Quote:
Originally posted by webmaster
Its different than Robertson's book. it actually sustains the orthodox historical terminology of the covenants, as well as properly defining covenant as a pact or agreement, unlike Robertson's book. Its prupose is to be "the" replacement for that book in terms of bringing the church back to the WCF's interpretation of the Scriptures. Robertson departs from that.
|
What does he basically define "covenant" as if not a pact or agreement? And when you say he departs from the WCF on the issue, what is one or more brief way(s) in which he does so?