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.
Friday, 7 December 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment