Practically the second I heard Daryl Hart imply that this is something bad, I knew it had to be something, so I searched for it and found it. Great stuff.
Not sure if this is borne out the the context, but the review says
“Likewise Gordon seems to qualify his own construction of the radical differences between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant when he argues that “Paul did not address here the later distinction between “covenant of works” and “covenant of grace” of Reformed dogmatics,” in terms of which “the Abrahamic and Sinai covenants would both be parts of the ‘covenant of grace,’ though ‘administered differently’ (Westminster Confession of Faith 7:5) ‘under various administrations’”
The reviewer seems to be saying, “well at least Gordon is nodding assent to the WCF’s distinction that keeps the Mosaic covenant a gracious one.” The reviewers go on to question whether they “really mean it”.
I think Gordon’s point here might be read as a clear denial.
What does it mean if you exegete Paul, and say that Paul isn’t addressing something in the confession. Isn’t it a defacto claim that the confession is unpauline?
(granted, I’m not trying for the most charitable reading of T David “Drunk Uncle” Gordon. Mea culpa)
Practically the second I heard Daryl Hart imply that this is something bad, I knew it had to be something, so I searched for it and found it. Great stuff.
Not sure if this is borne out the the context, but the review says
“Likewise Gordon seems to qualify his own construction of the radical differences between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant when he argues that “Paul did not address here the later distinction between “covenant of works” and “covenant of grace” of Reformed dogmatics,” in terms of which “the Abrahamic and Sinai covenants would both be parts of the ‘covenant of grace,’ though ‘administered differently’ (Westminster Confession of Faith 7:5) ‘under various administrations’”
The reviewer seems to be saying, “well at least Gordon is nodding assent to the WCF’s distinction that keeps the Mosaic covenant a gracious one.” The reviewers go on to question whether they “really mean it”.
I think Gordon’s point here might be read as a clear denial.
What does it mean if you exegete Paul, and say that Paul isn’t addressing something in the confession. Isn’t it a defacto claim that the confession is unpauline?
(granted, I’m not trying for the most charitable reading of T David “Drunk Uncle” Gordon. Mea culpa)