Monday, December 26, 2011

A Couple of Quick Notes

Two quick notes. First, I thought this brief discussion on preaching by Pastors Cory and Chris I think is a helpful reminder on the importance of God's Revelation and how it is to be handled.

Also, for Christmas I received a book, Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God's Covenants, by Greg Nichols. As time allows, I am certain I will interact with the book and offer some comments. This book has sold like hot cakes. I think it is for the simple reason as stated by one endorsement.

I am not aware of anything in print that treats this topic as clearly and comprehensively, and from a distinctly Baptistic perspective. -- Pastor Jim Domm
Personally, the only book that I have that treats this topic is from the same perspective is by Nehemiah Coxe, a particular Baptist of the 17th century. This book I think fills a giant void in the modern life of Baptists, who desire to be consistent in their theology.

Friday, December 16, 2011

Hitchens and the Meaning of Christmas

Today is truly a sad day for National Public Radio, NPR, for one of their favorite God-hating atheists has died. On the other hand, it is truly a sad day for those who have prayed for this God-hating atheist, for this atheist has come before the Judge of all the Earth.

Of course, I am speaking of Christopher Hitchens. And as usual, these things seem to happen quite a bit near Christmas time. Nearly 20 years ago my own grandfather died on the same day. And quite similarly, he died (to my knowledge) apart from the Savior and the people that Savior has gathered to Himself.

Since so many are talking about Hitchens' death this morning you might ask, "Why bring this up?" I'm just one more voice in the world saying the same thing that other Christians are saying. That's true. I am just one more voice. But just as Christopher Hitchens was one voice among many for atheism, I am one voice among many that Christ has called to go into the world to proclaim "Good News".

So what is that Good News? Well, as we celebrate this holiday season, as one of many Christians in the world, I simply wish to remind the reader in this post why Christians celebrate Christmas. It is as Linus says in the Charlie Brown Christmas special:

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
So this Christmas, let us remember that like Christopher Hitchens or your own grandfather, you are going to have the same end. And like them, we need a Savior above all else. Christ, the Son of God, has come into the world. Will you come to him this Christmas?

Friday, December 09, 2011

Conception to birth visualized - Alexander Tsiaras

This video on the development of babies is simply amazing.

Friday, November 25, 2011

Merry Christmas Trees & the Second Commandment

Sooner or later, I know the "Should we have a Christmas Tree?" conversation will inevitably come up. So I am going to get it out of the way now. My conclusion will be stated right up front. Christians may in fact be wrong for having Christmas trees. There I said it. But hold on....

Now in reality, I don't really care, but I am one that strives for consistency. So when my Jehovah's Witness friend comes over, I know in his mind, as he stares at the evil tree in my living room, he is thinking that the Watch Tower is right. I'm just a pagan. But I am not going to go out of the way and eliminate a cultural decoration simply because some JW thinks I am a pagan.

However, one could argue that, just as we go out of our way for our conscious stricken brothers over alcohol, we should go out of our way to not unnecessarily offend a JW. True enough. But if I did that, there would literally be no end. I would probably have to live at the bottom of the ocean in order to become acceptable to everyone.

Another argument that has come to my mind is the fact that I have argued against using improper means to get people to "experience Christ". Are we using the tree to get people to hear the Gospel and feel closer to the Lord? Again, I think this is where the Christian must be careful. In my opinion, Christmas Trees and other artful things are just that, cultural icons. If we use them as spring boards into Gospel conversations, then I'm not seeing the connection. However, if I have to gather my family and friends around a tree in order to feel more worshipful, then I am indeed being inconsistent.

The New Testament is clear about worship. We have the physical experiences we need in Baptism and the Lord's Table as instituted by Jesus Himself. Yet I am not convinced that Christmas Trees are necessarily something that cause us to violate the Second Commandment. If so, then many of the Old Testament icons such as the Ark of the Covenant would be problematic. Of course, those were provided by God. Christmas Trees were not.

