued no.
One Old Testament professor, who spoke under condition of anonymity, said that what we see in Genesis 24 is actually a highly specialized sub-genre that no one has noticed before. He calls it the “Prophetic Anachronistic Idiomatic Narrative” (abbreviated as…
View original post 216 more words
What is a divine covenant? A basic definition of a divine covenant is as follows: A divine covenant is a relational arrangement, initiated by God’s sovereign dispensing of his kindness, goodness, and wisdom toward man. In other words, divine covenants start with God and come to man. They come from him to us. In this sense, they are not contracts or pacts between two equals. There are no negations between God and man concerning these covenants. Divine covenants are the means through which God reveals his kindness, goodness, and wisdom to man. The specific concern of divine covenants, in the words of Nehemiah Coxe, is “the benefits [God] will bestow on [man], the communion [man] will have with [God], and the way and means by which this will be enjoyed by [man].” Divine covenants are concerned with the benefits God’s bestows, the type of communion man may have with…
View original post 1,587 more words
I’ll happily stand with Calvin on the issue of Lent and leave those who wish to lie in the filth of the pigsty of ‘tradition’ simply for the sake of ‘tradition’ to do so.
Institutes 4.12.20 reads thusly (with particularly useful descriptions of lenten observance and observers bold-faced)
Then the superstitious observance of Lent had everywhere prevailed: for both the vulgar imagined that they thereby perform some excellent service to God, and pastors commended it as a holy imitation of Christ; though it is plain that Christ did not fast to set an example to others, but, by thus commencing the preaching of the gospel, meant to prove that his doctrine was not of men, but had come from heaven.
And it is strange how men of acute judgment could fall into this gross delusion, which so many clear reasons refute: for Christ did not fast repeatedly (which he…
View original post 370 more words
A careful examination and comparison of the Second London Baptist Confession (LCF) and the Westminster Confession (WCF) yields a variety of differences and nuances, some more obvious than others. One such difference is found in the second chapter, “Of God and of the Holy Trinity.” The London Confession is considerably more detailed and technical in its formulation of the doctrine of God (which is not to imply any lack of orthodoxy on the part of the WCF). This technicality is seen in the LCF’s use of “subsistence” instead of “person.” Compare the following:
Why the change? Or what’s the difference between Person and Subsistence? The short answer is that while there is no doctrinal difference, the term “subsistence” is more technical and carries less linguistic baggage. John Owen shows the agreement of the two terms:
Richard Muller provides the following definition for “subsistentia”: An individual instance…
View original post 677 more words