Kingdom through Covenant (5 - and last!)

I have now come to the end of this tome and must express my appreciation of it. I have perhaps sounded a bit dour and curmudgeonly but that is because I have been rather taking for granted the extensive areas where I agree with the authors and looking for what I disagree with. That is not insignificant, but should not blind me to the very good things in this work.

Stephen Wellum wraps up with two chapters taking a systematic view of the material covered by Peter Gentry in biblical-theological form. He has a helpful summary of the idea of 'kingdom' in the Bible, and then proceeds to show how 'kingdom through covenant' is a good way to understand the plot-line of Scripture. This involves some overlap and repetition with previous chapters but it is helpful to remind one of major points in their argument.

Wellum goes through the covenants helpfully. Most interesting is the discussion of the covenant with creation with Adam serving as covenant mediator. Wellum strangely says that 'arguments for rejection of [a covenant of works] were covered in detail in chapter [6] '. In fact they are not - not so far as I can see anyway, unless Wellum and I differ considerably on what such arguments consist of.

However, he then goes on to argue in terms very similar to a covenant theologian for a representative role for Adam as covenant head and the need for perfect obedience, an obedience that is ultimately offered by Christ. He concedes that those who argue for a covenant of of works 'are on the right track' and proceeds to outline a case essentially the same. I was gratified to see that!

The significance of the covenants with Noah, Abraham, Israel and David are expounded, the big focus being on the preparation for a new Adam, to restore the divine image, of son, servant and king. He argues for the newness of the new covenant being primarily that ALL the covenant members now know God and experience forgiveness of sins and know the indwelling of the Spirit. The old covenant had many unregenerate members, and even those who were regenerate did not experience the indwelling of the Spirit in the way that new covenant members do. Hence - believers' baptism, not circumcision, or infant baptism, and a gathered church, not a 'mixed' community which is what Presbyterianism leads to [Presbyterians may object to that but paedobaptism certainly proceeds on the basis that the new covenant may be broken, which is difficult to see from anywhere in Scripture].

The final chapter looks at implications of the argument in theology 'proper' (doctrine of God); Christology (mainly a very fine argument for particular redemption); ecclesiology (an apologia for believer's baptism) and eschatology (arguing that 'land' is typological for the new creation). These last two sections round off a major element of the book's thesis, that it is a 'via media' between covenant theology and dispensationialism, and that the genealogical argument of covenant theology and the 'land' argument of dispensationalism are reflections of the same mistake of each respective position - a failure properly to apply typological principles and to see the OT covenants in context.

So all in all a good book to read. The weakest part of it is the failure to address the arguments for the Reformed position on the law. For a book proclaiming early on its new covenant credentials this was a surprise. The sabbath is only mentioned once or twice, the threefold division of the law is denied without any substantial argument and the passing of the law as a whole with the old covenant is again asserted without being argued.

I do not think that, if this is the best that new covenant systematic and biblical theology can do, Reformed Baptists need move from the 1689 position on the law. The basic arguments of this book are quite compatible with that position and a much richer position on the moral law, the Ten Commandments and the Sabbath can be maintained within it. There is no need to move towards dispensationalism or find a 'via media'. I would commend Greg Beale's 'New Testament Biblical Theology' (Baker, 2011) for a much stronger position on the moral law and the sabbath within an 'already- not yet' framework'.

Kingdom through Covenant (4)

Well, I have got to the beginning of the last two major sections, the systematic sections after the biblical theological procession through the biblical covenants. I am looking forward to them.

The sections on the new covenant were helpful but not earth-shattering. Over against covenant theology, Gentry insists that the new covenant is made only with believers and that the key new element about it is that it cannot be broken (contra what many Presbyterians believe about the new covenant). I agree with what is 'Baptist' about his analysis, I disagree with what is 'new covenant'; for he insists that, as the new covenant is a 'new' covenant and not confirming an old covenant, therefore the law code of the old covenant is gone. However the righteousness of God remains the same and will be reflected in the law of the new covenant. There is however no discussion of what law is written on the heart of the believer; nor why, if the laws against adultery, murder and stealing are still valid (as Gentry says they are), the Sabbath is no longer to be kept. Not a mention of that. So the new law code is obviously very selective. All rather unsatisfactory. Maybe they will pick it up later...