So basically, my initially stated conclusion may be correct. It just depends on what we mean to do with Christmas Trees. As for now, I'll still set one up. My kids enjoy the season. They get gifts. Isn't that why we do this in the first place? To teach the importance of giving and the anticipation of receiving something wonderful? Hmmmm, but are we back to that experience argument again? I don't think so. My kids experience all kinds of things from me. If some of that helps them to find Christ, the supposed inconsistency becomes invalid.

So Merry Christmas, and if your conscience allows, let your kids open those gifts placed around that tree. Just don't look to it with prayer and worship. It's just a tree.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Accepting Boys Kissing...Each Other

The Drudge Report linked to this article by CBS Connecticut. Apparently, we have yet another controversy of a bunch of homophobes walking out of a school play in which two boys kissed, but please notice, for the article, the author cleverly calls the boys men. The principle is cited in this paragraph:
“There are always circumstances (in organizing these programs) under which the values of the student or their family come into play,” said Adam Johnson, principal of the Government and Law Academy at the high school, told CBS Connecticut.

So there are different values with different people. Fair enough. It sounds as if he is being open-minded. But this paragraph says what is really happening.
“In the weeks prior … we were told by those organizing the play that there was going to be a boy-boy kiss,” said Johnson, noting the importance of accepting homosexual intimacy as society accepts heterosexual intimacy. “When one teacher asked if I wanted to remove it, I said absolutely not.” [emphasis mine]

The principle isn't trying to get people to just get along or even to get different individuals and families to tolerate those who are different from them. He is attempting to use governmental power to make children "accept" homosexuality, not just tolerate it.

So once again, we have an ethical system that simply has no foundation whatsoever being forced down our collective throats. As has been seen on this blog, they won't even try because they can't. Perhaps we need to rethink the role of government in this whole debacle called the culture war. Perhaps we, who are morally conservative, ought to rethink the entire culture war altogether.

Saturday, October 15, 2011

Reformation Weekend Is Coming Soon

Reformation Weekend

October 28-30, 2011

First Baptist Church

420 S. Scott

St. Francis, KS

The Providence of God in the Life of a Believer - Job

Meeting times:

Friday 7:00 pm (session 1) Defining God's Providence!

Saturday 10:30 am (session 2) Three Kinds of God's Providence!

  12:00 pm (dinner is provided)

                                  1:30 pm (session 3) Questioning God's Providence!

                                  3:00 pm (break)

                                  7:00 pm (session 4) Human Reasoning and God's Providence!

Sunday 10:30 am (session 5) The Vindication of God's Providence!

                             12:00 pm (dinner is provided)

For more information or lodging recommendations call: 785-332-3921 or 785-332-2959, or email: Our website is: Limited lodging is available in homes on a first come basis.

Dr. Belcher has over fifty years in public ministry of the Word of God. He has served on the faculty of Columbia International University now for twenty-nine years, and he retired after the Spring 2005 school year. He also speaks at Bible conferences and in churches all over the United States, and internationally in various countries, especially India, as he heads the ministry named Evangelizing India for Christ. Dr. Belcher is an author of numerous books, and he has his own printing company called Richbarry Press. Dr. Belcher also serves as pastor of Covenant Baptist Church in West Columbia, SC.

Monday, October 10, 2011

Does One Need To Be a Christian To Be President?

According to this article in the Baptist Press, Mormons don't qualify to be President when there are Christians in the race. However, the article states not one qualification but two [I realize there are three].

He added, "I believe that in Rick Perry we have a candidate who is a proven leader, a true conservative and a committed follower of Christ."
So to be elected to the High Office of the USA, one must be a true conservative and Christian. So I have to ask, which one of these qualifications is more important, "Being a true conservative" or a "committed follower of Jesus"? Somehow I doubt believing in Jesus has anything to do with this test. Otherwise, perhaps Obama is more qualified than Romney? Remember, President Obama claims to be a born-again Christian.

Right now, I'd vote for a true blue Jeffersonian Libertarian, even if he was an atheist before I'd waste another vote on a Republican like Romney or Perry. The pastor goes on to say,

"... Part of a pastor's job is to warn his people and others about false religions. Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Mormonism are all false religions. And I stand by those statements," he said to applause
Now I agree a person's religious views may greatly impact how one governs. If one is an atheist, that person may have great difficulty in standing for the Prolife position, but perhaps not and should be judged on an individual basis. So an atheist or a Hindu may be far more Prolife than say a professed Christian such as President Obama.

