Interview by Matthew Claridge—

The preface mentions several other recent works that have attempted a “whole Bible” theology. What makes Kingdom through Covenant distinct from these other recent contributions?

Let me suggest two ways KTC is distinct. First, it argues that central and foundational to reading the Bible on its own terms is getting right the unfolding nature of the biblical covenants and their interrelationship to each other as they culminate in the coming of Christ and the new covenant. In our view, biblical theology is not simply about unpacking biblical themes across the canon and doing it in a variety of ways. Rather, biblical theology is a hermeneutical discipline which seeks to understand God’s unfolding plan the way the Bible itself unfolds that plan. To be “biblical” in our interpretation and application of Scripture entails that we “put together” the pieces of Scripture the way the Bible does. It is our conviction that properly placing the biblical covenants in their own redemptive-historical context—seeing how they are interrelated and how they unfold the biblical story—is central to this task since it is central to how the Bible unpacks the whole counsel of God. Not all books on biblical or systematic theology do this.

Second, KTC is distinct from other works in that it offers in more detail than previous works, a true via media between dispensationalism and its varieties and covenant theology. Even though we are certainly not the first to articulate such a mediating position, KTC probably does it in the most comprehensive way to date, even though much more work has to be done in the future.

In your initial chapter you coin a new term to describe the theological system you are developing: “progressive covenantalism.” What do you want conveyed by this term?

In teaching KTC, students often ask: “what do you call this ‘new’ position that is neither dispensational theology nor what we would associate with Reformed, covenant theology?” I have struggled to answer such a question since any label you give often can be misunderstood. I say in the book that our view is a species of “New Covenant Theology” but unfortunately that label can mean many things to many people. Teaching at a Baptist seminary I often humorously describe the position as “Baptist theology” but of course, given that Baptists differ widely on a whole host of issues and that some Baptists are dispensational and some more covenantal, that label will not work either. So, a student at Southern Seminary, Richard Lucas, suggested “progressive covenantalism” which has affinities to “progressive dispensationalism” but also distinguishes our view from it. By adopting this label, we are trying to convey the fact that to grasp God’s unfolding plan and thus the metanarrative of Scripture, we must attend to the biblical covenants. In addition, we must not only understand the covenants in a synchronic way, we must think through how the biblical covenants unfold the biblical storyline diachronically. Given that God reveals himself to us over time, and Scripture does not come to us all at once, it is absolutely necessary to trace out God’s plan from creation to new creation by unpacking how the biblical covenants reveal in a progressive, unfolding way who our Triune covenant Lord is, and most importantly, how all the biblical covenants find their culmination, telos, and fulfillment in our Lord Jesus Christ.

“Covenantalism” stresses that apart from the biblical covenants we will not understand fully the plan of God and the glory of what our Lord Jesus has accomplished in his inauguration of the New Covenant. “Progressive” emphasizes that God’s one, eternal plan which we now come to know and participate in due to his sovereign and gracious actions on the stage of human history, has come to us over time and that it is crucial to think through the “before” and “after” in God’s plan centered in the biblical covenants if we are going to properly interpret and apply the Bible to us today.

Typology is clearly an integral component of the promise-fulfillment pattern in Scripture. How does tethering typology to the covenants help mitigate against rogue figural exegesis (e.g., Scarlet thread of Rahab points to Jesus; Absalom caught in a tree points to Jesus; tent pegs in Tabernacle point to Jesus, etc.)?

Most people admit that typology is one means by which God unfolds his plan and brings all of his sovereign purposes to pass in Christ. As various persons, events, and institutions are introduced into history, they point beyond themselves and find their fulfillment in Christ, with then further application to us as Christ’s people. In working through the biblical covenants we were struck with the fact that most, if not all, of the typological patterns of Scripture are organically related to the covenants. So, if we are talking about various persons—Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, priests, and so on—each of these persons is developed covenantally. The same may be said about various events such as the Exodus, or institutions such as the priesthood and the tabernacle/temple, kingship, and so on; these too are unpacked across the Bible’s storyline in relation to the biblical covenants. What also struck us is that in tethering typology to the covenants this provides the needed biblical warrant for these typological patterns which avoids rogue figural interpretation. By thinking through how these typological patterns are developed covenantally, we discover better the intertexual development which is crucial in providing proper biblical warrant for typology.

Another important piece of hermeneutical method you are using is the “three horizons.” Could you unpack for us this phrase and how it provides a “thicker” method of reading Scripture?

The “three horizons” is not new to me; in fact, I borrowed it from Richard Lints who largely was indebted to the Westminster tradition of biblical theology which has come to us through the pioneering work of Geerhardus Vos and those who developed his thought in subsequent years. The “three horizons” is simply seeking to do justice to the fact that Scripture, and thus God’s revelation of his redemptive plan, does not come to us all at once. God’s redemptive plan and revelation occurs over time and given this fact, it is crucial that we interpret any text of Scripture first in terms of its own immediate context (textual horizon), then in terms of where that text is in God’s unfolding plan (epochal horizon), and then finally in light of the entire canon and the inauguration of the new covenant in our Lord Jesus Christ (canonical horizon).

To read Scripture in this way, as my old professor Kevin Vanhoozer used to stress, is not merely an interpretive option; it is the interpretive way that best corresponds to what Scripture is, namely God’s unified, inspired Word as progressively given to us. Unless we read Scripture this way, we will rip texts out of their context and fail to see how those texts reach their terminus in Christ. We will make Scripture to be nothing more than a “wax nose” which can be bent at will, instead of seeking to read and apply Scripture according to God’s ultimate plan and intent. I am convinced that the “three horizons” allow for a proper theological reading of Scripture which is true to the Bible and thus a thicker reading of the entire canon of Scripture. As the “three horizons” are applied to our interpretation of the biblical covenants, what we attempt to do is to interpret each biblical covenant first in its own immediate context, then locate that covenant in terms of what preceded it in God’s plan, and then finally to ask how all of the biblical covenants unfold and unpack God’s redemptive plan which has come to fulfillment in Christ. Until we do this, it is our conviction that we will fail properly to grasp both the continuity and discontinuity of God’s glorious plan of salvation and its application to us, living where we do in redemptive history.

Could you explain for us why you think viewing the covenants as either “conditional” or “unconditional” is problematic and actually deflates the dramatic tension of Redemptive History?

A common way of dividing up the covenants is in terms of “conditional” (bilateral covenant, suzerain-vassal) or “unconditional” (unilateral, grant covenant). As we worked through the biblical covenants we discovered that this distinction is not only difficult to maintain in text after text; in fact, to divide the covenants in this way really begins to miss one of the main points of the storyline of Scripture. No doubt, it is only because God takes the initiative to save, makes promises which he alone fulfills, that redemption comes to us at all. Yet, as God created humans in his image to be his vice-regents, and as all the biblical covenants involve God’s relationship to his image bearers, God demands nothing less than obedience from us, and hence the stress on the “conditionality” of the covenants.

Whether we are speaking of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Israel, David—God demands obedience from all of his creatures and particularly his covenant mediators and partners. But, given sin, this is where the problem begins to arise and the tension begins to increase. Our covenant Lord demands obedience from us, but we do not render it. God promises to save and to unilaterally act, but he also promises to bring about redemption through an obedient “son.” However from Adam on, where is such an obedient “son” to be found? God’s promise of salvation, all the way from Gen 3:15 on anticipates the provision of a human who will undo what Adam did, but as each covenant mediator walks on the stage of human history, they all fail. Yet, God’s promises will not fail, and as the covenants unfold it becomes more clear that our glorious promise-making and promise–keeping God will fulfill his oaths through the provision of a greater, better, and more glorious obedient Son who does not fail. In such a provision of this Son and his crowning and effective cross work for us, we have brought together God’s unilateral promise to save in and through the obedient Son of God. In Christ and him alone, we have the Lord himself who saves but as God the Son incarnate. These grand and wonderful truths, as well as our incredible Redeemer, are all underscored better if we let the biblical covenants unfold themselves in this way, which no doubt creates tension—a tension which is ultimately resolved in Christ and the inauguration of the glory of the new covenant.

Explain the difference between your view of the Genesis account as a “covenant with Creation” rather than a “covenant of works.” Is it not true that there was no grace offered before the fall, only the condition of obedience?

Our problem with the “covenant of works” designation is primarily over what it can mistakenly convey if we are not careful. Many people view the “covenant of works” as a testing of Adam who, if he obeys, wins favor or merit before God and is thus potentially confirmed in righteousness. Our problem with this is that it does not adequately convey that all God’s dealings with his creatures are gracious; that Adam was in favor with God prior to the Fall; and that it wrongly pits obedience vs. grace, and so on. No doubt, given the entire plan of God, what takes place in Eden was not God’s ultimate plan for the human race, yet Adam, as the covenant head and representative of the human race, was in favor with God and thus at rest, yet had everything to lose by his disobedience. So, in the end, it is not what the “covenant of works” affirms; it is more in terms of what it does not stress and present in a more positive manner. Other than that, we do think that there is a lot of truth in saying that Adam, as our covenant head, was called to obey, and that in his disobedience, brought sin into this world and all of its disastrous consequences upon the entire human race. It is for this reason that another and better Adam must come, God the Son incarnate, who will undo what the first man did, by obeying perfectly in his life and death, and thus securing for us eternal salvation.

I believe one of the most striking facets of your argument is how indebted both Dispensational and covenant theology are to an inordinate focus on the Abrahamic Covenant. Could you tease out for us this common line of dependence?         

As we began to think through how dispensationalism and covenant theology “put together” the biblical covenants, it was fascinating to see that both appeal to the unconditional nature of the Abrahamic covenant yet for different reasons. On the one hand, dispensational theology appeals to the “unconditional” promise of land given to Abraham, which they believe, is only fulfilled non-typologically to ethnic, national Israel in the future millennial age. Regardless of the lack of discussion in the NT on the land promise, they argue that given the unconditional nature of the Abrahamic covenant, the land promise must still be fulfilled in the future precisely because it is an unconditional promise. When covenant theology disagrees with dispensationalism on this point by viewing the land as typological of the new creation and ultimately brought to fulfillment in Christ who ushers in the new creation, dispensational theology charges covenant theology with reading the NT back on the OT without sufficiently doing justice to the unconditional OT promise.

On the other hand, covenant theology appeals to the genealogical principle of the Abrahamic covenant—“to you and your children”—as unchanged throughout redemptive history, and it is on this basis that they make their covenantal argument for infant baptism. In a similar fashion to dispensationalism, regardless of the carry over between circumcision and baptism in the NT, and regardless of the fact that there is not one example of infant baptism practiced in the NT, covenant theology argues on the basis of the unconditional nature of the Abrahamic covenant that one must not read the NT back on the OT at this point. Even though dispensationalism and covenant theology differ at certain points, they both appeal to the Abrahamic covenant to make their points and follow the same hermeneutic. For us, this not only illustrates how important it is to understand properly the biblical covenants, but it also reminds us that one must not treat the Abrahamic covenant in an isolated fashion from the entire canon and particularly its fulfillment in Christ and the new covenant.

One thing that is confusing for me personally is determining if there is a distinction between the role of covenant “mediator” and covenant “partner” and whether that has any bearing on how we put together the covenants. For example, in the Mosaic covenant, it seems fairly clear that Moses is the mediator of the covenant but not exactly the partner in the covenant–Israel as a nation fills that role {or, you can even say angels were the mediators, Acts 7.38, Gal. 3.19). In all the other OT covenants, it seems this distinction is not as clear-cut. God makes a covenant with Adam and his seed, with Noah and his seed, with Abraham and his seed, with David and his seed.                  