There is a useful chapter on the 'Seventy Weeks' of Daniel 9:24f, and a rather mediocre chapter on life in the New Covenant community, based on Ephesians 4:20-6:20.

There is a helpful analysis, however, of the identification of the new Zion/Jerusalem with the church and the new creation in Isaiah, leaving no place for fulfilments of promises to national Israel.

So far I am more impressed with the arguments against Dispensationalism than with anything rallied against the Reformed 'Westminster' position on the law. But then, Dispensationalism is a much easier target.

Kingdom through Covenant (3)

I have now completed what Gentry (and Wellum) have to say about the Mosaic and Davidic covenants and am beginning the section on the new covenant.

A lot of it is very helpful. It is clearly written . Large chunks of it are rather detailed exegesis which I confess I read lightly as I am interested in finding out the main thrust of the argument. However one can't skip too much or the argument can be missed.

Also, why do scholars feel the need in such books to enter into lengthy debates with other scholars and copy out long citations from them which they then proceed to demolish? I suppose other academics may be interested, but it is not exactly what the busy pastor needs. As with many such books, one skips the detail - I cannot remember it anyway, but at least I know it is there if I need to go back to it.

On the Mosaic covenant, the predictable point is made that the Ten Commandments are part of one indivisible law that is all part of the old covenant, and any attempt to distinguish between civil, moral and ceremonial law is an 'imposition' from outside the text. I don't think any Reformed commentator would disagree that the law is given as a package, but (i) nothing is said of the many good arguments for seeing distinctions, as for example suggested by Philip Ross in 'From the Finger of God'; (ii) nothing is said about the very obviously different way in which the Ten Commandments (or 'Words) are given over against the rest of the law. Surely this is within the domain of biblical theology - one does not have to delve into the mysterious waters of systematics to discuss that.

I look forward to more on the new/everlasting covenant - at present I am looking at what they say about Isaiah 54,55 and Ezekiel before the chapter dealing with Jeremiah.

Kingdom through Covenant (2)

I have read as far as the first of two chapters on the Mosaic covenant now and am thoroughly enjoying the book. Peter Gentry is the biblical theologian and I like the way he points out the twin motifs of sonship and servant-kingship in the image of God in Adam and the later covenants - so that Noah, Abraham and Israel are 'new Adams'.

One thing I found puzzling was the complete absence of any mention of any of the traditional Reformed arguments for a 'covenant of works' in Genesis 1-3. He has a good chapter on the 'covenant with creation' but does not mention at all any covenant specifically with Adam, certainly not in his representative capacity, or any probation in Eden. Perhaps this will come later in the 'systematic' sections later on, or in dealing with the new covenant. But there is enough biblical material to have made it worth at least a mention.

Also, though he deals well with the concepts of priesthood and kingship in Eden, and Eden being a temple, he attaches the idea of sonship to the Hebrew word for likeness (demuth) in Gen 1:26, and the idea of servant-kingship to the Hebrew word for image (tselem). I need to read it again to make sure of his arguments but it seems little dangerous to separate two essential concepts in that way.

Further, he makes no mention of the way in which the Fall not only damages the whole image, but does actually obliterate some essential part of it - original righteousness/ holiness. But maybe this will come up later...

One puzzle in the Mosaic section - he seems to support the Roman Catholic exegesis which brackets the first and second commandments together, partly on the basis that there is one 'motivation' - in Exod 20:5 -which applies to them both. Suffice it to say, I am not convinced. He does not deal with the last six commandments so I am not sure what he would say about separating coveting your neighbour's wife from coveting his property! Maybe later, again...

Art, Yellowists and Rothko

Yesterday Wlodzimierz Umaniec was jailed for two years for defacing a painting by the late Russian-American artist Mark Rothko (1903-70). The painting, 'Black on Maroon', was in the Tate Gallery in London and was valued at between $8m - $15m. Umaniec had written on it 'a potential piece of yellowism'.

In Yellowism, according to its manifesto, written by Umaniec and his colleague Marcin Lodyga, 'all interpretations possible in the context of art are reduced to one, are equalized, flattened, to yellow'. Part of this is the belief that art is taking what others have done and developing it.