But this all seems to me to lead back to the culture wars. And after fighting in a never-ending war for nearly 24 years, it seems to me that attempting to solve our cultural issues through the power of government is wrong-headed. I think Conservatives need to start re-thinking what Liberty is and the proper role of govenrment.

In other words, what do we want government to do? Do we really want to go back to the days of Prohibition on every issue? For instance, do we really want government to be involved in the homosexual debate? Would not a restoration of Private Property Rights go a long way in solving some of these things?

As my brother asked a conservative friend, if we make homosexuality illegal by the power of government, how far should government go? Do we enter gay homes with guns firing? You may say that is extreme and would never happen, but it happens now. Read this story about how our government fights the drug war. If the government can storm into house and kill you now for smoking pot, why not come into your house and kill you for anything else we give it power to do?

I have to ask a simple question, "Who is the candidate that Thomas Jefferson would vote for?"

Monday, October 03, 2011

Obama's Wedge Issue Is Sex

The Washington Times is reporting tonight that President Obama is calling out the Republican Candidates for being silent on homosexual military personnel.

“We don’t believe in a small America,” Mr. Obama said. “We believe in a big America — a tolerant America, a just America, an equal America — that values the service of every patriot. We believe in an America where we’re all in it together, and we see the good in one another, and we live up to a creed that is as old as our founding: E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. And that includes everybody.”
So the most divisive President in my life time is now accusing Republicans for being divisive.

Now I realize that President Obama must take every opportunity to make Republicans look bad while he can. To be honest, in the political environment, I didn't realize homosexual issues were at the top of America's agenda or concern. I suppose he needs to fire up his base after being a war-monger for the past few months? But since he mentioned "tolerance", I have to wonder what he means.

Now when he says, "we are all in it together", to what is he referring?  Is he talking about the military and who should be allowed in the military? Perhaps he is talking about tolerating kids who eat potato chips or go to Wendy's for a burger and fries? Perhaps he is talking about tolerating those who want him out of office or those who disagree with his policies?

Perhaps he is not talking about tolerating at all. Perhaps he is talking about forced acceptance by the force of law of those who have different "values". So how does he accept my "values" when I believe God has clearly stated that sexual immorality is evil in all of its forms? Or does this acceptance only go one way?

We believe in a big America — a tolerant America, a just America, an equal America — that values the service of every patriot.

President Obama along with the Political elitists believe they have the right to set the framework of the debate over homosexuality. Notice that being tolerant = just, is also = equal. So now all things are equally valid? What is the basis of this claim? What is his form of argumentation? This is the beauty of the Left. They don't have to. Their morality is firmly planted in thin air.

I am often told that as a Prolifer, I am forcing a "wedge issue" upon other Americans and dividing Americans. Yet there are some things worth fighting for or against. Slavery was an evil worth fighting against. Alcohol during the Prohibition years [please watch PBS's current program on Prohibition] was not worth dying for. Yet I see the President of the United States creating a wedge issue by arguing for sexual immorality as being normal and something that should be accepted and is forcing by the Rule of Law an aberrant behavior as being normal.

I mean seriously. Different cultures have different foods and clothing and which days of the week to work and speak differently and use different idioms and so on and so forth. But would President Obama really call slavery in cultures that still practice it good cultures? Somehow I doubt it. So I guess Obama wants to divide us over whether or not those who are morally conservative will accept having sex with the same sex to be normal and just and equal.

I'll just quote Isaiah 5:

20  Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Thursday, September 29, 2011

PETA and Porn?

OK, if I didn't see it I wouldn't believe it, but I accidentally came across this story on Yahoo News.

PETA to launch its own porn site: Does exploiting women promote animal rights?

So somehow, when someone starts watching the you-know-what, and gets all wound up, then bam! Show them how chickens are killed, will save the chickens? I can hear the jokes flying now. Perhaps that's the idea?

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Traveling Faster Than Speed of Light?