The relationship between covenant “mediator” and “partner” is not always easy to discern. To understand this relationship correctly one must work through the biblical covenants carefully and also remember the corporate structures of the Bible. For example, the covenant of creation is mediated through Adam as covenant head and representative of the human race, yet the covenant partners are all of us, as image-bearers, and “sons” of God in the representative and image sense. When one comes to the Abrahamic covenant, we can say that Abraham mediates it, yet it is made with his seed in a number of ways, uniquely with Isaac and then the entire nation of Israel. God demands obedience from all the parties involved, but we do have one who stands as the mediator of the covenant in a unique way. When it comes to Moses, we can view him as the covenant mediator, but once the covenant is up and running, various leaders in Israel, especially prophets, priests, and kings function as mediators of various aspects of the covenant. Israel as the “son” of God, and in this sense another “Adam” are the covenant partners, but the entire old covenant is tribal and representative in its structure—thus mediated—which is first anticipated in the unique role of Moses. Something similar could be said about the Davidic covenant, as the Davidic king in a very important way becomes the idealized Israel and representative of the nation. One must also remember that running through the entire covenants are developing typological patterns which ultimately point beyond themselves to Christ. So the balance between covenant “mediators” and “partners” is throughout the biblical covenants, which in a wonderful way, points us forward to Christ.

Covenant theology and Dispensational theology draw two different conclusions from the New Covenant. The former collapses Israel into the church and the latter excludes Israel from the church.  Where’s the error here?

We believe the error is ultimately found in Christology. That may seem strange so let me explain. As one works through the biblical covenants, all of the covenants and their mediators find their fulfillment in Christ. In Christ he is the last Adam, Abraham’s true seed, the true Israel who obeys completely, and David’s greater Son who does what no Davidic king ever did. In this way, all the promises to “Israel” as the “son” of God and typological pattern of Christ are fulfilled. Israel, in her role, loses nothing but finds her fulfillment perfectly in Christ. Dispensational theology often fails to recognize this point and thus does not see how Israel as a nation is the type which points forward to Christ as the antitype, and that the church now in relationship to Christ receives all the promises of God in and through her covenant head. In this way, dispensational theology fragments Israel and church because she does not unite them properly in Christ.

Covenant theology, in our view, grasps the Israel to Christ relationship better, but then does not see properly how the genealogical principle is transformed as Christ, the new covenant head, brings all the previous covenant mediators to their end, and stands as the head of his believing people. She does not also see that the covenant communities are also different, due to the difference between the old and new covenants. In this way, covenant theology moves from Israel to the church too fast, without first seeing how the covenants find their consummation in Christ, the true Israel, and thus the newness and greatness of what Jesus has won as our new covenant head, including the difference in the nature and structure of the covenant communities. In the end, we believe that the root problem of both systems is that they do not sufficiently trace out how the biblical covenants unfold, how all the types and patterns of the OT are fulfilled in Christ, and thus the better nature of the covenant our Lord Jesus has inaugurated.

Dr. Stephen J. Wellum came to The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary from Associated Canadian Theological Schools and Northwest Baptist Theological College and Seminary where he taught theology since 1996. He has also served as a senior pastor and interim pastor in South Dakota and Kentucky as well as a conference speaker at various engagements in the U.S., Canada, and the United Kingdom. Dr. Wellum has written numerous journal articles and book reviews for various publications including the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, and the Reformation and Revival Journal. In addition, he has written articles and book chapters in Believer’s Baptism, Reclaiming the Center, Beyond the Bounds, and The Deity of Christ. He is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society.

Come back tomorrow for Part 2 of this interview with Dr. Peter Gentry!

By Fred Zaspel–

“Unanswered prayer” is a frustrating question virtually every Christian has faced. We know that God has promised to act in response to our prayers, but then he so often does not seem to at all. He has said he will give us the desires of our heart (Psalm 20:4-5), but so often he doesn’t. Why?

Part of the answer to this problem lies in our misunderstanding of God’s promises. Surely no thoughtful Christian would assume that God has bound himself to grant our every whim. God is not so naive as to think that loving us requires him to give us everything we ask for. Every parent, Christian or not, knows that such indulgence is harmful, not helpful. Children often are so naive, however, and they are convinced that if they are being denied anything at all they are being abused! And the fact is we, God’s children, often think the same way. We know better, but then again we don’t. But when we stop to think more maturely, at least, we realize that we can be content knowing that our heavenly father loves us perfectly and cares for us passionately and provides for us fully.

Sometimes, however, we do not receive what we ask for because we ourselves are wrong. Our hearts are deceitful, and we can pray out of a context of otherwise sinful behavior. Beyond that, our motives can be self-serving (James 4:1-3), and we make request not for God’s glory but for our own selfish advancement in one way or another. We do not seek kingdom interests first (Matt. 6:33) but our own. In such cases the reason for unanswered prayer lies in us.

But we must notice that this problem of unanswered prayer is not a problem of supposedly “low level” Christians. Even great saints have struggled with this problem. Three times the great apostle Paul asked for relief from his physical suffering (2 Cor. 12), but the request was denied. Instead, God taught a most important lesson — that God’s grace is sufficient and that his power in us is most realized in our weakness.

And it may be that in such cases God gives us the desires of our heart by transforming our desires! By one discipline or another God molds us to conform to his Son, and our values and goals are shaped accordingly — and so also are our prayers. And at some point we eventually learn that we cannot pray better than Jesus, who said “Not my will, but yours be done.” Eventually, we learn to be content in God’s faithful providence.

God assures us of his love for us and of his continued all-embracing care for us. He assures us and demonstrates to us that he is a God who loves to give. He gives to us, each time, not because we deserve it but because he is gracious and loves to show it. He is a generous, loving God. And he promises to hear our prayers and respond in a way that is right.

But in the end this problem will entail a degree of mystery. We may never be able to see the reasons for his granting or non-granting certain of our requests. Such reasons are often hidden in the mysteries of divine sovereignty. God nowhere promises to be our heavenly vending machine — just deposit your prayer, and receive your specified blessing. No. We must remember that every request we make is a request for mercy, something we do not deserve. We must remember that he knows what is best for us. We must remember that his will, not ours, is supreme and right. And we must remember that he works all things together to accomplish his good purpose for us.

And so when we pray, we pray expectantly. But we also pray submissively, like Jesus, bowing before the God who is too wise ever to make a mistake and too good ever to do us wrong.

Fred Zaspel holds a Ph.D. in historical theology from the Free University of Amsterdam. He is currently a pastor at the Reformed Baptist Church of Franconia, PA. He is also the interim Senior Pastor at New Hyde Park Baptist Church on New York’s Long Island, and Adjunct Professor of Systematic Theology at Calvary Baptist Seminary in Lansdale, PA. He is also the author of The Continuing Relevance of Divine Law (1991); The Theology of Fulfillment (1994); Jews, Gentiles, & the Goal of Redemptive History (1996); New Covenant Theology with Tom Wells (New Covenant Media); The Theology of B.B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary (Crossway, 2010). Fred is married to Kimberly and they have two grown children, Gina and Jim

By Thomas Schreiner–

Revelation 6:1-17 teaches us that our God is the Lord of history. He is the final judge.

Now I watched when the Lamb opened one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures say with a voice like thunder, “Come!” And I looked, and behold, a white horse! And its rider had a bow, and a crown was given to him, and he came out conquering, and to conquer. When he opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature say, “Come!” And out came another horse, bright red. Its rider was permitted to take peace from the earth, so that people should slay one another, and he was given a great sword. When he opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature say, “Come!” And I looked, and behold, a black horse! And its rider had a pair of scales in his hand. And I heard what seemed to be a voice in the midst of the four living creatures, saying, “A quart of wheat for a denarius, and three quarts of barley for a denarius, and do not harm the oil and wine!” When he opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature say, “Come!”

 And I looked, and behold, a pale horse! And its rider’s name was Death, and Hades followed him. And they were given authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by wild beasts of the earth.

When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.

When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?”

Now that we have come to chapter six my own interpretation of Revelation will become clearer. Obviously there are many different views of what Revelation means. I don’t have time to critique other viewpoints in detail. I certainly don’t claim inspiration or infallibility for my reading, and you are called upon to test all things and to hold fast what is good.

We saw in my last post on Revelation 5:9 that Jesus is worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, for he was slain, and by his blood ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. In chapter 6 the seals are opened by the authority and the blood of the Lamb. I take it from the rest of Revelation that the events of history—both God’s judgments and his final salvation—are disclosed in the opening of the seals. I would also argue that the first 5 seals reveal what will happen through all of history until the time of the end. In other words, the first 5 seals do not, in my opinion, only relate to a final 7 year tribulation period. They characterize the whole period from the death and resurrection of Christ to his return. I would argue that such a reading of the seals is confirmed by Jesus’ end-time discourse in Matthew 24. Lastly, I will argue that the 6^th seal is different. It does represent the time of the end—the arrival of the final judgment. So, I have 6 points, just as there are 6 seals.

(1) The gospel will triumph throughout history

Let’s read again what happens when the first seal is broken in v. 2, “And I looked, and behold, a white horse! And its rider had a bow, and a crown was given to him, and he came out conquering, and to conquer.” Some think the rider on the white horse is the antichrist and others think it describes war among human beings. But I think both of these interpretations are wrong for three reasons. First, there is no indication in Revelation that the antichrist rides on a white horse, nor is he clearly mentioned here. Second, war takes place with the opening of the next seal—not this one. Third, if we take our cues from the imagery of Revelation, the only person who rides on a white horse in Revelation is Jesus himself. We read in Revelation 19:11, “Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True (v.11) . . . he is called is The Word of God (v 13)  . . . King of kings and Lord of lords” (v. 16). So, I think this first seal teaches us that the gospel will go out and conquer during the present age through the authority of Jesus Christ. This doesn’t mean all will be saved. But it does mean that the gospel will go to the ends of the earth, and that some from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation will be saved. This fits with what we read in Matthew 24:14, “And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.”

One of the marks of the present age is the spread of the gospel to all peoples. And we can be sure of success. It will conquer. We can minister with confidence that God’s word will not return to him void. We should be filled with expectancy that the Lord will work. I like the words of Martin Lloyd Jones. “Possibly one of the most devastating things that can happen to us as Christians is that we cease to expect anything to happen. I am not sure but that this is not one of our greatest troubles today. … Are we expecting him? Do we anticipate this? Are we open to it? Are we aware that we are ever facing this glorious possibility of having the greatest surprise of our life?”  As we minister to others we don’t presume on God’s grace and we do not prescribe what will happen.  But we are full of confidence. We do expect him to work. We are confident that there is power in the gospel. We serve a victorious God and the gospel that we preach is compelling. It is the power of God unto salvation.

(2) Wars will last until Jesus comes

We read in v. 4, “And out came another horse, bright red. Its rider was permitted to take peace from the earth, so that people should slay one another, and he was given a great sword.” The opening of the 2^nd seal clearly describes war. This fits with what we read in Matthew 24:6-8, “And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are but the beginning of the birth pains.” Notice what Matthew says. Wars will take place and rumors of war, but these are not the sign of the end. Nations rising up against other nations is typical of life until the end. These things are just the beginning of birth pangs. They are not the sign that the end has come.

What should we expect in our life on this earth? Conflict between nations and wars. And the last 2000 years have borne this out, haven’t they? There has been constant conflict and fighting. There have been small intervals of peace interspersed between wars. And thus it will be to the end of time. We think of the U.S. alone in the last 100 years. We have fought in WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and now wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. The gospel is conquering and making progress, but war continues and brings untold heartache and suffering.

