Another day, another discussion with a Covenantalist. This time, I decided it would be worth recording down the conversation in Word, to show how the discussions tend to go with the Covenantalist.
On Facebook, the discussion started in a thread on Especially the Memes page:
As per usual, the Covenantalists jump on this page hoping to make some sort of snappy comment at the OP, and that is what I saw from Bret (again). Bret says, “Imagine rejecting the sacrifice of the Mass but embracing the return of sacrifices in FRONT of the glorified King Jesus.” Off to a good start, since the OP was discussing Jeremiah (contextually) which was not addressed by Bret.
This isn’t the first time that Bret has come to troll the page with his remarks, only to end each conversation prematurely.
This link will show you the conversation in motion, and please observe the unwillingness of Bret to engage in an actual discussion surrounding Leviticus 1:4. I was unable to have the discussion I wanted with Bret where we do biblical exegesis of the text in question. Covenantalists have a hard time engaging with the OT, and this engagement is no different.
Bret knows that I reject his NT priority presupposition and that I believe each text should be handled contextually, not read through a Christocentric lens. In this discussion you will see the trouble that both of these presuppositions get Bret into as we engage. This post is not meant to beat on Bret, but to show the inconsistency of his beliefs and system and to demonstrate how inadequate his method is heremeneutically when dealing with authorial intent.