I realize I have been gone a long time from this blog, but it has been a very busy and fun summer. I have attended several of my kids' swim meets, gone camping several times in Colorado, done lots of dirt bike riding and even played some hockey the other day in CO Springs.

So today I am sifting through some news items and this story just jumps out at me. If you remember some time back, I was told evolution is simply a fact because we now "know" the genetic code. What I love about science is how it is constantly changing while claiming to be the ultimate source of knowledge. As the article says,
Scientists agree if the results are confirmed, that it would force a fundamental rethink of the laws of physics.

Isn't that amazing? Well, what happened that has rocked the science world?

The science world was left in shock when workers at the world’s largest physics lab announced they had recorded subatomic particles travelling faster than the speed of light.
So if Albert Einstein could be wrong, is it possible that others could be wrong? Is it possible that science isn't the ultimate authority?

It will be interesting to see the ramifications of this. Of course, the problem for scientists will remain, for the problem at the core isn't the evidence, but the naturalistic/materialistic presuppositions that undergird the thinking of many. But when one actually thinks science is their ultimate authority, then one is blind to one's own false premises.

Thursday, July 07, 2011

Judging Religion

This past weekend I had the privilege of taking my family to South Dakota and visiting my good friend, Pastor Cory Kitch and his family. While we were there Pastor Cory had the opportunity of ministering to a transient, Matthew, who was trying to get to Washington State.

During our time with Matthew we discussed a wide variety of topics. Being that Cory is a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, you can probably guess what one of the topics was. At one point I asked Matthew for his views and major objections against the Christian faith.

He first talked about his own personal experience that “verified” to him that he has been reincarnated from a past life. Then he explained to us that all religions are based upon the improving of our lives (I suppose like traveling around the country to different parties and not doing a day's work to support yourself?).

In an unrelated conversation I had recently on Face Book with a good friend, I was told I was being judgmental by arguing that Reverend Wright (President Obama's former pastor) is not a Christian. Now we argue and judge things to be right and wrong all the time. He'll play the Devil's advocate on abortion while I defend the Prolife position. He'll defend President Obama and health care while I argue against the President's position. He judges Glenn Beck as being a con artist when it comes to buying Gold from certain companies (Right or wrong that is his view). So why am I now being judgmental?

The answer to this question is quite simple. In both conversations, religion is completely subjective and private. Therefore to judge anyone on their religious experience or beliefs is tantamount to climbing into one's mind and judging their experience.

Religion to the common everyday man is simply outside the realm of normal means of knowledge. We know science is true because we supposedly verify our claims of knowledge. Even other fields of knowledge such as history are to some degree verifiable.

Yet the natural man can not be consistent in his worldview. It is interesting to me how I am told I should not be judgmental. Yet in order to explain to me that I am being judgmental, I am being judged by a religious worldview. The contradiction is so obvious and blatant, it never ceases to amaze me that the non-Christian doesn't see it, or perhaps he does and just suppresses that truth as he does all of truth that comes from his Creator.

Now another source for this problem is that though many Christians claim that the moral relativism of our non-Christian friends is bad for our culture, do we not in practice perpetuate the "private religion" in the way we preach the Gospel? How many churches proclaim the Gospel in the context of Jesus can save your marriage or Jesus can get you off of drugs or Jesus can help your kids with their homework, so on and so on. Then we in turn claim that Jesus is the only way. Only way to what? Having a better marriage? Statistically, Christians have just as high if not a higher rate of divorce. So I guess the only way to be worse than our non-Christian neighbors is use the Jesus formula?

As I attempted to explain to Matthew last weekend is that the reason all of man's religions are similar to one degree or another is that God's Law is written upon all our hearts. Due to our sinfulness, we twist all of God's truth. Hence the multiplicity of "revelations" (reincarnation or whatever) that come from the twisted hearts and minds of men.

We instead need the Revelation of God in history, not a private revelation from men. The Israelites have given to us the Gospel. Starting with Moses and God delivering the Israelites from Egypt and culminating in Jesus of Nazareth delivering sinners by dying and being raised from the dead. We now have the testimony of the Apostles of Jesus Christ. They point us to not our futile minds and thinking, but instead point us to the historical events and a Divine Person.

