Nice chart and nice 'Yes' or 'No' question towards the end. May I steal those for future classes I may teach? There is no way around it, coveys require the NT giving a new understanding to the OT. One thing I always think about is, if God can have an incomplete, hidden meaning at one time and then clarify things later on, as he did with the OT, then he can do that later with the NT too. This is a necessary conclusion from the nature of the argumentation. The consistent covey must affirm that we don't have certainty of a closed canon. If God can give a new understanding to a passage later on, then we can never be sure the canon is closed.
Puritan Samuel Willard wrote a book titled "The Covenant of Redemption." The foundation of the book is Psalm 89. He completely typologizes the psalm. He builds his entire argument on the typology. He never interacts with the text. I'd like to say this is unusual when it comes to Covenant theology, but I have a library full of books like that.
Keep going Jeremy with the sticking your neck out. I often feel the same as you but then remember that I was an Arminian charismatic for most of my life up until about 5 years ago and people like you do make a difference I think there’s a third view of the puppy/horse analogy; that is that you changed your mind after the promise.
Great podcast Jeremy! I think Gabe has had a lot of great stuff, but his response to you is very disappointing. I still can't understand how they can't see the logical errors in their thinking. But, in any case, carry on brother!
This is the key question. Good job!
I'm glad it was longer than you planned. Great job!
Nailed it!! Thanks great chat!!
Nice chart and nice 'Yes' or 'No' question towards the end. May I steal those for future classes I may teach?
There is no way around it, coveys require the NT giving a new understanding to the OT. One thing I always think about is, if God can have an incomplete, hidden meaning at one time and then clarify things later on, as he did with the OT, then he can do that later with the NT too. This is a necessary conclusion from the nature of the argumentation. The consistent covey must affirm that we don't have certainty of a closed canon. If God can give a new understanding to a passage later on, then we can never be sure the canon is closed.
Yes feel free to use them!
Puritan Samuel Willard wrote a book titled "The Covenant of Redemption." The foundation of the book is Psalm 89. He completely typologizes the psalm. He builds his entire argument on the typology. He never interacts with the text. I'd like to say this is unusual when it comes to Covenant theology, but I have a library full of books like that.
I don't know why they just won't own their position.
Keep going Jeremy with the sticking your neck out. I often feel the same as you but then remember that I was an Arminian charismatic for most of my life up until about 5 years ago and people like you do make a difference
I think there’s a third view of the puppy/horse analogy; that is that you changed your mind after the promise.
Deut 18:15-19
I especially love verses 20-22, which provides a hard rule for interpreting the Tanakh. A rule the New Testament cannot violate.
Great podcast Jeremy! I think Gabe has had a lot of great stuff, but his response to you is very disappointing. I still can't understand how they can't see the logical errors in their thinking. But, in any case, carry on brother!