Jesus Christ is the center of biblical theology, covenants are the means by which His faithfulness to God the Father and us is proven.

Seems like a strange reason to reject an entire book!

I'm so disappointed that they chose to couch this work in the false linguistic binary of Dispensationalism/Covenant theology. I think I would read this book if it weren't for that very unattractive feature.

From the book: "it is a via media between dispensational and covenant theology. It neither completely fits nor totally disagrees with either system."

From what I've read, I don't think the aim of the book is achievable, but am interested in the results and rest of the book. The difficulty of it would be that dispensationalism and covenantalism have a wealth of resources, and it would make more sense to build on one or the other [progressive dispensationalism, or a variety of covenantalism] than to construct a via media.

But thanks for calling me a troll, that's sweet.

Troll - (noun) One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

It seems Baptists are very hungry to have a coherent view of the whole Bible, since Dispensationalism is becoming untenable, and if you were consistent in your view of the covenants, you would be a paedo-baptist Presbyterian. So, if this effort (again) fails and doesn't make sense of the whole counsel of God, can we just go back to reading Vos and Ridderbos?

[...] Today, the CredoMag blog posted a link to the faculty address given by my friend and mentor, scholastic supervisor and former Sunday School teacher, Stephen Wellum.  The faculty address concerns the biblical-theological implications of Christ’s priesthood and New Covenant mediation on the extent of the atonement and Baptist ecclesiology.  This is an extrapolation of his larger biblical-theological work with Peter Gentry, Kingdom Through Covenant, that Justin Taylor linked to yesterday: Covenants in Biblical and Systematic Theology. [...]

Heading over to WTS Books right now to order it and Letham's book also, while I'm at it. I was hoping to wait until I got through part of the pile I brought home from TGCW12 but this can't wait... Putting these chapters online like this really helped. Thanks, Justin.

Link for anyone who wants to order: http://www.wtsbooks.com/product-exec/product_id/8452/nm/Kingdom+Through+Covenant%3A+A+Biblical-Theological+Understanding+of+the+Covenants+%28Hardcover%29

????????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ??

I guess I'll have to read the book for context and their 'argumentum,' but that sentence by itself is troubling, si?

I am now reading through the middle chapters by Gentry. I am wishing I would have studied harder in Hebrew class in seminary!

"...we are not asserting that the covenants are the centre of biblical theology. " Yay! They've got me hooked already. I am SO excited!

Thanks so much, Justin!

Are the publishers (y'all) working on a Kindle edition? I'd love to see it come out soon.

Thanks, Justin. I think this work is a theological game-changer.

Josh:

You make some very interesting points.

However, I'm troubled by the framing of this issue. Isn't it clearer to state that Baptists are pursuing a community of covenant obedience? "Regeneration" is rarely mentioned in Scripture, the obedience of faith is.

Paedobaptists claim that infant baptism celebrates grace "without works."

Baptists claim that the rite is a hopeful first step toward salvation.

Bruce

Um, what first step toward Salvation do Baptists recommend?

"Baptists claim that the rite is a hopeful first step toward salvation." --- I don't think you could misrepresent an entire group of people more if you tried.

Bruce,
Thanks for the comment. Language of a "purely regenerate community" can be misleading at times if not carefully nuanced, something to which blog comments are averse. To be specific, I am simply seeking to follow Jeremiah and Ezekiel's definitions of the New Covenant, as well as the NT's understanding of those "New Covenant prophesies" when it says that those who are part of the New Covenant will "all" know the Lord. Of course I do not mean to say that everyone who is in the church rosters is a genuine believer. Chances are they are not ALL believers. But the reality is not the issue as much as the goal and the aim. The crux of the issue is whether or not "non-believing" or, if you will, "non-regenerate" folk have a place in the New Covenant Community. Paedobaptists say yes, traditionally Credo-Baptists have said no. To be part of the New Covenant (NC) means that one is in union with Christ since NC membership includes forgiveness of sins, having the law written on the heart, reception of the Holy Spirit and knowing the Lord (in a salvific way). The only indicator that fallen mankind has of whether or not one is in "Union" with Christ is faith. THus, those who exercise or have faith ought to be part of the covenant community. Those who do not have genuine faith ought not to be. Note that there is a distinction between one who "attends" church and one who is part of the membership of the church. Thus, children of believers may attend but that does not mean they are part of the NC community as such. They certainly are showered with some of the benefits of the New Covenant such as the preaching of the Word, a godly home where Christ-like attitudes are modeled before them (ideally), etc. But such "benefits" are benefits that anyone may experience without exercising faith.

FWIW,
Josh

Jared,
I'm working through this book right now AND I am Baptist AND I am covenantal in the infrastructure of my construction of biblical theology. These men are trying to do exegesis and let their theology be dictated by it.

You say, "and if you were consistent in your view of the covenants, you would be a paedo-baptist Presbyterian."

Is that really fair friend? Are the "consistent" paedo-baptists also Paedo-communionists? Now you see the actual "diversity" within covenantal frameworks. A Covenantal approach does not absolutely necessitate paedo-baptism. Making paedo-baptism the sine qua non of covenantalism is not only unnecessary but exegetically unlikely as well.

I went to a Presbyterian seminary that I respect very much. But with all due respect, the typical Presbyterian understanding of the New COvenant is fettered with too much traditional PResbyterian exegesis that neither makes sense of the newness of the New Covenant nor does it allow the Vosian/Ridderbosian/Klinean/Bealite(?) in-breaking of the eschatological age to permeate the covenant community. The covenant community is regenerate not mixed. This is what Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Jesus and Paul teach us. It is time for Presbyterian brethren to take these arguments more seriously especially since such arguments are simply the fruit of a two-age, already/not yet, eschatological in-breaking scheme that Vos et. al. so forcefully and poetically taught us.

Blessings,
Josh Henson