Therefore, let us learn from the Son of God and His Apostles what our true need is and the true teachings we ought to follow. And we must do this by using our minds and judging what is good, right and acceptable according to God's own revelation. As Peter states in one of his letters to the Church:

2Pe 1:16  For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2Pe 1:17  For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,"
2Pe 1:18  we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.
2Pe 1:19  And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts,
2Pe 1:20  knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.
2Pe 1:21  For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 

Monday, June 13, 2011

Dispensationalism: A Critical Look At The New Covenant part 8: Pastoral Concerns

Pastoral Concerns

First, men need to understand the nature of original sin. We all need to understand the hopelessness of achieving righteousness or perfection in ourselves. The Bible plainly condemns and shuts the mouths of all men in their attempts to fulfill the Covenant of Works. It doesn’t matter what system men find themselves, whether it be Buddhism or Islam or Judaism or Mormonism or Roman Catholicism, all systems of works, no matter how much grace may accompany one’s attempts will fail in utter defeat.

We must understand that it is Christ who has fulfilled the Covenant of works in our place as our Substitute and as our Representative. It was Christ and Christ alone who accomplished the salvation of all men from Adam to the present. And it is through faith alone in Him that brings a man into right relations with God. Therefore, we must call all men, both Jew and Gentile, to repentance and faith in Christ.

The New Covenant is the ultimate fulfillment of the purposes of God in saving a people for Himself in Christ. This covenant is not for one group of people over against another. But as the Apostle Paul rightly declares, Christ has made one new man by uniting both Jews and Gentiles in one Covenant. Gentiles do not merely share in New Covenant blessings. Instead the New Covenant everywhere teaches that Gentiles along with their Jewish brothers are full members with all of the New Covenant blessings. The entire Old Testament was a shadow or a type of what was to come in Christ.

The question that arises is the nature of the Law written upon the hearts. The New Covenant as described in Hebrews 8 never distinguishes between Jew and Gentile. The Law is written upon the hearts of all believers. There is no such thing as a “Carnal Christian” or a Gentile who only has forgiveness of sins but does not repent of his sins. The early church is made of believers and is considered the fulfillment of the promises of the Old Testament. This is where starting with the New Testament’s description of the New Covenant is vital. We must not allow inferences from the Old Testament override the plain teaching of the New Testament. Jesus and the Apostles must be allowed by the power of the Holy Spirit to be the final interpreters of the Old Testament and its promises. If they say it is fulfilled, then we ought not to challenge it but understand how it is fulfilled in a proper way.

The people of God in the church are not an afterthought or some secret not revealed to us in the Old Testament. The Church of Jesus Christ was always in the mind of God as typified throughout the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New. Although in this present age Christians struggle with their sin, she is always able to look to and find solace in her perfect Redeemer, who has bought her with His own blood. She presently possesses the forgiveness of sins and the righteousness of the Savior. She has been changed to be holy and to live holy in this world even with all of her abiding sin. Thanks be to God through Christ who has established His perfect Covenant that will never end and is completely unbreakable.

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Dispensationalism: A Critical Look At The New Covenant part 7

Conclusion of the Arguments

Throughout the New Testament, starting with Christ himself, we see the New Covenant instituted for a people that Christ has chosen. It is Christ that is building His church. It is Christ that is the true Seed of Abraham both physically and spiritually. It is Christ who unites both Jews and Gentiles into one body. The New Testament everywhere speaks of the New Covenant as fulfilling the Old Testament types and shadows. To go back to a National Israel hermeneutic is to go backwards in redemptive history and miss the meaning of the promises given to the church in what Christ has done for His people.

We can see that how we start in our interpretive methods is important. Do we start with the New Testament and allow the Apostles to explain to us the nature of the Old Testament prophecies or do we practice an inconsistently applied method of inferences from an overly literal approach of the Old Testament being forced upon the New?

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Dispensationalism: A Critical Look At The New Covenant part 6: Hebrews 8

Hebrews 8

The Dispensationalist hinges their argument that the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy of the New Covenant is still yet future. The church was never prophesied to be in this covenant. But are we to understand that Israel does not include Gentiles in the New Covenant fully?