This and the rest of the rambling manifesto, is either pretentious pseudo-philosophy and not worth bothering with, or it is taking modern art to its logical conclusion (or of course it could be both). And most movements do not like being taken to a logical conclusion. The troublesome eccentric who takes hold of a fashionable principle and pushes it just a little bit further than is socially acceptable, is regarded as a nuisance, a troublemaker, and in this case, a criminal. His real crime apart from concepts of criminal damage, is to expose the pretentiousness of the artistic status quo for what it is. A little boy has cried out 'but the emperor is not wearing any clothes'.

Is the Yellowist idea of art, after all, nonsense as it may be, anything other than the logical extension of the principle at the heart of much modern art - that art is ultimately a way of looking at anything? It is not so much what a thing is objectively, as what the subject thinks of it.

Speaking of which, I thought Rothko with a bit of Yellowist scribble was a lot more interesting than Rothko as Rothko. But then, that is just a way of looking at it.

Kingdom through Covenant (1)

I started reading this major tome on the covenants by Peter Gentry and Steven Wellum today.

It is from an avowedly 'new covenant' perspective and promises to be a good read - particularly as I do not agree with that viewpoint (which they also call 'progressive covenantalism').

It is full of good things so far but one thing does not sit right with me. The authors describe their thesis as a 'via media' between dispensationalism and covenantal theology. Now, trying to set aside all prejudices about any 'via media' because of its Oxford Movement connotations, and also a gut level dislike of anything that purports to sit in the middle of anything theologically, is there not some thing odd about setting out a theological position as a 'via media'?

If their argument is right, standing on its own legs, fair enough. But in that case it does not particularly matter where it lies in relation to other positions. The Reformed Baptist position had its own identity for generations before the advent of dispensationalism and does not need to define itself with reference to it though it may well be useful to clarify the differences. The 1689 tradition is a development, and Baptists would say a more logical development, of the Reformed tradition and within that tradition.

One assumes therefore that it is a reflection of the north American background that these authors feel it necessary to define their position in relation to dispensationalism as well as to covenant theology. Of course, their position is not the classic Reformed Baptist position; to label it as half way to dispensationalism is perhaps a bit of a giveaway.

I look forward to reading on.

John Owen shortened

I have recently been preaching a series on sanctification on Sunday evenings - six so far and possibly two more after Christmas.

The process of preparation has drawn me into reading some of the currently available books on mortification of sin. Highly commended are Kris Lundgaard's 'The Enemy Within' and Brian Hedges' 'Licensed to Kill'. Both deal with the subject from a basis of sound theology with contemporary illustrations and effective application. Both could be safely recommended to young Christians or young people.

Both, of course, also explicitly confess their debt to John Owen's classic on the subject (in volume six of his Works). I have just finished reading the abridged version of 'Indwelling Sin in Believers' by Owen, and have, waiting to be read, similar editions of 'Mortification of Sin' and 'Temptation Resisted and Repulsed' (all Banner of Truth).

I highly recommend the abridgement I have read and anticipate enjoying the other two. They give a good grasp of Owen's basic arguments and are far and away more penetrating and profound than books that have emerged from within contemporary evangelicalism. They are serious reading but not too difficult for people today, though inevitably not quite in the modern idiom (so Lundgaard and Hedges are more helpful in that regard). They also help pressed preachers with limited preparation time.

However - they are not quite Owen himself. Having read the original volumes by Owen some years ago, there is a spirituality and depth that cannot be replicated or conveyed in an abridgement. Owen himself is a feast to be enjoyed, preferably with a little leisure (though he evidently did not write at leisure) and maybe in small doses. Today we are content to take our books in snack form, enough to keep body and soul together but hardly nourishing long term.

Abridgements and brief books based on the Puritans are immensely helpful in our frenetic, hurried and autistic age but they are no substitute for the real thing.

Westminster Conference 2012 Day 2

We began the day with a survey of the life of Blaise Pascal (1623-62) from David Gregson. Pascal was a mathematical genius who was deeply affected by the Jansenists in the 1640s but whose deeper and perhaps true conversion came in the famous 'night of fire' in 1654. It was thrilling to hear how the record of this remarkable experience was found sewn up in a coat of Pascal's some years after he died.