(3) Famines will last till the end of time

We read in vv. 5-6 about the opening of the third seal. “When he opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature say, ‘Come!’ And I looked, and behold, a black horse! And its rider had a pair of scales in his hand. And I heard what seemed to be a voice in the midst of the four living creatures, saying, ‘A quart of wheat for a denarius, and three quarts of barley for a denarius, and do not harm the oil and wine!’” What John describes here are near famine conditions. A denarius is a day’s wage. And there is barely enough wheat and barley to sustain life, though some of the luxuries of life like oil and wine are preserved. This fits with what we saw in Matthew 24 as well, for Jesus also predicted that there would be famines.

The World Vision web site says more than 1 billion people live on less than a dollar a day. Hunger still threatens millions of people in many different parts of the world. Now the fact that there will be famines and war does not mean that we should do nothing to help. We should work for peace and to end hunger. But we should also be realistic. Wars and famines will be part of human life from now to the end of time.

(4) Death and disease reign in the present time

We see this with the opening of the fourth seal in v. 8. “And I looked, and behold, a pale horse! And its rider’s name was Death, and Hades followed him. And they were given authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by wild beasts of the earth.”  Here is a sort of catch all. Life will be characterized by death and disease, so that 1/4 of the population die. Naturally in apocalyptic literature, the number isn’t literal. It simply indicates that death and disease threaten a significant portion of the human race. And hasn’t that been true all through history? We can think of plagues like the bubonic plague. In the 14^th c. what is called the black death claimed the lives of 30% of Europe. And disease still devastates human life today. How many have died from malaria, dysentery, flu, AIDS, cancer, and all sorts of other diseases. When we think of human history with deaths of children, and from war and famine, there are good reasons to conclude that death rules over human existence.

(5) Believers face martyrdom until the final day

And what else is typical of human life before the coming of Jesus? It is the martyrdom of God’s people.

When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been (Rev 6:9-11).

This fits with what Jesus said in Matthew 24:9.

Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

The martyrdom of God’s people does not just take place at the end of history. It occurs all through history. And it is happening today. More Christians were martyred in the 20^th century than all the previous centuries combined.

Let’s think of a recent example. VOM reports on the killing of 2 Christians in Iraq. “On Nov. 12, sisters were killed and their mother wounded by a gang of Islamic extremists in the Al Qahira section of Mosul, Iraq, according to VOM contacts. The gunmen shot one of the sisters as she was waiting for a bus outside their home. They then stormed into the home, killed the other sister and injured their mother.” Such murders don’t get the headlines and some murders are done in secret. And what do the martyrs do? They cry out for justice. They long to know that God will avenge their blood. Their longing for justice is not evil. God has planted in our hearts a fierce desire that justice be done. That sentiment is from him. We will never be satisfied if those who inflict evil and death on us and others are not brought to justice. But the Lord says that we must not take justice into our own hands. We are to bless those who persecute use and pray for their salvation.

But we can only release our enemies to God if we know that God will justly judge those who do evil and who fail to repent. So, the word of the Lord to those who are longing for vengeance is this: Wait. Rest! The time has not yet come when everything will be made right. There are still more to be killed before the hour of judgment arrives. But that day is coming. Everything will be made right. Those who have persecuted and killed God’s saints will face the wrath of God and the wrath of the Lamb. So, what should we do in the meantime? We must be ready for anything. Let us give our lives entirely to God. Who knows what will happen? We may be on a mission trip and suddenly find ourselves in a situation where our lives are in danger.

Jesus calls upon us to endure to the end and to pray that our love will not grow cold. Is your love growing cold? Are you growing passive and dull in your relationship with him? Ask the Lord to stir in your heart a new fire that grows for him. Don’t think that you have experienced all that you will ever experience of God. Call on him for a fresh blessing and fresh experience of his love and power. Ask him to make you useful for your short time on earth, for that is our purpose here.

(6) The great day of God’s wrath will come

I think that what is described in the 6^th seal represents the final judgment and the end of history. Revelation isn’t a narrative that tells a story from the beginning to the end. Instead, it is apocalyptic literature. John brings us to the end of history many times in the book. And then he starts over again. It is imperative to see that John uses apocalyptic and symbolic language here to denote end. Therefore, the images used must not be pressed as if they literally express what will happen at the end. The end is marked by a great earthquake in v. 12.  John uses the theme of an earthquake to designate the end regularly in Revelation. Both the 7^th trumpet and the 7^th bowl also describe the final judgment and the end of history. And the 7^th trumpet is marked by an earthquake in 11:19 and the 7^th bowl is marked by an earthquake in 16:18. And John also picks up the imagery of the Day of the Lord in the 6^th seal.

The Day of the Lord is a common theme in the OT prophets (e.g., read Isa. 13 and Joel 2). And the Day of the Lord is the final day, the day when God will judge the world. The sun turns black and the moon becomes like blood. What is John telling us in pictorial language? The world is ending. The whole natural world is falling apart so to speak. Stars are falling out of the sky as a gale force wind forces figs to drop to the ground. Clearly, this is the end, for the sky disappears. And all mountains and islands are moved from their places. This is a colorful way of saying that the end is at hand. John uses this same imagery later in Revelation to describe the end. We already saw that the 7^th trumpet signals the end with an earthquake, just like here, and the 7^th trumpet also picks up the picture of islands and mountains being dislocated. “And every island fled away, and no mountains were to be found” (Rev. 16:20). So, John is clearly telling us that this is the end.

And since the end is at hand, those who are unsaved are filled with terror: from the most powerful general to the poorest slave. They look for refuge wherever they can: in caves and in rocks among the mountains. But they fear final judgment more than death, for they cry out to be crushed by mountains and rocks, and ask to be hidden from the terrible face of God “who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb.” Did you notice again that God and the Lamb are put on the same level here? Lambs aren’t wrathful! But This one is! For the day of the Lord has come. The day of final judgment. “For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?” (v. 17). The “great day of their wrath” shows that John thinks here of the day of the Lord.

Don’t think there won’t be a final judgment. Don’t be deluded into thinking the great day of wrath will come. It will come and God will make all things right. Those who have trusted in Jesus will be vindicated. Indeed, the sixth seal answers the prayers voiced by the martyrs in the fifth seal. God is just and righteous, and will vindicate his own.

So, who can be spared? Only those who have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. Caves won’t help you on the day of judgment. Your so-called good works won’t help you. The fact that you attended church or were baptized won’t help you. The only thing that will save you is if you put your trust in the one who saves you from the wrath of the Lamb. The blood of the Lamb saves from the wrath of the Lamb. Give yourself to Jesus who died to save sinners and you will be spared from the great day that is coming.

Thomas Schreiner joined the Southern Seminary faculty in 1997 after serving 11 years on the faculty at Bethel Theological Seminary. He also taught New Testament at Azusa Pacific University. Dr. Schreiner, a Pauline scholar, is the author or editor of several books including, Romans, in the Baker Exegetical Commentary Series on the New Testament; Interpreting the Pauline Epistles; The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law; The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance; Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives of Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace, co-edited with Bruce A. Ware; Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of I Timothy 2:9-15; Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ, Magnifying God in Christ: A Summary of New Testament Theology, and Galatians.

Dr. Michael Haykin – “Puritanism Under the Cross” (MP3)
Steve Weaver – “Baptists and 1662: The Persecution of John Norcott and Hercules Collins” (MP3)
Dr. Tom Nettles – A Brief Summation and Concluding Word (MP3)

By Richard Weikart–

Yesterday, May 14^th, almost 500 Emory University faculty and students expressed their dismay that their commencement speaker did not toe the ideological line when it came to evolutionary biology.  Yes, gasp, the renowned Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon Ben Carson does not believe in evolutionary theory.  Not only that, but biology professors at Emory and their supporters also accuse Carson of committing a thought crime because he allegedly “equates acceptance of evolution with a lack of ethics and morality.”

Since I am a historian who has studied and published on the history of evolutionary ethics, I was rather surprised by the Emory faculties’ consternation over Carson’s belief that evolution undermines objective ethics and morality.  Last summer I attended a major interdisciplinary conference at Oxford University on “The Evolution of Morality and the Morality of Evolution.”  Thus I am well aware that there are a variety of viewpoints in academe on this topic.  Nonetheless, many evolutionists—from Darwin to the present (including quite a few at that Oxford conference)—have argued and are still arguing precisely the point that Dr. Carson was highlighting: they claim that morality has evolved and thus has no objective existence.

One of the keynote speakers at the Oxford conference was the leading philosopher of science Michael Ruse, who stated in a 1985 article co-authored with Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson: “Ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to co-operate.”  Why do biologists at Emory try to make Carson appear foolish for asserting that evolution undermines ethics, while one of the leading evolutionary biologists and one of the leading philosophers of science admit that evolution destroys any objective morality?  Wilson in his book Consilience (1998) argued: “Either ethical precepts, such as justice and human rights, are independent of human experience or else they are human inventions.”  He rejected the former explanation, which he called transcendentalist ethics, in favor of the latter, which he named empiricist ethics.

The whole field of sociobiology, which is a vigorous field of biology founded by Wilson in the 1970s, presupposes that morality is the product of evolutionary processes and tries to explain most human behaviors by discovering their alleged reproductive advantage in the evolutionary struggle for existence.  (Even some evolutionists consider some of their “just-so” stories either speculative or even downright ridiculous).  Sociobiologists, and their colleagues in the related field of evolutionary psychology, have explained that many sinful behaviors, ranging from adultery to infanticide to abortion to warfare to homosexuality—and many, many more—evolved because they conferred reproductive advantages to those engaging in these behaviors.  On the flip side, they have also argued that altruistic behaviors, such as helping the poor, healing the sick, taking care of the disabled, are simply behaviors that helped our forebears get their genes into the next generation.

The idea that evolution undermines objective moral standards is hardly a recent discovery of sociobiology, however.  In Descent of Man Charles Darwin devoted many pages to discussing the evolutionary origin of morality, and he recognized what this meant: morality is not objective, is not universal, and can change over time.  Darwin certainly believed that evolution had ethical implications.

Ben Carson, then, should hardly be pilloried for arguing that evolution has ethical implications and that it undermines morality.  If Emory University professors want to argue that evolution has no ethical implications, they are free to make that argument (I wonder how many of them actually believe this).  However, if they do, they need to recognize that they are not just arguing against “benighted” anti-evolutionists, but they are arguing against many of their cherished colleagues in evolutionary biology, including Darwin himself.

Emory University graduates should feel honored to have received a commencement address from Carson.  Aside from the obvious—his path-breaking surgical techniques and medical expertise that landed him a position at one of the most prestigious academic hospitals in the United States—his life story of overcoming poverty and his subsequent dedication to philanthropy are exemplary and inspirational.  His willingness to courageously embrace ideas he considers true, despite the ridicule directed toward him, should count as another point in his favor.

Richard Weikart is professor history at California State University, Stanislaus, and author of From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany. 

Read other blog articles by Weikart here.

In the recent issue of the Sixteenth Century Journal (XLIII, no. 1; Spring 2012), Credo blogger and executive editor Matthew Barrett contributed a book review of Evangelical Free Will: Philipp Melanchthon’s Journey on the Origins of Faith, by Gregory Graybill.

Here is one of Barrett’s concluding paragraphs:

Graybill’s treatment of Melanchthon is impressive not just for his investigation into Melanchthon’s theology but in his ability to compare Melanchthon to theologians prior to the sixteenth century. Nevertheless, it seems that Graybill may overstate his case when he argues that Melanchthon was “the first person in church history to articulate this doctrine of evangelical free will” (315). Graybill’s error on this matter is evident in his historical treatment. While Graybill discusses Augustine he immediately moves from Augustine (354-430) to medieval theologians such as Peter Lombard (1095-1160), Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), and others. However, Graybill never considers the semi-Pelagian and semi-Augustinian schools of thought during Augustine’s time and shortly thereafter. It is not without coincidence that Melanchthon’s evangelical free will shares many similarities with semi-Augustinianism. It is semi-Augustinianism which would eventually reincarnate itself in classic Arminianism. Interestingly, Graybill does recognize the major similarities between Melanchthon and later Arminianism. He writes, “In essence, Melanchthon’s evangelical free will was a response to Luther in the same manner as Arminius’ doctrine of the will was a response to Calvinism. Arminius and his popularize John Wesley were not original-they had merely come to similar conclusions within a Reformed milieu as Melanchthon had already done within the Lutheran context” (316). Graybill’s argument on this point needs reconsideration, especially in light of Melanchthon’s similarities with semi-Augustinianism, a tradition Graybill neglects to investigate.

