Why Scripture is Authoritative From one perspective there is nothing novel or surprising about the commitment of the Reformation to the authority of the Bible. Since the recognition of the canon of Scripture in the early church, all Christians had always held that the...
Introduction Every Christmas season a few questions come to the minds of some astute readers when the advent narratives are read—maybe you have had these questions: How is it that Jesus’ flight and return from Egypt recorded in Matthew 2:15 could be portrayed as a...
Introduction to Chapter 1 I suppose it may be surprising to some of you that the 1689 begins with a chapter on Scripture. After all, should not a Reformed confession in keeping with the God-centeredness of the Reformed faith begin with God? But a little thought will...
You remember that we are working through Matthew 5:17-20 under the theme we determined at the beginning of this blog series. That theme concerns Jesus’ relationship to the Old Testament Scriptures. Those Scriptures are described in the way typical of the New Testament as the law and the prophets. Jesus’ relation to them is described both negatively and positively. It is not to abolish but to fulfill them. Jesus comes to bring the Scriptures to their intended goal or predestined destination. This relationship of Jesus to the Old Testament is the underlying theme of the entirety of verses 17-20.
This, then, is why Jesus feels the need to issue this warning. A new time—the time of the kingdom—has come. What will this mean for the law and the prophets? Does it mean that their time is over and that their authority has been overthrown? To this Jesus gives an emphatic answer. It does not! He does not overthrow their authority. Rather, the authority of the Old Testament Scriptures remains and must remain inviolate forever. It is not their abolition, but their fulfillment which Jesus brings.
Confessional Reformed Baptists have in the last 40 years been fighting a two-front doctrinal war over the law of God. Ground zero in this war has been Matthew 5:17-20.
In this post I want to respond to the criticisms of presuppositionalism based on the fascination with Aquinas among some contemporary Reformed scholars. I will point out several misguided and unhelpful directions that are being taken in the current discussion of Aquinas and Christian Apologetics.
Before critiquing theonomy, we need a good definition. Some people today who use the word “theonomy” don’t mean anything more than “God’s law” because the etimology of the word theonomy is “theos” which means God, and “nomos” which means law. They only want to affirm that God’s law is supreme over man’s law. And they’re right about that. God’s transcendent moral law is the norm that norms all norms. Governmental laws should always be consistent with God’s law and human law must never violate God’s law.
But in this post, I’ll be using the word “theonomy” in a more technical sense, which is rooted in the historic usage of the term.
It is always a humbling and learning experience to read the responses to a blog series on a controversial subject. Iron does sharpen iron, as the Bible says, and I learn much from those responses. Some postmils have taken a little umbrage at my description of Postmillennialism as a millennium involving a distinct, golden age following the one in which we live.
Part 1 Caveat comes from the Latin cavere. The verb in Latin means to be on guard. I am using its English descendant caveat to mean a warning or caution. Such is my esteem for John Owen that I prefer the softer idea of caution. John Owen has attained (and not...
-transparent+cropped.png)
Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from CBTS.