Federalismo 1689 comparado con Federalismo Westminster


, , , ,

Una comparación entre la teleología del pacto de la confesión de fe de Westminster y la confesión bautista de fe de 1689:




Jeremey Walker, Urgency to reach the lost


, , , , ,

“We cannot pretend that we have understood divine truth unless we are living it. We cannot pretend that we know and believe the truth about men, souls, heaven, hell, and salvation unless it is making a difference in the way we think, feel, pray, speak, and act. A vigorous, practical concern for the lost, growing out of a desire for God’s glory in man’s salvation, is an eminently Christlike thing and a hallmark of healthy Christianity.” The Brokenhearted evangelist, Kindle version p. 56

“While I accept that there can be an unbalanced and crippling expectation and even unbiblical obsession with some aspects of evangelism and “mission” (as the portentous modern singular would have it), there is an opposite and perhaps greater danger in our day that believers and churches enjoying possession of a great deposit of truth nevertheless do not know it. If they did, they would be doing something. It is very easy to be up in arms, for example, about current assaults on what can so calmly be described as the doctrine of hell. “Of course there is a hell!” we protest, offended and disturbed that someone could deny what is so plainly written in the Word of God. Is there a hell? What difference has it made? What have we done differently because there is a hell? Is its reality driving our thoughts, words, and deeds? Many of us who have entered the kingdom have come perilously close to the flames of the pit. We have felt its fire, and yet we have, perhaps, forgotten that from which we have been delivered. The urgency with which we fled to Christ ourselves has perhaps been replaced with a casual awareness of spiritual reality that never energizes us to do anything for those who are themselves in danger of eternal punishment. The same could be said of heaven, of Christ’s atonement for sinners, of God’s grace and mercy, of the freeness of the gospel, of the excellence of salvation. “Yes…yes…yes,” the monotonous ticking off of doctrines received continues. But what difference does it make to you and me?” ibid p. 56-72

[John Bunyan’s Burden for the lost] “I preached what I felt, what I smartingly [acutely, deeply] did feel. Indeed, I have been to them as one sent to them from the dead; I went myself in chains to preach to them in chains, and carried that fire in my own conscience that I persuaded them to beware of”?[2]” ibid p. 109

A.W. Pink Tract: Is Christ Your Lord?


, , , , , , ,

A useful tract to pass out to nominal christians when doing evangelism which clearly explains the Lordship of Christ in salvation and in the life of a genuine believer.  Print it out in booklet form and just fold in half to make the tract with a single sheet of paper.

A.W. Pink Tract, Is Christ your Lord

Richard A. Muller on archetypal and ectypal theology


, , , ,

Originally posted on Theologia est doctrina Deo vivendi per Christum:


As we approach theology, how do we explain and account for the vast and immeasurable distance between God and man? Can we know what God knows? Can we know anything at all? Is God too hidden to be known? Can we climb into God’s mind (so to speak) and see what’s going on? Here is where the differentiation between archetypal theology (the perfect knowledge God has of himself) and ectypal theology (the revealed but limited – though sufficient – knowledge we have of God) is important. Richard A. Muller, in his Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 1, p. 229, explains:

“Beginning with Luther, the Reformation had a strong sense of the transcendence of God, indeed, the hiddenness of God in and behind his revelation. Drawing on this assumption, Calvin argued the accommodated nature of God’s revelation: God reveals himself not as he is in his infinite majesty but…

View original 236 more words

Vos’ Sermon: The Wonderful Tree (Hosea 14:8), some observations on a biblical theology of idolatry


, , , , ,

I’ve been reading through Vos’ sermons that he preached at Princeton Seminary to better understand how a redemptive historical hermeneutic is used in preaching, in the book Grace and Glory:

Here are some quotes from Vos’ exposition of Hosea 14:8 pertaining to idolatry forming a small biblical theology of idolatry:

“In emphasizing the verdant, living character of Jehovah with reference to Israel, the prophet may have had in mind,  by way of contrast, the pagan deity from which these qualities of life and fruitfulness and miraculous provision are utterly absent.  There used to stand beside the altar of idolatry a pole rudely fashioned in the image of Asherah, the spouse of Baal and goddess of fruitfulness.  Nothing could have more strikingly symbolized the barrenness and hopelessness of nature  worship than this dead stump in which no bud could sprout, and on which no bird would alight, and of which no fruit was to be found forever.  How desperate is the plight of those Canaanites modern no less than ancient,  who must look for the satisfaction of their hunger to the dead wood of the Asherah of nature, because they have no faith in the perpetual miracle of the fruit-bearing fig-tree of redemption.” pg. 15 (Solid Ground Christian books edition as in link)