Read the rest here. Also read other articles and reviews by Barrett here.

Recently D. A. Carson spoke at the fifth annual Gaffin Lecture on Theology, Culture, and Mission at Westminster Theological Seminary. His lecture is entitled,  A Christological Title Often Overlooked, Sometimes Misconstrued, and Currently Disputed: Jesus, the Son of God.

These are lectures in biblical or systematic theology, in honor of Dr. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., professor of Biblical and systematic theology, emeritus. Past lectures have been given by Drs. Bruce Waltke, Robert Letham, Paul Wells, and Al Mohler.

You can listen to Dr. Carson’s lecture here.

Many of you have asked, “Can I have new issues of Credo Magazine delivered directly to my email?” Well now you can! Click here to subscribe today via email.

The next issue of Credo Magazine is coming this May! More on that to come.

By Steve Weaver—

When John Gill (1697-1771) died he was widely recognized as the greatest Baptist theologian of the eighteenth century. While pastoring the same congregation for nearly fifty-two years, Gill more than earned the nickname, “Dr. Voluminous,” by publishing more than ten thousand pages during his lifetime! Gill holds the distinction of being the first Baptist to write a systematic theology, as well as being the first Baptist to write a verse-by-verse commentary on the entire Bible. No wonder that Augustus Toplady predicted shortly after Gill’s death that: “While true religion and sound learning have a single friend remaining in the British Empire, the works and name of GILL will be precious and revered.” 

John Gill was born on November 23, 1697 at Kettering, Northamptonshire. The young Gill attended local grammar school until the age of eleven when he was forced to withdraw because of a new policy enforced by the schoolmaster which required that all students attend the daily prayer services of the Church of England. But Gill’s keen mind was already recognizable at this early point in his life. He had already mastered Greek and Latin by the time he was forced to withdraw from the grammar school and he read through the entire Greek New Testament by the age of ten!  After beginning to study on his own, Gill taught himself Hebrew with a secondhand grammar and lexicon. 

Although Gill was converted at the age of 12, he was not baptized until the age of 19. Soon after his baptism Gill began to preach and teach the Word of God. Gill would eventually receive an invitation to preach in London in view of a call at the church which was currently meeting at Goat Yard, Horsleydown, in Southwark. This prominent Particular Baptist congregation had been started by none other than Benjamin Keach in 1672. 

After being in London for only four years, Gill began to gain some notoriety. In 1724 he became a manger of the Particular Baptist Fund and published his first material, a sermon preached on the occasion of the funeral of one of his deacons. Many other writings followed and he became well known to Baptists both in England as well as in America. In 1729, Gill began a weekly lecture that was delivered each Wednesday evening at Eastcheap. Many of Gill’s most famous writings were originally presented as lectures in this series. 

During Gill’s career he not only produced a commentary on every book of the Bible (online version) he also published in two volumes, A Body of Doctrinal Divinity, and later a companion volume titled A Body of Practical Divinity. These volumes are considered to be Gill’s magnum opus.  John Rippon, Gill’s successor as pastor and first biographer, states that found in A Body of Doctrinal Divinity “is the Doctor’s whole creed.  Here his very heart appears, while he states, maintains, and defends the Truth as it is in Jesus.” 

Gill placed a strong emphasis on the doctrine of the nature of God as a Trinity. This was a vital issue in his day as many of the General Baptists had come to reject the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity. As a result of this doctrinal confusion Gill was moved to write a Treatise on the Defense of the Trinity in 1731. Gill discussed the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity in his Body of Doctrinal Divinity which was published in 1769 as follows: 

The doctrine of the Trinity is often represented as a speculative point, of no great moment whether it is believed or no, too mysterious and curious to be pried into, and that it had better be left alone than meddled with; but, alas! it enters into the whole of our salvation, and all the parts of it; into all the doctrines of the gospel, and into the experience of the saints. 

Clearly, Gill’s recognition of the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity motivated Gill to write in defense of this central doctrine. 

Gill was also an ardent defender of the doctrines of God’s sovereign grace which are often nicknamed as Calvinism. He wrote a major defense of these doctrines in his The Cause of God and Truth.  This work was a response to Daniel Whitby’s Discourses on the Five Points which were considered unanswerable before Gill responded.  Gill’s definitive response included detailed exegesis of relevant passages of Scripture, the philosophical arguments, and a survey of patristic literature related to the doctrines of God’s sovereign grace.  

Gill’s much needed defense of the doctrines of God’s grace has caused him to often be characterized as a hyper-Calvinist. While it is true that Gill wrongly taught a doctrine of eternal justification, it was never a hindrance to his proclamation of the gospel to sinners. While others would take this teaching to its logical conclusion and fail to preach the gospel promiscuously, Gill was not guilty of this error. 

Unfortunately, Gill has not been the beneficiary in subsequent generations of the same good will which was shown by his contemporaries. Already by the next generation, the English preacher Robert Hall famously denounced Gill’s works as “a continent of mud.” In his essay on Gill in Theologians of the Baptist Tradition, Timothy George lists three reasons why he believes that Gill is no longer revered. First, Gill’s polemical writings inadvertently produced many enemies. Second, Gill’s theological descendants perhaps took Gill’s theology further than he would have liked, thus creating a distorted view of the real Gill. Third, Gill’s prodigious defense of the doctrines of grace has served to overshadow other aspects of his theology causing him to appear to be more a defender of the doctrine of predestination than of Biblical truth in general. In his essay, George argues for “a more balanced presentation of his life and work” (13). 

To learn more about Gill, please see the aforementioned essay by Timothy George in Theologians of the Baptist Tradition. The classic short introduction was done by Gill’s successor as pastor, John Rippon, and is simply titled A Memoir of the Life and Writings of Rev. John Gill, D.D. A number of Gill’s works are still in print and are available from The Baptist Standard Bearer, Inc. There are also several of Gill’s books available for free on Google Books. For an excellent treatment of John Gill and hyper-Calvinism, see this essay by Dr. Michael A.G. Haykin (PDF) which was originally presented at the 2010 True Church Conference in Muscle Shoals, Alabama. 

Steve Weaver is a Ph.D. candidate at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary where he is working on a dissertation on seventeenth-century Baptist pastor Hercules Collins. He serves as pastor of Farmdale Baptist Church in Frankfort, KY and is the Research Assistant to the Director of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies at Southern Seminary. Steve blogs at http://pastorsteveweaver.wordpress.com.

By Matthew Barrett–

The Explicit Gospel. By Matt Chandler with Jared Wilson. Crossway, 2012.

Chandler and Wilson have teamed up to write a book on the gospel directed at those who have been in church but have not been exposed to the gospel explicitly. Here is what Carson and Dever have to say about the book:

That the gospel is not clearly taught in classic liberalism is disheartening but not surprising. That frequently the gospel is not taught in evangelical congregations is both disquieting and surprising. Evangelicals will not deny the gospel, but they may assume it while talking about everything else—and that is tragic. Matt Chandler issues a robust call to make the gospel an explicit and central part of our preaching, and takes pains to show what that looks like. Amen and Amen.
D. A. Carson, Research Professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Matt Chandler presents the gospel in a way that is balanced, hope-filled, and very, very serious, all the while presented with Matt’s trademark humor. Even more faithful than funny, Matt insults all of us (including himself) in a strangely edifying way, and in a way that I pray will make you treasure Christ even more.
Mark Dever, Senior Pastor, Capitol Hill Baptist Church, Washington DC; President, 9Marks

Also, here are two videos introducing you to the book.

Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books. By Michael J. Kruger. Crossway, 2012.

I am very much looking forward to reading Kruger’s new book on the development of the biblical canon! Kruger argues that the NT canon was not open ended but the core was there from the very start. The trajectory of Christianity was already determined, says Kruger, from very early on. Here is what Horton and Frame say in their commendations:

“This book fills a lacuna in evangelical scholarship. Rarely does academic specialization in canon studies converge with thorough commitment to biblical authority. In this work, close evaluation of the history of approaches to the canon is matched by a richly theological interpretation of what it means to call Scripture our ‘canon.’ Careful, accessible, and wise in his explorations, Michael Kruger has given us a gift that will keep on giving for generations to come.”
—Michael S. Horton, J. Gresham Machen Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics, Westminster Seminary California

“Of all the recent books and articles on the canon of Scripture, this is the one I recommend most. It deals with the critical literature thoroughly and effectively while presenting a cogent alternative grounded in the teaching of Scripture itself. Michael Kruger develops the historic Reformed model of Scripture as self-authenticating and integrates it with a balanced appreciation for the history of the canon and the role of the community in recognizing it. This is the definitive work on the subject for our time.”
—John M. Frame, J. D. Trimble Chair of Systematic Theology and Philosophy, Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, Florida

And here is a short video where Kruger explains what he is arguing in his book:

Forged: Writing in the Name of God–Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. By Bart D. Ehrman. HarperOne, 2011.

In light of Kruger’s new book above, one should be aware of Bart Ehrman’s new book Forged: Writing in the Name of God–Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. Do I really need to say more? The title and subtitle says it all! Ehrman is at it once again, attacking the reliability, truthfulness, and message of the Bible. Ehrman argues that texts were forged in the name of Jesus’s disciples and consequently these texts have deceived the masses. In response, please look at a couple of valuable resources. First, be sure to watch this debate between Ehrman and Daniel Wallace!

Second, you can find more responses to Ehrman at The Ehrman Project.

Third, Kruger himself has written a review of the book for Themelios, which you can find here. Kruger’s concluding word is very insightful:

In the final analysis, Forged is a book with a mix of positives and negatives. Ehrman’s helpful overview of the various kinds of early Christian forgeries and his excellent treatment of early Christian views of pseudepigraphy are bright spots in this volume. However, Ehrman’s level of confidence that the NT definitely contains forgeries is not commensurate with the arguments he puts forth to prove that thesis. In this regard, he regularly goes beyond what the evidence can sustain. For this reason the book, like many of his others, comes across as more autobiographical than academic; more polemical than historical. Ehrman still seems to be chasing the ghosts of his evangelical past. One wonders how many more books he will need to write before they go away.

Church Membership: How the World Knows Who Represents Jesus. By Jonathan Leeman. Crossway, 2012.

In the 9Marks series, Building Healthy Churches, Jonathan Leeman’s book on church membership makes a case for why membership in your local church is important. When Leeman says church membership is neglected, I believe him, having known many Christians who have never given membership a second thought. Leeman’s book helps explain what church membership is and why it is essential.

Here is part of Michael Horton’s foreword to the book:

Regardless of whether you end up agreeing in the end, Leeman simply packs too much biblical wisdom into these brief pages for any Christian to easily dismiss. Not being a Baptist, I cannot go along with everything! However, I found myself shouting a hearty “Amen!” to the main arguments for church membership. More importantly, I found myself delighting once again in the marvelous provision of a Good Shepherd who has not only redeemed his sheep but also has figured out how to feed and lead them to the end.

