Pages Menu
TwitterRss
Categories Menu

Posted by on Mar 3, 2013 in Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism |

Reformed Interpretation of Jeremiah 31

Having recently finished reading Kingdom through Covenant (a review to come later), I have been thinking about Jeremiah 31 (the promise of the new covenant) in relation to the debate between paedobaptists and credobaptists. Jeremiah 31 is a critical peg in the credobaptist argument for only baptizing believers, at least for those who have gone farther in the debate than simply saying, “But there’s no example of baptizing babies in the NT.” In particular, those who identify themselves as Reformed Baptists tend to rely heavily on Jeremiah 31:31-34:

31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” (ESV)

The central argument for credobaptism made by Gentry and Wellum in Kingdom through Covenant is that this passage (and others, though this one clearly holds a key place in their thinking) indicates that in the new covenant, all of the covenant members will be saved. That is, they argue that there is no mixed membership (believers and unbelievers) in the new covenant as there was in the post-Fall covenants in the Old Testament.

They argue that the New Covenant in the time between Christ’s first and second comings therefore consists only of believers. Accordingly, only believers should be baptized (though in reality, this works out to mean that only those who profess belief are baptized, since one does not the hearts of people).

While there is a certain prima facie strength to this argument, I believe that it is quite weak on further scrutiny. The reason is really quite simple: as with the fulfillment of so much OT prophecy regarding the coming of Christ and his kingdom, there is a sense in which this prophecy has already been fulfilled, and also a sense in which it has not yet been fulfilled.

As Richard Pratt explains in his excellent article on this passage, the promise of the new covenant fits in with the promise of the new creation. In other words, when will the promise of the new covenant be fully and completed realized? In the new creation.

In this current time, the new covenant has been inaugurated, but it has not yet been consummated. There are prophecies saying that the knowledge of the Lord will cover the earth as the waters cover the seas (Hab. 2:14; Is. 11:9), and these are beginning to be fulfilled through the expansion of the gospel, but will only be fully realized in the new earth. Similarly, the membership of the new covenant will indeed only consist of believers in the new heavens and new earth, but in the meantime, the church provisionally embodies the kingdom of God.

So in this in-between time, we are part of the new covenant community that is meant to reflect what will be one. But it’s not a perfect community. And thus there are serious warnings in the book of Hebrews for those who are in the community and yet do not truly know the Lord (see ch. 6 in particular).

Should you want to read a fuller explanation of this passage from a Reformed perspective, do check out Dr. Pratt’s article.

Read More

Posted by on Apr 30, 2012 in Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism, Eschatology | 4 comments

Review of Christ’s Prophetic Plans: A Futuristic Premillennial Primer by MacArthur and Mayhue

Why I Read Christ’s Prophetic Plans: A Futuristic Premillennial Primer

Given that I was just ordained in the Presbyterian Church in America and am strongly committed to covenant theology, one might wonder why I would choose to read a book that forcefully presents dispensational premillennialism. I suppose I had several reasons: I wanted to see how current dispensationalists present their position (as opposed to the now-outdated Dispensationalism Today by Ryrie). I also wanted to be challenged again to know how dispensationalists are responding to the views that I hold. Also, given that this is a collection of chapters from professors at the Master’s Seminary, I hoped to see some more cogent argumentation on behalf of the view so that I could be challenged to think through the issues critically again.

Why This is a Hard Review to Write

This review is tough to write primarily because of the nature of the book as a collection of chapters from different authors. Some chapters are definitely of higher quality than others, so it is hard to evaluate the work as a whole.

This review is tough to write for another reason: I found the book to be, on the whole, incredibly unpersuasive because it really fails to interact seriously with opposing views, choosing instead to use tired arguments that are no more persuasive now than they were 50 years ago.

Lastly, this review is tough to write because I have a great deal of respect for several of the men who contributed to this volume (which is not to say that there are some I don’t respect, only that I haven’t heard of all of them).

