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!

“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

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)

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.

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.