Republication of the Covenant of Works (2)

re-post from May 07. Part 1 is here. — As a follow up to the post of 16 January of this year. We’re discussing the doctrine of the “republication” of the covenant of works at the Puritanboard. Kevin asked about a quotation . . . Continue reading →

Re-Publication of the Covenant of Works (3)

Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here. It may be that you do not read the comments section. That’s probably wise. Here are some revised and expanded responses to some questions/objections 1. The doctrine of the republication of the covenant of . . . Continue reading →

Ursinus on Law and Gospel

Q.36 What distinguishes law and gospel? A: The law contains a covenant of nature begun by God with men in creation, that is, it is a natural sign to men, and it requires of us perfect obedience toward God. It promises eternal . . . Continue reading →

Why Do Some Reformed People Corrupt the Gospel of Grace?

Because it is our natural tendency to do so. It is our natural tendency to add works to grace as part of the way we are accepted by God because grace, being utterly free and unconditional to us sinners, seem so unlikely, . . . Continue reading →

Audio: Nine Points (Part 6) The Difference Between the Covenants of Works and Grace

Nine Points of Synod Schereville (part 6) This talk is part of the ongoing series in the adult class at the Oceanside URC, Carlsbad, CA. Today we looked at points 3 and 4 of the Nine Points of Synod Schereville (URCNA; 2007).

Office Hours Special: The Law is Not of Faith

Thanks to David VanDrunen, John Fesko, and Brian Estelle for putting in some Office Hours this week as they sit down to discuss their book, The Law is Not of Faith. In this volume, my above-mentioned colleagues along with Mike Horton, Steve . . . Continue reading →

Was the Covenant of Works Gracious?

It is widely held in the modern period that it was. To deny that strikes many today as absurd, as impossible. The 16th and 17th century Reformed writers were not so troubled by that idea since they had much less difficulty than . . . Continue reading →