Chapter 1: What is Dispensationalism? (Michael Vlach)

This chapter is a decent chapter within the book, as Vlach does present some clarifications about dispensationalism that are helpful. Most significant in my opinion is his discussion of the supposed “literal” hermeneutic of dispensationalism. He correctly articulates that the issue is not precisely one of being literal, but rather of testamental priority. I still found his presentation unconvincing (as he still rejects the idea of the church replacing Israel, which is not how covenant theologians today formulate the question), but it is helpful for him to articulate that the hermeneutical question is more complex than simply a literal/figurative paradigm. I would also say that Vlach’s defenses of his six foundational elements of dispensationalism are not compelling at all, but it would perhaps be unfair to expect him to thoroughly defend his position in a chapter merely meant to present what dispensationalism is.

Chapter 2: What is Dispensationalism Not? (Michael Vlach)

This chapter was for the most part helpful, as Vlach responds to unfair characterizations of dispensationalism in the past. Because so many dispensationalists have been Arminian, and because Scofield and others originally did present two ways of salvation for the Jews and the church (notwithstanding Vlach’s desire to downplay this point), dispensationalism has unfairly been closely associated with Arminian soteriology in the past. Vlach makes the case strongly at this point. Arminianism is not inherent to the system. Vlach’s case is a bit weaker when he deals with the suggestions that the seven dispensations are inherent to the system. While modern dispensationalists may disagree with the number of dispensations or even the exact nature of the dispensations, the reality is that dispensations are an organizing principle for the system. Certainly the distinction between Israel and the church as two separate peoples of God is more integral to the system, but it seems unfair to downplay the dispensations themselves, when that is how the system has organized all of human history, regardless of the number presented. That is one of the significant issues that dispensationalists need to deal with, considering that the Scriptures seem prima facie to present a much different organizing principle: covenants.

Chapter 3: Why Futuristic Premillennialism? by Richard Mayhue

I do have to make one note at the outset that really applies to this whole volume. It seems that the Master’s Seminary faculty wants to avoid the label “dispensational premillennialism” for some reason, but it seems strange to me to give a new label that is not really normal in this discussion. Regarding the content of Mayhue’s chapter itself, I must say that it seems like quite a regress from Vlach’s first chapter on dispensationalism. Whereas Vlach is clearer on articulating the hermeneutical difference between dispensationalism and covenant theology, Mayhue returns to the tired and unhelpful claim that only dispensationalism uses a “literal” hermeneutic. Vlach articulated the real difference—testamental priority—whereas Mayhue doesn’t seem to acknowledge that at all. This comes out quite significantly when he does mention the biblical covenants, for he cites all sorts of OT verses about the covenants, but then fails to ever engage how the New Testament discusses those texts. E.g., he discusses the Davidic covenant, but doesn’t discuss Acts 2, and he discusses Amos 9 without referencing Acts 15. Those are serious shortcomings.

Particularly egregious is his failure to distinguish between the Reformed analogy of faith—let Scripture interpret Scripture—and allegory. He regularly interchanges “allegorical interpretation” with “spiritualized interpretation” when these really refer to separate things. Additionally, nowhere does he acknowledge the importance of genre in applying our hermeneutic to a particular text.

Further, he makes broad, sweeping claims about the inadequacy of covenant theology without backing up nearly any of his claims. For example, he says there is no evidence for the covenants of grace and works, but does not at any point discuss the evidence adduced by covenant theologians in favor of them (e.g., the elements of the suzerain vassal treaty in Genesis 1-2, Hosea 6:7, Ephesians 2:12, etc). In many of these claims, he assumes exactly what he needs to prove. For example, he regularly refers to Daniel’s seventieth week as being future, and yet he never even discusses the fact that it is a critical dividing line in this debate. The dispensationalist view of Daniel 9 is perhaps the most tenuous in its overall line of argumentation, and yet neither Mayhue nor anyone else ever seems to feel the need to defend their view of it.

Chapter 4: Why a Pretribulational Rapture? by Richard Mayhue

As someone who disagrees with the fundamental tenets of premillennialism, I found this chapter to assume things that need to be proved at nearly every point. However, the intent was more to convince post-tribulationalists rather than amillennialists. As far as that intent is concerned, I suppose it does a decent job, but not being one who believes the tribulation is future, I can’t really say whether it would have been convincing to a post- or mid-tribulationist.

Chapter 5: What about Israel? by Michael Vlach

Vlach begins this chapter with a defense of how God can use nations as nations. It is puzzling why he felt the need to do this, considering that several of the people he cites to defend his points are certainly not dispensationalists (notably Christopher Wright). The issue is simply not whether or not God uses nations or whether or not nations will still exist in the new heavens and new earth, but whether or not they have an identity that is separated from the church, the redeemed community.