If there was ever a place to explain that this text was originally for Jews would not Hebrews 8 be the place? Instead, what we find is the author explaining that the promise of a New Covenant was established with the Church. Only inferences from a false hermeneutic can we force upon the text to be a separate fulfillment with National Israel in a future Millennium. Instead, what we see is the typological fulfillment of Israel in Christ, not a future covenant in some future Millennium. Even Dispensationalists recognize this to some extent. As Dr. Ice notes,
“We have seen how the New Covenant will be fulfilled for Israel, but an often ask question is does this covenant relate in any way to the church? A New covenant is mentioned a number of times in reference to the church in the New Testament. It appears to be the basis for the forgiveness of sins and a spiritual dynamic that is not just reserved for the nation of Israel.”[1]
But due to their presuppositions they miss the obvious. As Vlach explains in  “What Is Dispensationalism?,
“…the spiritual sense of the title [seed of Abraham] does not take over the physical sense to such an extent that the physical seed of Abraham is no longer related to the biblical covenants.”[2]
Of course this misses the point. Jesus is the physical seed of Abraham in which He unites a people, both Jew and Gentile, into one particular people. This is why the writer to the Hebrews makes no distinction among member of the church as to their status in the New Covenant. All are equally in the New Covenant. As John Owen exegetes in his masterful commentary on the book of Hebrews the New Covenant does come to the Jews first,
“So Peter tells them, in his first sermon, that ‘the promise was to them and their children’ who were then present, that is, the house of Judah; and ‘to all that were afar off,’ that is, the house of Israel in their dispersions, Acts 2:39.”[3]
But then goes on to explain that Gentiles are also equally in the New Covenant.
“And this was all the privilege that was now left to them; for the partition-wall was now broken down, and all obstacles against the Gentiles taken out of the way. To that end this house of Israel and house of Judah may be considered in two ways: [1.] As that people who were the whole entire posterity of Abraham. [2.] As they were typical, and spiritually symbolic of the whole church of God.”[4]
And later on the same page,
[2.] In the second sense the whole church of elect believers is intended under these denominations, being typified by them. These are they alone, being one made of two, namely Jews and Gentiles, with whom the covenant is really made and established, and to whom the grace of it is actually communicated. For all those with whom this covenant is made will as really have the law of God written in their hearts, and their sins pardoned, according to the promise of it, as the people of old were brought into the land of Canaan by virtue of the covenant made with Abraham.”[5]
 Now the objection raised at this point by the Dispensationalist is the same as that of some paedo-baptists. The New Covenant cannot be fulfilled since the promise in verse 11 seems to require a future fulfillment. However, Owen also deals with this objection. After much sound argumentation too long for space here, Owen states,

“But in the New covenant, there being an express promise of an internal, effectual teaching by the Spirit of God, by writing His law in our hearts, without which all outward teaching is useless and ineffectual, it is here denied to be of any use;”[6]
In other words, Owen is explaining that we would have a blatant contradiction. The writer to the Hebrews is saying this covenant is established not in part, but in whole. Therefore we must understand these words properly. We must allow for the purposeful intention of the New Testament to keep a tension of the Now verses the Not Yet aspects of the phases not only of the Kingdom, but the fulfillment of the promises of the New Covenant. For both the New Covenant and the Kingdom of God as expressed among God’s people are intimately united.

Fred Malone also deals with this argument against paedo-baptists,
“If one takes the mention of Israel and Judah with strict literalism from Old Testament priority over New Testament revelation, then one is driven to believe that the New covenant is meant only for the Jewish nation in the New Testament. This is exactly the position of the older Dispensationalists. They concede to Gentiles the forgiveness of sins from the New Covenant but rarely mention, if at all, the law written on the heart for them.”[7]

[1] Ice, “Covenants and Dispensations”
[2] Vlach, “What Is Dispensationalism?”
[3] Owen, From Adam To Christ, An Exposition of Hebrews 8:6-13, page 236
[4] Ibid., page 236-7
[5] Ibid., page 237-8
[6] [6] Owen, From Adam To Christ, An Exposition of Hebrews 8:6-13, page 290
[7] Malone, Baptism of Disciples Alone, 84