And here are some commendations:

“Church leaders across many denominations will find this little book filled with practical ideas and good arguments that will help us cure Christians in our culture today of their allergy to church membership, pastoral authority, life accountability, and any limits to their personal freedom.”
—Timothy Keller, Senior Pastor, Redeemer Presbyterian Church, New York City

“Brief, fresh, entertaining, and, above all, biblical. This is the explanation and defense of church membership you’ve been looking for.”
—Mark Dever, Senior Pastor, Capitol Hill Baptist Church, Washington DC; President, 9Marks

“Practical. Convicting. Biblically faithful. Leeman reminds us that church membership is not a choice but a demand. The book is punchy and provocative, but at the same time it is permeated with the gospel of grace.”
—Thomas R. Schreiner, James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Also, listen to a sermon by Jonathan Leeman on Philippians 2 entitled Church Membership and Love. (Grace Baptist Church of Arlington)

Church Discipline: How the Church Protects the Name of Jesus. By Jonathan Leeman. Crossway, 2012.

Also in the 9Marks Building Healthy Churches series, Leeman resurrects the lost practice of church discipline. But Leeman also helps churches address cases in which no explicit case study exists in Scripture. In this book he seeks to give a biblical framework for how to discipline.

Also, listen to a sermon by Jonathan Leeman entitled Church Discipline and Love. (9Marks)

The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology (Oxford Handbooks in Religion).Edited by Thomas P. Flint and Michael C. Rea. Oxford University Press, 2009.

Philosophical theology “is aimed primarily at theoretical understanding of the nature and attributes of God and of God’s relationship to the world and its inhabitants.” And this volume edited by Flint and Rea is exactly that. There are twenty-six contributions/contributors and if you are studying analytical theology or philosophy you will likely need to interact with, critique, and respond to these contributors. One chapter that caught my eye is “Original Sin and Atonement” by Oliver D. Crisp.

Matthew Barrett (Ph.D., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is Assistant Professor of Christian Studies at California Baptist University. He is the founder and executive editor of Credo Magazine. Barrett has contributed book reviews and articles to various academic journals, and he is the author of several forthcoming books. He is married to Elizabeth and they have two daughters, Cassandra and Georgia.

By Fred Zaspel–

photo source

What is the Bible all about? What is its primary purpose in writing and its leading theme? We find the answer to our question when we examine the beginning and the end of Scripture. At the beginning God creates the world and all that is in it. We may be sure that he did this for his own glory, for this is his purpose in all he does. His creation is designed to reflect his glory. Humanity in particular was created for God’s glory, and this is our whole reason for being — to glorify God.

But we have fallen from our created purpose. With the entrance of sin through our father Adam (Genesis 3), humanity and all the created order has fallen under a divine curse. The whole created order is out of sorts — there is pain and suffering and injustice and death. And there is sin, rebellion against our creator. The curse of God upon the human race is evident in each broadcast of the evening news and in the experiences of our own lives. Through sin we are out of sorts with our creator, and as a result our world has been plunged into chaos and misery of every kind.

But at the entrance of sin God not only spoke in judgment. He also spoke in grace and in promise. He promised that a champion would come to defeat the tempter and reconcile us to God. The root problem — our sin — would be corrected, and all of creation would be restored to its created purpose. All this we find at the beginning of our Bible.

The end of our Bible (the book of Revelation) records the end of the story. History climaxes in a new heaven and a new earth, a new world in which God dwells with his people and his people bask in the glorious presence of God their creator. This blessedness is secured for us, we read, by that promised champion, who by now we know is the Lord Jesus Christ. From beginning to end, he is the theme.

Reading our Bible from the perspective of the beginning and the end enables us to gain a right perspective of the whole and all its parts. Throughout the Old Testament the redeemer is anticipated. The promise given and expanded. At the same time the world at large and God’s people in particular (Israel) demonstrate continuously their need for this redeemer. Kings, princes, the people at large, and even prophets fail. Humanity is so given over to its sin that it cannot stop. There is universal abandonment to sin and universal enmity with God. And no king is powerful enough or faithful enough to bring even God’s people — let alone the world at large — to cease from their sinning or into fellowship with God. So the promise is that God will send his servant to fix the entire mess. The whole, overall theme of the first half of the Bible is this — “He is coming!” Over and again the promise is reiterated — “He is coming! God has promised a redeemer! In fact, God has promised that he will himself come to our rescue!” And the Old Testament ends with the promise outstanding. The need for a redeemer remains, but the promise is left unfulfilled — “He is coming!”

The New Testament, in turn, makes the happy announcement, “He is here!” — from promise to fulfillment. Matthew and the other Evangelists (the Gospel writers, Matthew-John), introduce Jesus Christ to us as the redeemer whom God had long promised. And so they tell us about his arrival and his life and teachings and miracles, but they tell us particularly of his death and resurrection. They are careful to tell us that Jesus Christ died as the redeemer in place of sinners and has for his people exhausted the curse of God against their sin. Accordingly, he was raised from the dead in triumph and in glory. He has successfully accomplished his assigned saving work. In Acts this message is taken to the world, and the epistles spell out the significance of all this for us in more detail. And in Revelation, as we have seen, it all comes to climax in Christ’s glorious return as judge and as savior, when his redeeming work is brought to final completion and all his people stand in glory with him in the presence of the Triune God.

And so in the end, creation reaches its original design — the glory of God the creator. Humanity is saved, and with it the whole created order is rescued from the divine curse against sin and restored to fellowship with God. The divine purpose is accomplished, and all the redeemed will be gathered to sing his eternal praise. God our redeemer has come and will come again to complete his promised saving work in Jesus Christ — this is the whole centerpiece and theme of the Bible.

Fred Zaspel holds a Ph.D. in historical theology from the Free University of Amsterdam. He is currently a pastor at the Reformed Baptist Church of Franconia, PA. He is also the interim Senior Pastor at New Hyde Park Baptist Church on New York’s Long Island, and Adjunct Professor of Systematic Theology at Calvary Baptist Seminary in Lansdale, PA. He is also the author of The Continuing Relevance of Divine Law (1991); The Theology of Fulfillment (1994); Jews, Gentiles, & the Goal of Redemptive History (1996); New Covenant Theology with Tom Wells (New Covenant Media); The Theology of B.B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary (Crossway, 2010). Fred is married to Kimberly and they have two grown children, Gina and Jim

By Matthew Claridge–

photo source

When the Roman general Pompey conquered Jerusalem in 63 BC, he entered the Holy of Holies expecting to find, if not a great deal of loot, at least a dazzling image of the deity worshiped there. He was astonished to find absolutely nothing at all, indeed, nothing but a bare room in the sacred space of perhaps the most religious and zealous people in all the Mediterranean world.

Compare this historical anecdote with a more recent example, as humorously portrayed in this parody of America’s obsession with all things Apple:

 In both cases, the tantalizing “sacred” room that promises to unravel the mysterious attraction so many people experience contains literally no answers at all. The emptiness, though at first profoundly anti-climatic, does not represent a dead-end but actually a further invitation down the rabbit hole; to something far deeper and mysterious than any palpable idol or confidential file of Macintosh secrets could explain. Indeed, the light at the end of this tunnel will probably be more disturbing than satisfying. Despite superficial similarities, two vastly different routes into Wonderland are represented here—routes I’ll define in terms of two different theological traditions, Deus Absconditus (the hidden God) and Deus Incognito (the unknown God).

These two terms do not represent any particularly theological tradition per se, more like theological trends. Generally speaking, Deus Incognito was a term used most often in the medieval mystical tradition. Perhaps the choice of this term was purely conventional, but it nonetheless carried certain implications. The unknown God captured a core theme of this mystical tradition, born in the pagan school of Plato’s academy and maturing in the salons of the French enlightenment. What holds these disparate epochs together was a conviction that God, or ultimate Reality, was not fully knowable. All language used to describe this God is inadequate. If anything, the best way to understand the world is through a series of conflicting even contradictory statements. This method was called dialectic by ancient philosophers, came under the title of via negativa in the medieval world, and ended in various positivistic approaches in Modern times. Yet, whereas in the medieval and ancient world, the unknowability of God was held in check by an optimistic view of human nature, in the Modern world that naïve confidence has been lost. Man is a purely temporal, physical epiphenomenon. There is no ‘divine’ spark resident in his bosom. As such the unknowability of God has significantly hardened. Theology is simply reducible to anthropology. If anything, the study of theology, of whatever stripe, reveals more about ourselves and our little world than anything cosmic and ultimate. The undergirding ethos of this Modern Deus Incognito is fundamentally pessimistic, cynical, and Darwinian.

This is the meaning of the empty room in Apple’s factory of wonders. Charlie is not the happy go-lucky chap of the original film, he is a cynic seeking to expose and penetrate the dazzling veneer behind Apple’s pretentious claims and promises. And that’s what he finds—it’s all showmanship and we, the consumers, are gleefully lead along even when we know, deep in our hearts, this is all façade and cannot deliver what it promises.

Thankfully, that’s not the only option left open to us. The other route, though ultimately more satisfying, is fraught with far greater difficulties to traverse. Deus Absconditus was simply the Vulgate translation of a phrase found in Isa. 45.15. Luther, however, picked it up and fashioned it into an entire theological perspective. For Luther, the notion of God as Deus Incognito smacked of everything wrong with the Medieval theology on which he was reared. Within this tradition, which drank deeply from pagan springs, mankind’s separation from God is conceived purely in terms of epistemology, misinformation, or ignorance—that much is obvious from the phrase “unknown God.” In the original pagan metaphysic, creation itself is a kind of Fall and mankind is separated from God purely by accident. Being a heavenly spark imprisoned in earthy matter, man must work diligently to ascend back up to the Source from whence he came. This is described as a process of “enlightenment.” We are born into a world where God is distant and unknown, and we must find him out. Luther also called this approach a ‘theology of glory.” By it, he meant to describe the medieval project to grasp God purely by natural reason alone—an ascent back to “glory.”

For Luther, this was a doomed quest because it fundamentally misunderstood why God appears absent from our lives. God’s absence is not a matter of distance, intellectual or otherwise, but  a matter of relational estrangement. The problem is not epistemological but ethical or soteriological. We haven’t fallen out of remembrance but fallen out of favor. As such, God is hidden from us, but certainly not unknown.

In the tradition of Deus Incognito, God is fundamentally passive, a Being whom we must approach. Often in this tradition, God is envisioned as the One—a Being beyond personality or feeling, mercy or wrath. Whatever its liabilities (already noted), this approach gives humanity the controlling position in the relationship while God stands idly by, waiting for us to make up our minds what to do with Him. God may strike us with awe, but never terror.

By contrast, the God of Luther’s Deus Absconditus is very much an active agent who considers us not only as objects of his thought but also objects of his affections, for better or worse. The empty temple, unlike Apple’s counterpart, does not indicate God’s non-existence (or unknowability), but his absence. And absence is not a passive stance, but an active one. That is, God’s absence from the temple is intentional and ethical—God cannot stand us, and, in some sense, we cannot stand Him. His absence is an indication of an estranged relationship between the Creator and his creatures. From our exile from Eden, to God’s refusal to journey personally with Israel into the promised land, to the departure of his glorious presence from the temple in Ezekiel’s day—the dramatic conflict of Scripture is driven by God’s gradual retreat from the circle of the world.

But this absence also produces, paradoxically, a disturbing sense of God’s presence in judgment. In the absence of his personal love and affection, we face a God of inscrutable terror and darkness—not unlike, though far more terrible, the icy glance of a spouse who refuses to speak to us. As Luther said, “Every creature seems like God and God’s anger, even though it be but a rustling leaf . . . we do not stand in awe of God’s anger but remain unmoved, and yet we fear and flee from the anger of a frail, withered leaf” (LW 19:75-76; Luther applies the image of a withered leaf from Lev. 26.36). Thus the author of Hebrews characterizes God’s ambivalent presence under the Old Covenant in terms of Mt. Sinai wracked with fire, thunder, and darkness.