I also find it astounding that in his whole discussion of how Israel was to be the cause of blessing to the nations (including discussion of passages such as Genesis 12, Deut 30, Ezekiel 36, and others), he never examines Galatians 3, which is a pivotal text in this whole discussion.

Similarly, he discusses Romans 11 without interacting with the exegesis of Reformed theologians on that chapter, which is absolutely crucial to the case of covenant theology. Likewise, when he references Revelation 21-22, he doesn’t interact at all with the case that covenant theologians make about the unity of the people of God in the New Jerusalem. This chapter just toes the party line without engaging in any substantive discussion with the views of those who disagree.

Chapter 6: What about Revelation 20? by Michael Waymeyer

Of all the chapters in this book, I found this one to be the most cogently argued. This is not to say that I was persuaded by it, but I did really appreciate that Waymeyer seemed aware of most of the arguments of a- and post-millennialists regarding Revelation 20, and he did take the time to respond in some detail to the views of others. A- and post-millennialists would do well to actually respond to the arguments presented in this chapter, as they are not so easily brushed off as the shoddy argumentation presented in many of the other chapters.

Chapter 7: Does Calvinism Lead to Futuristic Premillennialism? by John MacArthur

Anyone who is familiar with MacArthur’s address given at a Shepherd’s conference entitled Why every self-respecting Calvinist should be a premillennialist some years ago will know where he goes in this chapter. This chapter is only slightly more articulate than that sermon (and the later 6-part series he gave on the same topic). He argues that while Calvin and other Reformed theologians used a sound hermeneutic for most doctrinal questions, they abandoned it in favor of an allegorical approach that they elsewhere condemned when it came to prophecy. This is a sad mischaracterization of the reality. To equate Calvin’s prophetic hermeneutic with allegory is simply not accurate. The allegory of some of the early church fathers in the Alexandrian school was fanciful and speculative. Covenant theologians want to interpret OT prophecies in light of how the NT interprets them, which is a far different thing than allegorical interpretation.

In dealing with election and the relation between Israel and the church, MacArthur fails to engage in any meaningful way with what covenant theologians say about the church as the true Israel. He deals with only Romans 9:6 and Galatians 6:16, neglecting to discuss Romans 2:28-29 (other than just citing it as backing up his point when it really seems to do the opposite), Philippians 3:3, Ephesians 2:12, Galatians 3 or 4, 1 Peter 2:9-10, amongst many others.

Chapter 8: Does the New Testament Reject Futuristic Premillennialism? by John MacArthur

MacArthur begins this chapter with a puzzling point: that 1st century Jews understood OT prophecies to indicate a future physical and geopolitical kingdom for Israel. I have no doubt that they did. But they also expected a very different kind of Messiah and so rejected him. Why we should then base our eschatological expectations on theirs doesn’t follow.

It is interesting as MacArthur examines various texts in the New Testament that he leaves out what may be the most crucial ones. E.g., in answering the question “did Jesus reject futuristic premillennialism?” he doesn’t address the Olivet discourse where Jesus addresses the Great Tribulation. Amazingly, in asking whether Peter accepted futuristic premillennialism, he glosses over the crucial text in Peter’s sermon of Acts 2 from which theologians argue that Jesus is king on David’s throne now. Similarly, regarding Paul, he doesn’t address how covenant theologians deal with Romans 11 amongst other passages. Regarding John, he addresses only Revelation 20 and fails to discuss the passages from John’s gospel that relate to the 2nd coming or the resurrection and judgment. In other words, MacArthur is just preaching to the choir rather than presenting substantive arguments that might persuade someone from another perspective.

Chapter 9: Did the Early Church Believe in a Literal Millennial Kingdom?

This chapter is better than some of the others in that it at least engages seriously with a number of early church fathers to defend premillennialism. It does present a fairly compelling case that many early church fathers accepted premillennialism. I found its case for why amillennialism developed to be slightly less compelling and more speculative, but overall, it is still a chapter that is worthy of consideration. I do find it curious that this argument from church history is given weight on this point, while on the topic of national Israel’s role in the future, church history is nearly completely ignored. The reality is that the whole system that this volume supports is radically against most of church history, including the early church, and so to appeal to church history on this point seems a bit odd. As far as it goes, though, this chapter is one of the better ones in the book.