“Yea, anything that is cherished and cultivated apart from God in such a sense that we cannot carry it with us in the Godward movement of our life, becomes necessarily a hindrance, a profanation, and at last a source of idolatry.  Man’s nature is so built that he must be religious either in a good or a bad sense. Ill-religious he may, but simply non-religious he cannot be.  What he fails to bring into the temple of God, he is sure to set up on the outside , and not seldom at the very gate, as a rival object of worship.  And often more ostensibly spiritual and refined these things are, the more potent and treacherous their lure.  The modern man who seeks to save and perfect himself  has a whole pantheon of ideals, each of them a veritable god sapping the vitals of his religion.  Nay, the prophet goes even farther than this: Jehovah Himself can be  made an object of idolatry.  If one fails to form a true conception of his character and weaves into the mental image formed of Him the false features gathered from other quasi-divine beings, then, whatever the name employed, be it God or Jehovah or even “the Father,” the reality of the divine is not in it.  In such a case it is the perverted image that evokes the worship, instead of the true God.” pg. 23

“As the wife becomes like unto the husband, and the husband unto the wife, through the daily association of years, so Israel, the wife of Jehovah, is bound to undergo an inner change through which the features of God are slowly but surely wrought out in her character.  The beauty of the Lord God is put upon her.  This law works with absolute necessity.  The prophet traces it even in the shameful pagan cult, which in other respects is the caricature of the true religion of Israel.  Those who come to Baal-Peor and consecrate themselves to the shameful thing become abominable like that which they love.  The principle laid down applies to all idolatry, open or disguised; an object of his supreme devotion not only turns into his master, but ends with becoming a superimposed character fashioning him irresistibly into likeness with itself.  There is no worshiper but bears the image of his God.” pg. 30


Authorial Intent, Hermeneutics, and Semantics – Dr. Richard Barcellos


, , , , , ,

2 concise and useful articles from The Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary Blog concerning authorial intent, the dual authorship of Scripture, and the NT use of the OT:




Greg Bahnsen’s Critique of Hinduism




This post is useful in applying a presuppositional approach to apologetics to Hinduism. I do not support Covenant Media Foundation since they support the Federal Vision which denies justification sola fide and the imputed righteousness of Christ.

Originally posted on True Forms:

Notes from Greg L. Bahnsen’s A Biblical Introduction to Apologetics series. 

All of the world religions will fall into one of three categories: transcendent mysticism, immanent moralism or counterfeit christianity.

Counterfeit Christianity: Islam mimick Christianity. The Quran, which was written 700 years after the Bible, is an imitation and draws on the Bible. It acknowledges Moses and Jesus as a prophet. Muhammad was mimicking Judaism and Christianity in having a personal god, who was sovereign and reveals himself. The Moonies also mimick Christianity. Sun Myung Moon presents himself as a personal savior like Jesus. They say that Jesus failed in his endeavor to save humanity. Sun Myung Moon suceeds in saving humanity where Jesus failed. Mormons are also counterfeit Christians. They claim the Bible, but they don’t interpret it correctly. Jehovah’s Witnesses are also counterfeiting Christianity.

Transcendent Mysticism: Transcendent means that which goes beyond man’s experience. It is also the…

View original 525 more words

Greg Bahnsen’s Critique of Buddhism


, ,


This post is useful in applying a presuppositional approach to apologetics to Buddhism. I do not support Covenant Media Foundation since they support the Federal Vision which denies justification sola fide and the imputed righteousness of Christ.

Originally posted on True Forms:

Notes from Greg L. Bahnsen’s A Biblical Introduction to Apologetics series. 

Summary of Presuppositional Approach 
By a presuppositional approach, we mean that we will compare worldviews. A worldview is a network of presuppositions in terms of which every aspect of man’s experience is interpreted. Everyone has a basic understand of how we know what we know, what is real and how we should live our lives. The fact that everyone has a worldview doesn’t mean that everyone is self-conscious of their worldview.

The difference between a philosopher and the layperson is not that one does philosophy and the other doesn’t. It is that one does it self-consciously and does it well. When we get ready to argue with unbelievers, the difference will be our worldviews. The presuppositional approach compares worldviews and what we are comparing are not hypotheses. Its not like the unbeliever has an explanation for things and the…

View original 1,313 more words


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 38 other followers