After his conversion he lived for only eight years but wrote the famous 'Pensees', a series of meditations intended to be the basis of an apologetics work which Pascal never wrote. He remained within the Roman church and never challenged teachings about the supremacy of the Pope, transubstantiation etc.

Inevitably questions arose about how much 'content' one needs to believe to be a Christian (described by one as 'an illegitimate question'; why? maybe we can't answer it, but I am not sure it is illegitimate). We also discussed how hard it is to break out of our pre-Christian thought patterns.

And the thought occurred to me: if Pascal's experience had been recounted by a charismatic of the 1980s, would we be so sure it was a genuine conversion?

The Jansenists, incidentally, were a group who were gripped by the concept of God's grace - Augustinians who remained within the Roman Church but who were suppressed in the later 17th Century. Dr Lloyd-Jones apparently called them 'Calvinistic Methodists before their time'. How closely related are they I wonder to the Jensenists of the Sydney diocese in Australia who are also Augustinians working within the establishment?

Roger Welch gave us an excellent overview of Christian responses to Islam after lunch though it was too heavy going for some who enjoyed a light post-prandial slumber; but the quality of the paper and the knowledge imparted were top class. The discussion tended towards the anecdotal - 'this is my experience of muslim evangelism and how may I do better?' which was not bad, but it revealed how little we as a group knew about Muslim evangelism or had experience of it.

Finally we had a good paper from Peter Law about Henry Martyn, always inspirational.

The next conference is 3rd-4th December 2013 and includes papers on C.S.Lewis; 'Have we got the right gospels?'; Henry Havelock (the Christian general who crushed the Indian mutiny in the mid 19th century); Evangelistic preaching - lessons from great preachers; Isaac Ambrose (a puritan from the north of England); and issues arising from the ministry of Edward Irving. A good mixture and something for everyone. Be there!

Westminster Conference 2012 Day 1

The day began with a novel event - a lecture by an Anglican - the Director of the Church Society, Lee Gatiss. He is thoroughly Reformed in theology; probably you could not put a hair between him and most people at the conference (numbering 140) on most divisions of doctrine, other than ecclesiology and perhaps baptism.

His subject was '1662 and all that'.

The address was interesting without being gripping. He quoted one authority to the effect that there were probably only 900 rather than 2000 ejectees when properly counted, and in discussion someone referred to 800; I was fully prepared for it to be down to single figures by lunchtime but thankfully the discussion was called to an end. Not that the principles involved hang on the number who suffered.

The major issues were skirted: what is the biblical nature of the church and whose Word rules the church?

The second address was by an old stalwart of the conference, Andrew Davies, and he gave us outlines of two ejectees in Wales, and a quick glimpse at a third (numbers going up this afternoon - the programme had promised us only two - after this morning's reductionism I am amazed that three could be found). Philip Henry was the best known, the others were Samuel Jones and Thomas Goudge (?)

This paper was followed by a useful discussion of matters of conscience and authority, and the important point that it was the issue of imposition of matters that were not 'vital' but 'significant', rather than the issues themselves, that caused the ejectees (all twelve of them by now, I shouldn't wonder) to stand firm. It was useful to mop up the affairs of the morning.

The third paper was by another Anglican, Andrew Atherstone of Oxford. 'Hagiography or History?' was his title - how should Christians write biography? It was a shame that he did not really define his terms - what exactly do we mean by hagiography, and how does it differ from what he later called 'confessional' writing, as opposed to 'professional' or academic writing? It is unfortunate that there was a contrast posited between the two - after all, cannot one write confessionally and professionally?

It is unfortunate too that he made it all rather personal in using Iain Murray to bounce off (in a very respectful way, I should say) but doubly unfortunately, Iain Murray was not there to answer for himself, having had to leave early, we were told. It was a pity too that someone called the book on Lloyd-Jones ('Engaging with Martyn Lloyd- Jones') which had really sparked of this whole debate, an 'exercise in self-promotion'. After the many exhortations from the chair to be polite, it was uncalled for to treat the speaker in this way, though a little ground was made up by the offender and also by someone else who praised the book.

A mixed day at the office, then, and we look forward to tomorrow.