At the same time, this disturbing absence also points us in the right direction, a path through the valley of the shadow of death. For it is only when we fully and totally come to grips with this absent God, and all that it implies about our estrangement from Him that hope is born—“thus says the One who is high and lifted up, who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: ‘I dwell in the high and holy place, and also with him who is of a contrite and lowly spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly, and to revive the heart of the contrite’” (Isa. 57.15). This is Luther’s “theology of the cross,” for it is as we gaze on the God hidden in a crucified, naked Christ, that we are healed. We must, like Jill in the Silver Chair, drink deep from the stream in the presence of the wild and unpredictable Aslan. Where God’s wrath and absence was most profound, God’s mercy and grace was most present.

Thus God’s absence in the temple of Israel was both a negative and a positive absence. It was positive in the sense that it indicated that our salvation could never come by our own hands. Something alien to our experience and our efforts must arrive and put our souls at peace and satisfy our restless hearts. The empty temple proclaims that only something larger than life, or larger than Apple for that matter, can fill the void—“Thus says the LORD: ‘Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest?  ² All these things my hand has made, and so all these things came to be, declares the LORD. But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word’” (Isa. 66.1-2).

Apple claims for itself a place in our hearts that only God can fill. As Andy Couch has recently noted, Macintosh’s logo—an apple with a bite taken out of it—is highly suggestive of the fruit that brought the fall of mankind. The fruit represents an act of defiance, a statement that mankind can find deification, or spiritual contentment, in materialism. Yet like the glistening forbidden fruit, the showmanship goes all the way down.

This is part 1 of a short series on the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament with Credo blogger (!) and New Testament scholar Ardel Caneday, Professor of New Testament Studies and Biblical Studies at Northwestern College in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Why is the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament one of the most crucial areas of theological reflection that all Christians must grapple with?

The primary reason why all Christians must engage the questions concerning how the New Testament (NT) uses the Old Testament (OT) is that the NT itself compels believers to do so. This constraint is ours because the OT informs the NT writers in such a manner that as they speak of Christ, whether in the Gospels or in the Book of Acts or in their letters, their words routinely echo the OT with allusions, sometimes strong, at other times faint, and explicit quotations, sometimes strung together, frequently fill their pages. It is manifestly evident that the NT writers believe and proclaim that the OT Scriptures, with all their diverse portions and voices come to fulfillment in Jesus Christ. This is why all Christians must grapple with the NT’s uses of the OT.

Today, Christians have access to Bibles that flag OT quotations within the New for readers. Readers may readily find the sources of OT quotations by using a Bible’s reference column, regardless how brief the quotations may be. Even allusions to the OT may be identified within these reference columns, especially in study Bibles. Even though the average Christian today has significant advantages over believers in past generations, especially believers in ancient times, perhaps none excel first-century believers in Berea. Luke commends them: “Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” (Acts 17:11).

It is important to state what should be obvious about preaching the gospel in the first-century. When Paul preached that the promised Seed of Abraham, the Messiah, the Christ, is Jesus of Nazareth, the only Scripture he had from which to preach was the OT. So, when Jews of Berea heard Paul’s message they had no NT. They had the OT, perhaps with much of it committed to memory. Thus, they examined the OT Scriptures with care to determine whether the things Paul was proclaiming were true. They were not about to permit the apostle Paul to engage in any hermeneutical trickery. They were not about to believe what Paul proclaimed just because he, as an apostle, preached that the Messiah, whom they anticipated, is none other than Jesus of Nazareth, and whose countrymen subjected him to death by handing him over to the Romans who crucified him though he rose from the dead on the third day.

We have the whole Bible readily at hand, accessible with a keystroke on a computer. We have volumes of commentaries on the Scriptures plus numerous specialized books on the NT’s uses of the OT for modern Christians. Nevertheless, Christians do not seem to grasp how the whole of Scripture holds together, culminating in Christ Jesus. This is so, in large measure, because so many read the climax of the storyline and thus think they know the whole of the biblical story. Many Christians read the Bible like college students read classic pieces of literature. Many either turn to CliffsNotes as a substitute while others think that they can read the last few chapters of a piece of literature and still grasp the core and essence of the storyline, which they may be able to do, but they fail to apprehend many things that require knowledge of the whole. It is similar with many Christians. Generally, if Christians turn to the OT, they tend to read portions of the OT, such as the Psalms or Proverbs, but because they have familiarity with the NT, they suppose that they understand the core and essence of the biblical storyline, which may be true, but their grasp is significantly truncated. Many preachers reinforce this mentality by rarely preaching from the OT. Yet, in order to proclaim the good news concerning Christ Jesus from the OT, both Christian readers and preachers must acquire a more profound understanding of the biblical storyline than a surface level knowledge that permeates the church today, for the categories of the NT’s message concerning Christ Jesus and what he has accomplished are grounded in and prepared for by the OT.

Could you provide a brief survey of the differing views one might hold on the “NT use of the OT” and to which of these you subscribe?

This initial accounting for differing views concerning the NT’s use of the OT is not at all as full as I offer in a course I teach on the subject. For the sake of simplicity, there is a range of views that cluster around two distinct beliefs.

On the one hand, some scholars contend that the NT writers became convinced that the promised Christ is Jesus of Nazareth. Convinced of this, they ransacked the OT Scriptures, even pulling passages out of their contexts, as proof of their new found belief. Those who hold this view are not concerned to show how the meaning of OT passages cited in the NT as fulfilled in Christ correlate and hold together. For them, uses the NT writers make of OT passages, nurtured by their imaginative and creative skills, is sufficient. As one might infer, those who affirm this view tend to hold a somewhat low view concerning Scripture’s authority and reliability. Thus, for example, some who hold this view are not embarrassed when they insist that Matthew 2:15 does violence to Hosea 11:1—“Out of Egypt I called my son”—by announcing that this passage is fulfilled in Joseph’s taking the infant Jesus with his mother to Egypt to escape jealous King Herod’s dragnet of murder in his effort to eliminate the birth of a child whom he thought would rival his family dynasty. Similarly, they have no qualms when they claim that the apostle Paul’s imaginative powers created the allegory to which he appeals in his argument that the Galatians cannot submit to the law covenant and at the same time reckon themselves Abraham’s descendants (Gal. 4:21-5:1).

While other scholars agree that the NT writers became convinced that the promised Messiah is Jesus of Nazareth, they affirm much more. These scholars affirm that Jesus (1) explained to his followers that all the Scriptures speak of him, (2) corrected their misreading and misunderstanding of the OT Scriptures, and (3) opened their eyes and minds to recognize him as the fulfillment of the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (Luke 24:31, 45). Those who hold this second view also tend to embrace a high view of Scripture’s authority and reliability as the NT writers do. Therefore, they are persuaded that it is crucial, as much as possible, to demonstrate how both the OT passages cited and the NT uses of the OT passages justify or warrant their various uses as fulfilled in Jesus.

Consequently, Christian scholars who hold to this view are convinced that Matthew 2:15 does not rip Hosea 11:1 out of context but honors the fact that the prophet’s statement is not grammatically a future predictive statement but a retrospective and historical declaration of what God had done for Israel. Nevertheless, even though the passage is not grammatically future predictive, those who take this second view are also convinced that the passage is forward looking because of Israel’s role as foreshadowing the coming Messiah. Similarly, those who hold this second view are quite uneasy accepting the notion that the apostle’s imaginative powers created the allegory of Galatians 4:21-5:1. Some accept this concept but rescue it by appealing to Paul’s apostolic authority as the recipient of divine revelation in his encounter with the Christ (cf. Gal. 1:12-15).

These two examples serve to feature significant differences between the two schools of thought with regard to the axis of promise and fulfillment that spans the biblical storyline from OT to NT, with the old frequently being cited as fulfilled in the new. Other biblical categories promptly come into purview with any serious consideration of this promise-fulfillment axis. These categories include but are not limited to the nature and function of prophecy, of types or foreshadows, and of mystery. When these categories enter into scholarly consideration, the two schools of thought described above begin to multiply into a range of positions with varying ways to account for prophecy, types or foreshadows, and mystery along the promise-fulfillment axis. Consideration of these categories must await further discussion. As for me, I believe that Saint Augustine expresses the relationship between the two testaments quite well we he states, “The  New Testament is in the Old concealed, and the Old is in the New revealed” (Novum Testamentum in Vetere latet, et Vetus in Novo patet.[Quaestionum in Heptateuchum, 2, 73]).

Ardel Caneday (Ph.D., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is Professor of New Testament Studies and Biblical Studies at Northwestern College in St. Paul, Minnesota. He has served churches in various pastoral roles, including senior pastor. He has authored numerous journal articles, many essays in books, and has co-authored with Thomas Schreiner the book The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance (Inter-Varsity, 2001).

Matthew Claridge is an editor for Credo Magazine and is Senior Pastor of Mt. Idaho Baptist Church in Grangeville, ID. He has earned degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is married to Cassandra and has two children, Alec and Nora.

By Luke Stamps—

One of the caricatures of the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura is that it entails a devaluing of tradition in favor of individualistic biblicism.  But even a cursory reading of John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion reveals the fact that the Genevan Reformer was heavily indebted to the great tradition of Christian reflection that came before him.  In addition to his frequent citations of Patristic luminaries, especially Augustine, one of Calvin’s most cited authorities was the twelfth century French theologian Bernard of Clairvaux.  While Calvin would not agree with all of Bernard’s theology (his Mariology, for example), he frequently cited Bernard’s reflections on justification and redemption through Christ. 

In one arresting passage, Calvin paraphrases Bernard’s observations on the name of Jesus:

Bernard’s admonition is worth remembering: The name of Jesus is not only light but also food; it is also oil, without which all food of the soul is dry; it is salt, without whose seasoning whatever I set before us is insipid; finally, it is honey in the mouth, melody in the ear, rejoicing in the heart, and at the same time medicine. Every discourse in which his name is not spoken is without savor (From The Institutes of the Christian Religion II.16.1, cited in Calvin’s Christology by Stephen Edmondson).

So, Christian hedonism isn’t new!  The emphasis on “seeing and savoring Jesus Christ” didn’t start with John Piper or C. S. Lewis or Jonathan Edwards or John Calvin.  It goes back much further in the Christian imagination.  It didn’t even start with Bernard, but stretches back further to Augustine and ultimately to Jesus Christ himself and his prophets and apostles.

It is also important to note that Calvin cites this passage from Bernard in the context of perseverance.  Calvin argues from Acts 4:12 that salvation can be found only in the name of Jesus Christ.  Only in Christ the Mediator can we who are “condemned, dead and lost in ourselves” be reconciled to God.  But it is not enough to claim faith in Christ and then turn away from him as the sole source of salvation.

Redemption would be defective if it did not conduct us by an uninterrupted progression to the final goal of safety. Therefore, the moment we turn aside from him in the minutest degree, salvation, which resides entirely in him, gradually disappears; so that all who do not rest in him voluntarily deprive themselves of all grace.

This is not an argument for passivity in the Christian life or some kind of proto-Keswick letting-go and letting-God.  No, elsewhere Calvin argues for the diligent use of the means of grace (Book IV) and for the importance of law’s “third use”—instructing and exhorting Christians in obedience (II.7).  But these efforts must never be severed from the “resting” described here.  Only as we find our nourishment and satisfaction in Christ are we enabled and empowered to reach “the final goal of safety” in the presence of God.

Luke Stamps is a Ph.D. candidate at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in systematic theology. Luke is writing his dissertation in the field of Christology. Luke is married to Josie, and they have three children, Jack, Claire, and Henry. Luke is a member of Clifton Baptist Church in Louisville, KY.

[This review is from the March issue of Credo Magazine, “Make Disciples of All Nations.”]

Tucker, Ruth A. Parade of Faith: A Biographical History of the Christian Church. Zondervan, 2011.

Review by Aaron Menikoff 

Just go to your nearest bookstore—if there are, in fact, any standing shops near you—and you will quickly discover that history is not dead. Popular readers are fascinated with the past. The problem with history today is not a lack of interest.

The problem is an inability to separate what is trivial from what is significant. During a recent trip to my local bookstore, I was pleased to see that the children’s section had a display devoted to biography. My pleasure evaporated when I saw that a biography for Thomas Jefferson was forced to stand next to a pictorial biography of Justin Bieber.

Ruth A. Tucker wants the next generation to love church history. Thus she wrote Parade of Faith: A Biographical History of the Christian Church. Everyone loves a good story, and Tucker provides 495 pages worth.

There is nothing novel in the organization of her work. She divides church history into two parts: first, The Early Church through the Magisterial Reformation and, second, Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism to the Twenty-first Century. She begins in Acts and concludes with Billy Graham. Ending with Billy Graham is a surprise given the fact that Tucker wrote, Left Behind in a Mega Church World (Baker, 2006). I wondered why Tucker chose to ignore the founders of the mega church movement who undoubtedly shaped twenty-first century Christianity, both in America and beyond.

Tucker has given the reader much to appreciate. She gives attention to figures usually ignored. For example, Marcella grew up with elite standing in fourth-century Rome only to adopt a vow of poverty and form “the brown dress society.” Marcella is an important representative of the many women who became involved in the ascetic movement. Furthermore, Tucker gave detailed attention to Richard Allen, the important founder of the African Methodist Episcopal Church.

It should be no surprise that Parade of Faith has an encyclopedic feel. Chapters are divided into biographical sketches. Tucker is aware that not every figure carries the same historical weight. Thus, she gives more attention to Martin Luther than Richard Baxter. In short, a student who reads this textbook will walk away with a sense of church history’s main players.

Tucker’s work does have several flaws, which must not be overlooked.

First, Tucker rarely explains the significance of the individuals she uncovers. She describes the Desert Fathers as “a strange lot,” and strange they may have been. She notes how “they were sincerely striving for a deeper spiritual path.” But why, what drove them? What explanations did they give in their writings for their motives? Even a biographical historian must give time to interpreting the lives addressed.

Second, Tucker is dismissive of theology. For example, she takes the fall of Rome as an opportunity to criticize those who try “to make sense of the catastrophic events from a sociological and theological and historical perspective” (99). And yet it was Augustine’s willingness to reflect upon the fall of Rome, from a biblical perspective, that made him such a compelling and enduring theologian.

Does this unwillingness to address theological matters betray a lack of interest or simply disagreement. One wonders given how Tucker speaks appreciatively of Albert Schweitzer and relays the fact that some described Paul Tillich as “American’s leading theologian” without any real explanation of his attempt to undo orthodoxy.

Third, there is no unifying theme to hold this history together. I cannot help but think that this is intentional. Lives are different and messy and complex, and we should all know that oversimplification is one of the great difficulties of church history. Nonetheless, it is the attempt to find a storyline, as complicated as the task may be, that makes history an art form. Furthermore, it is Tucker’s lack of attention to theology that makes a unifying theme nearly impossible to find.

Fourth, history is too often sacrificed at the altar of a good story. She concedes early on in her study of Patrick “that hagiography and biography are often blended” (114). Perhaps this explains why she ends her treatment of the Desert Fathers with “Mary of Egypt: Sex Addict and Saint.” I read with bemusement Tucker’s recounting of Pope Joan or Pappess Joanna. She began by noting “That a woman would sit in the papal throne is not so inconceivable in light of the fact that some popes in this era were unordained teenagers” (147). But she ends her four-paragraph treatment by admitting it didn’t happen, “it is generally considered to be no more than a fascinating, albeit false, story” (148). It is not appropriate to devote precious space in a history textbook to mythology.

Sadly, Tucker has fallen into the trap of allowing Justin Bieber to stand next to Thomas Jefferson on the bookshelf.

Aaron Menikoff (Ph.D., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is Senior Pastor of Mount Vernon Baptist Church in Atlanta, GA.

Read other reviews in the March issue of Credo Magazine, “Make Disciples of All Nations.“

To view the Magazine as a PDF

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:19-20) These words, spoken by Jesus after his resurrection, are famously known as The Great Commission. As disciples of Christ, it is our great joy to go and tell the nations about the good news of salvation for sinners through Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior. The March issue of Credo Magazine will seek to ignite a passion for missions. And what better timing as this year marks the 200th anniversary of Adoniram and Ann Judson setting sail aboard the Caravan with to take the gospel to Burma. Contributors include: Ted Kluck, Jason Duesing, Nathan Finn, the Housley Family (missionaries in Papua New Guinea), Kenneth Stewart, Brian Vickers, David VanDrunen, Matt Williams, and many others.

[Cover photo: By Benson Kua]

Todd Miles, one of our bloggers here at Credo, has recently contributed a book review to the Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. His review is titled: “Cultivating Womanhood in a World of Competing Voices.” A Review of James Dobson, Bringing Up Girls: Practical Advice and Encouragement for Those Shaping the Next Generation of Women. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2010.

You can read the entire review here. And here is part of the closing evaluation of the book:

I highlight two areas of concern, one small, the other more significant: At times, Dobson runs into the same confusion regarding femininity and gender roles that is manifest in the culture. It is apparent that he is trying to walk a fine line between the strength of women on the one side and their femininity on the other. At one point he defends the strength of his feminine grandmother by recalling that she co-pastored a church with his grandfather and that she was an excellent preacher. I’m not sure that appealing to an occasion where a woman does what is forbidden by Scripture is testimony to legitimate strength. Admittedly, it is a difficult line to walk when you are trying to speak against a culture that wants to treat women as sexual objects while also affirming the differences between men and women that the feminist movement despises. Scripture alone is able to guide one along this line, celebrating the differences between men and women that are designed by our wise and loving Creator while upholding the precious dignity of women as image-bearers and the unique and special creations of God.

Which brings me to my largest concern: There is virtually no Bible and even less gospel in this book. Surely the gospel has incredible implications for how we parent our girls! And I am speaking of more than a general “raise your children in the fear and admonition of the Lord” instruction. If Jesus came to save sinners (including mothers, fathers, young women, and little girls) and that salvation is holistic in the manner and depth that Scripture reveals, then the gospel has to uniquely guide our aspirations, philosophies, techniques, and prayers for our daughters as females and our sons as males. It is not until the last chapter that Dobson turns to Scripture for divine revelation on the roles and responsibilities of parents. And when he does so, it reads more like an obligatory add-on, rather than an authoritative appeal to the Word of God to give definition, explanation, and instruction to femininity, adolescence, and parenting. Why not begin with a brief biblical study on femininity and masculinity? Why no reference or appeal to the verses or passages that speak specifically to women and womanhood? But there were plenty of references to science, psychological studies, opinion polls, and anecdotal evidence. Dr. Dobson’s appeals to behavioral science, psychology, and physiology are impressive. And it is clear to me that Dobson is convinced that men and women, girls and boys, are unique and different because God designed them to be so. With that presupposition in mind the data makes perfect sense and is helpful. Why not make that presupposition explicit by rightly grounding the theology, philosophy, goals, and manner of parenting girls in the Bible? But in the absence of that presupposition, one will inevitably conclude that the source of authority and insight for parenting lies in the behavioral sciences. Really, apart from the last chapter and the unwritten presuppositions that ground the entire worldview of the volume, there is nothing distinctly Christian about the book. I think that Dobson recognizes the priority and sufficiency of Scripture, but it is not clear from the book structure that this is the case.

But Dr. Dobson has earned our trust and we know of his commitment to Christ. His voice is no longer heard by as many parents as it was during the seventies and eighties when he called parents to love their children enough to “dare to discipline.” One look around society and even the church suggests that most parents are not suffering from too much good advice and godly instruction. If anything, the stakes for our children are higher now, and the world that much more dangerous. For these reasons and more, Bringing up Girls is a book well worth reading.

Read the rest here.

HT: Denny Burk

By Steve Weaver—

Benjamin Keach (1640-1704) has been identified by historian Michael Mullet “as the leading Baptist theologian of his era, similar in importance for his denomination as Richard Baxter was for the English Presbyterians, John Owen for the Congregationalists and Robert Barclay … for the Quakers.”[1] Keach’s theological pilgrimage took him from his baptism as an infant in the Church of England, to becoming a convinced credo-baptist as a teenager, to his position as the leading Particular Baptist theologian at the end of the seventeenth century.

Although christened into the Anglican Church within a week of his birth on February 29^th of 1640, by the age of fifteen Keach had become convinced by Scripture that his baptism as an infant was invalid and subsequently applied to be immersed upon his profession of faith into a General Baptist congregation.[2] In 1660 at the age of twenty, Keach began preaching regularly to the congregation meeting at Winslow. During the 1660s, Keach faced innumerable hardships and persecutions because of his preaching and publishing in an era (1660-1688) which seventeenth-century English Baptist historian B. R. White called “The Era of the Great Persecution.”[3] On one occasion Keach nearly lost his life when soldiers were planning to trample him to death with their horses. Just before they executed their plan on his bound body, a commanding officer appeared who spared Keach’s life. Instead of being killed, Keach was imprisoned, but was eventually released.

In 1668 Keach made the move to London where the rest of his ministry would be carried out. On his way to London calamity struck as Keach was waylaid by robbers and all of his possessions were taken. Thus, Keach arrived in London penniless with only his family and the clothes on their backs. The Baptists of London welcomed Keach and his family by taking up collections for their welfare. Keach soon began to lead a congregation of General Baptists meeting in a house on Tooley Street in Southwark, London (south of the Thames River). This group of believers would eventually organize themselves into a church meeting in Horsley-down. This congregation would eventually become the New Park Street Church/Metropolitan Tabernacle later famously pastored by a certain Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Keach remained as pastor of this congregation until his death in 1704.

By the time the church at Horsley-down was established, Keach had become a Calvinist.[4] The exact circumstances leading to this change in soteriological conviction is unknown. It is known that Keach quickly became acquainted with prominent London Calvinistic Baptist pastors William Kiffin, Hanserd Knollys, and John Norcott shortly after arriving in London. Perhaps these men led in collecting funds for the deprived Keach family after their plunder on the way to London. By 1670 when Keach remarried after his first wife had died, it was the Particular Baptist leader Hanserd Knollys who officiated at his wedding.

Keach was involved in numerous controversies throughout his career. He offered written responses to both Quakerism and Baxterianism, but his most lasting influence likely comes from his role in the hymn-singing controversy of the period. Keach is generally credited with being the first to introduce congregational hymn singing as a part of the regular worship of English-speaking congregations. Though others may have been engaged in this practice previously, Keach’s role was cemented by his publication in 1691 of The Breach Repaired in God’s Worship, or, Singing of Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs, Proved to be an Holy Ordinance of Jesus Christ with an Answer to All Objections. This work was actually written against some published objections by Isaac Marlow, one of his own church members! Keach’s response, though the debate continued to rage over the next decade, would prove to be the definitive response to all objections to hymn-singing and would eventually win the day.

Recommended Resources

Keach was the most prolific author among seventeenth century Baptists. It should be noted that Keach’s allegorical works, though largely forgotten today, rivaled the popularity of the allegories written by his contemporary John Bunyan. Still in print among Keach’s works are his massive Preaching from the Types and Metaphors of the Bible (Kregel Reprint Library),[5] his dispute with Richard Baxter The Marrow of True Justification (Solid Ground Christian Books), and the allegory The Travels of True Godliness (Solid Ground Christian Books). Available on Google Books for free are Tropologia (Types and Metaphors) and three of Keach’s allegorical works.

To learn more about Keach, see Thomas J. Nettles’ essay “Benjamin Keach (1640-1704),” in The British Particular Baptists, Michael A. G. Haykin, ed., vol. 1 (Particular Baptist Press), I: 95-100; and his chapter on Keach in The Baptists: Key People Involved in Forming a Baptist Identity, vol. 1 (Christian Focus Publications), 163-193.  Also see Michael A. G. Haykin, Kiffin, Knollys and Keach: Rediscovering our English Baptist Heritage (Reformation Today Trust), 83-97. An exceptional full-length biography has been done in recent years by British pastor Austin Walker titled The Excellent Benjamin Keach (Joshua Press). Regrettably, Walker’s volume is currently out of print. David Bowman Riker’s 2006 dissertation from the University of Aberdeen has recently been published by Wipf & Stock as: A Catholic Reformed Theologian: Federalism and Baptism in the Thought of Benjamin Keach, 1640-1704. Jonathan Arnold’s even more recent Oxford dissertation “The Reformed Theology of Benjamin Keach (1640-1704)” is slated for publication soon from Regent Park College’s Centre for Baptist History and Heritage.

Steve Weaver is a Ph.D. candidate at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary where he is working on a dissertation on seventeenth-century Baptist pastor Hercules Collins. He serves as pastor of Farmdale Baptist Church in Frankfort, KY and is the Research Assistant to the Director of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies at Southern Seminary. Steve blogs at http://pastorsteveweaver.wordpress.com.

By Paul Helm–

I’ve read more than once the claim that most early Christians were universalists. And this is occasionally supported by the further opinion that several early (first six centuries) theological schools were universalist in their teaching. This seems implausible to me. However, I’m certainly not someone who is a student of the history of the early church. So what am I to do? I’m to look for evidence.

What is clear is that there is a steep, sharp decline from the theological writing of the New Testament and what one finds among early Christian writings. ‘Rabbi’ Duncan once amusingly said ‘It is a mistake to look to the Fathers as our seniors. They were our juniors. The Church has advanced wonderfully since its foundation was laid. Polycarp would have stood a bad chance in an examination by John Owen. I think I could have posed him myself.’

Still, this belief in a decline in theological quality in the immediate post-Apostolic church is rather different from the claim about universalism, which seems much more dubious.

To start with, it would seem that the opinion that most early Christians were universalists is impossible to test. Who are these Christians? Where have most of them left any traces of holding such beliefs? Is this evidence written? Do these Christians themselves make the claim? In making the claim, do they explicitly controvert the non-universalist sentiments of the NT? Is there evidence in the liturgies of the early church that they embodied or gave expression or tacit assent to universalism?

Here is some readily available evidence that points in the opposite direction, of clear particularism.

Clement of Rome

‘Let us fix our thoughts on the Blood of Christ; and reflect how precious that Blood is in God’s eyes, inasmuch as its outpouring for our salvation has opened the race of repentance to all mankind. 25-6

38 Again, God says to Him, Sit down at my right hand, until I make your enemies a cushion for your feet. Who are these enemies? Why, wicked persons who set themselves against His will. 38

Ignatius

‘Regarding the rest of mankind, you should pray for them unceasingly, for we can always hope that repentance may enable them to find their way to God’. 64

’…..how much more when a man’s subversive doctrines defile the God-given Faith for which Jesus Christ was crucified. Such a wretch in his uncleanness is bound for the unquenchable fire, and so is anyone else who gives him a hearing.’ 65

‘….the Cross which so greatly offends the unbelievers, but is salvation and eternal life to us’ 65-6

‘To profess any other name than that is to be lost to God….’72

‘Flee for your very life from these men; they are poisonous growths with a deadly fruit, and one taste of it is speedily fatal.’ 81

‘His passion was no unreal illusion, as some skeptics aver who are all unreality themselves. The fate of those wretches will match their unbelief, for one day they will similarly become phantoms without substance themselves.’101

‘For let nobody be under any delusion; there is judgment in store even for the hosts of heaven, the very angels in glory, the visible and invisible powers themselves, if they have no faith in the blood of Christ’.102

Polycarp

‘All things in heaven and earth have been made subject to Him; everything that breathes mays Him homage; He comes to judge the living and the dead, and God will require His blood at the hands of any who refuse him allegiance’ 119

The Martydom of Polycarp

‘The other said again, “If you do not recant, I will have your burnt to death, since you think so lightly of wild beasts”. Polycarp rejoined, “The fire you threaten me with cannot go on burning for very long; after a while it goes out. But what you are unaware of are the flames of future judgment and everlasting torment which are in store for the ungodly. Why do you go on wasting time? Bring out whatever you have a mind to” ’.128

Barnabas

‘For when the Lord judges the world there is going to be no partiality; everyone will be recompensed in proportion to what he has done. If he is a good man, his righteousness will make the way smooth before him; but if he is a bad man, the wages of his wickedness will be waiting to confront him.’163

‘For the man who does this, there will be glory in the kingdom of God; but one who prefers the other Way will perish together with his works. 181-2

The Didache

‘After that, all humankind will come up for their fiery trial; multitudes of them will stumble and perish, but such as remain steadfast in the faith will be saved by the Curse’ 198

[These extracts are from Early Christian Writings, trans. Maxwell Staniforth, revised and provided with Introductions and new editorial material by Andrew Louth. (Penguin Books, 1987)]

This looks reasonable evidence regarding the general outlook of the Apostolic Fathers. No doubt some of the expressions, taken in isolation, are consistent with universalism by way of a speculation about purgatiorial cleansing, and none of them has been formed within debates about particularism and universalism which at that time does not seem to have been an issue at all. Was this general outlook overturned in the first centuries to follow? Is there evidence for this?

The same questions can be raised about the alleged positions of the theological schools of the Patristic period. How do they treat those New Testament routinely appealed to by universalists? Isn’t it extremely odd that a controversially-minded writer such as Augustine, writing in the fifth century, did not spot any such deviancy of the theological schools of his day or of the past from what he, at least, regarded as Christian orthodoxy, particularism and a clear teaching regarding heaven and hell?

Origen’s widely-noted universalism appears to have been the thought of one individual with a few followers, and (in the words of N.T. Wright) ‘seems to have been more Platonic than biblical.’ But one swallow does not make a summer. The view was condemned by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553.

Of course none of this evidence provides a powerful argument against universalism. But it does carry a presumption about the early church, not only its writers, but also, presumably, its rank and file. In the face of such data it cannot plausibly be argued that what we may now regard as traditionalist teaching on particularism, and on heaven and hell, flies in the face of the universalist teaching or attitude of the early church. For it clearly does not.

The trouble with these claims that we have been examining, vague and insubstantial as they appear, is that once they get into print that fact alone provides credibility to the view, at least to some minds. But printer’s ink is no substitute for evidence. Another reminder of the importance of primary sources, and the danger that what may count as ‘scholarship’ may in fact be nothing other than the retailing of opinions that no-one ever takes the trouble to check.

Paul Helm was educated at Worcester College, Oxford, and was for many years a member of the Philosophy Department of the University of Liverpool. From 1993-2000 he was the Professor of the History and Philosophy of Religion, King’s College, London. In 2001 he was appointed J.I. Packer Chair of Philosophical Theology at Regent College, Vancouver. He is presently a Teaching Fellow there. Helm is the author of numerous journal articles and books. Some of his most well-know books include Calvin and the Calvinists, Faith and Reason, The Trustworthiness of God, The Providence of God, Eternal God, The Secret Providence of God, The Trustworthiness of God (with Carl Trueman), John Calvin’s Ideas, Calvin at the Centre, and Calvin: A Guide for the Perplexed. 

By Fred Zaspel–

photo source

The following helpful summary is from the late Robert J. Dunzweiler, my theology professor at Biblical Theological Seminary around 1990. These summary points are drawn from his analysis of such Biblical passages as Psalm 19, Romans 1, Acts 14:17, and 17:22-31.

Doctrinal Formulation Concerning External General Revelation

1.  There has been and continues to be an external general revelation; i.e., a divine self disclosure in mediate, nature mode that comes to the recipient from outside of himself.

2.  This external general revelation discloses God mediately, by means of the created objects and providential events of the time-space universe.

3.  This external general revelation can be referred to as a “word” from God.

4.  This external general revelation discloses God’s attributes of glory, wisdom, goodness, power, and divinity, as well as God’s works of creation and providence.

5.  This external general revelation, although marred, is not vitiated or totally annihilated by sin, either objectively or subjectively.

6.  This external general revelation reaches every part of the world and every person in the world. It transcends all spatial, temporal, and cultural barriers, especially those of language.

7.  This external general revelation has been and is being perceiving by the senses and apprehended by the minds of all rational beings in the world.

8.  This external general revelation has been and is being suppressed and perverted by all unrighteous human beings.

Doctrinal Formulation Concerning Internal General Revelation

1.  There has been and continues to be an internal general revelation; i.e., a divine self-disclosure in mediate, natural mode which comes to the recipient from within himself.

2.  This internal general revelation discloses God mediately, by means of man’s awareness of his creaturehood and partial likeness to God, God’s Law written on man’s heart, God’s moral judge (the conscience) operating in man’s consciousness, and the continuous working and outworking of these factors, despite the effects of sin on them.

3.  This internal general revelation discloses God’s attributes of rationality, personality, holiness, and justice, as well as God’s works of creation and judgment.

4.  This internal general revelation, although marred, is not vitiated or totally annihilated by sin, either objectively or subjectively.

5.  This internal general revelation reaches every human being in the world. It transcends all spatial, temporal, and cultural distinctions and differences, especially ethical and moral relativism.

6.  This internal general revelation is actually known by all human being.

7.  This internal general revelation has been and is being suppressed and perverted by all unrighteous human beings.

Practical Implications of the Doctrine of General Revelation

1.  General revelation is constantly pressing (both from without and from within) on both the native of Philadelphia and the native of the Amazon basin, on both the native of Moscow and the native of the Philippine rain forests. No human being is without a revelation of God as Creator.

2.  By means of this revelation all human beings have an awareness, a sense of God, although they constantly engage in suppressing and perverting that awareness.

3.  No human being is entirely successful in suppressing and perverting God’s general revelation. This means that no human being is a complete atheist, in the sense that he has no religious consciousness at all.

4.  Because of this universal awareness of God that cannot be entirely suppressed, every human being has a point of contact, a God-given preparation for the presentation of the gospel.

5.  Although general revelation reveals a number of God’s attributes, and His works of creation, providence, and judgment, yet it does not reveal the grace of God that brings salvation. General revelation simply does not provide a knowledge of God as Redeemer, despite some claims to the contrary.

6.  Since general revelation does not provide a knowledge of God as Redeemer, it cannot be made the basis of anything more than a preparation for the gospel. General revelation cannot be viewed as a means of salvation, even to such as have never had opportunity to hear the message of salvation from sin through Christ’s incarnation, atonement, and resurrection. Only a radical new birth, in which spiritual life is imparted to those who are spiritually dead, will suffice; and such a sweeping transformation cannot be brought about by general revelation, but only by the gospel of Christ!

Fred Zaspel holds a Ph.D. in historical theology from the Free University of Amsterdam. He is currently a pastor at the Reformed Baptist Church of Franconia, PA. He is also the interim Senior Pastor at New Hyde Park Baptist Church on New York’s Long Island, and Adjunct Professor of Systematic Theology at Calvary Baptist Seminary in Lansdale, PA. He is also the author of The Continuing Relevance of Divine Law (1991); The Theology of Fulfillment (1994); Jews, Gentiles, & the Goal of Redemptive History (1996); New Covenant Theology with Tom Wells (New Covenant Media); The Theology of B.B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary (Crossway, 2010). Fred is married to Kimberly and they have two grown children, Gina and Jim