Chapter 10: How Certain is Futuristic Premilllennialism?

Of all the chapters in this book, this one is perhaps the most painful to read. Notwithstanding my respect and admiration for John MacArthur in so many areas, this chapter is truly disappointing. Most egregious in the chapter is his charge of R.C. Sproul with date-setting because he sees Matthew 24:1-34 as having been fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. To equate that with the date-setting of Hal Lindsey and others is at its best absurd and at its worst incredibly disingenuous.

The entire chapter simply ignores every argument that a- and post-millennialists have developed in favor of their positions. He also assumes what he needs to prove at nearly every point, particularly regarding the Olivet Discourse and the seventy weeks of Daniel 9.

Summary

Much of this book is just an effort to motivate those already convinced of dispensational premillennialism to keep fighting for it. With the exception of Waymeyer’s chapter on Revelation 20, the chapters dealing with the biblical data concerning the issues involved simply don’t deal with the arguments of other views. They offer very little that is new to the discussion, and they fail to provide convincing responses to the arguments that others provide. So while I can recommend this book for someone wanting to get a sense for what modern dispensational premillennialists believe, I cannot recommend it to those looking for substantive engagement with eschatological issues.

Note: I received a copy for review purposes from Moody Publishers.

Read More

Posted by on Dec 19, 2010 in Dispensationalism, Eschatology |

Last Days Madness Continues

Nineteen years ago, Gary DeMar wrote a book entitled Last Days Madness: The Folly of Trying to Predict When Christ Will Return. He updated it in 1999 (and, it would appear, added about 200 pages).  Thanks to my last class at Reformed Theological Seminary (Systematic Theology III), I recently read the 1991 version.  In it, DeMar shows how the sensationalistic, Armageddon-pronouncing, return-of-Christ-predicting wing of the modern church has radically misunderstood the teaching of Scripture regarding prophecy.  Rejecting the pre-tribulational, dispensational understanding, and advocating a partial preterist understanding of Matthew 24 and Revelation 4-19, he lays out biblical reasons for his understanding of the eschatology.

One might be tempted to think that the prophecy addicts have given up on trying to predict when the last generation of history will be, when Christ will return, and so on.  And to be sure, many of those who would claim the label “dispensationalist” have spurned such sensationalistic predictions (for example, I will hopefully be reading soon Bock and Blaising’s Progressive Dispensationalism which lays out a very different brand of dispensationalism than the Hal Lindsey and John Walvoord brand).  But sensationalistic literature still exists.  Consider the title of a recent book by a megachurch pastor in Texas: Can America Survive: 10 Prophetic Signs that We Are the Terminal Generation.  As I perused this book in a bookstore recently (it’s sad to think that somewhere might get their impression of Christianity in a Barnes and Noble from this work), I read this:

When the prophet Ezekiel speaks about the invading nations as having ‘hooks in your jaw’ he is referring to oil. Can America Survive, p. 182.

As DeMar points out, such books have been written throughout history. Predictions of the final generation are hardly anything new.  Sensationalist authors want to force Scripture to connect to the newspaper in ways that legitimate interpretation would never allow.  Last days madness is still in force unfortunately.  But there are plenty of resources to help us avoid this.  Primary of course, is simply reading Scripture, letting Scripture interpret Scripture.  But DeMar’s book is a helpful resource, and he wrote another short work (End Times Fiction) critiquing the theology behind the Left Behind series that is well written and very helpful.  Hopefully as we study Scripture and seek to be faithful to it, we can present a coherent, rather than sensationalistic message to the world around us.

Read More

Posted by on Jun 22, 2010 in Dispensationalism |

Early Church Fathers and Dispensationalism

If you’ve read many of my previous posts, you will quickly realize that I am not dispensational.  I won’t go into all the reasons for that again, but I came across a post elsewhere in the blog world today that illustrates one of the reasons that I’m not.  As I’ve mentioned before, dispensationalism seems to have a prima facie unacceptability because it goes against what the church has taught throughout her history.  Here’s what I don’t mean by that: dispensationalism was never formulated as a complete system until the 19th century, and that makes it unacceptable.  If that was the criteria, then covenant theology would be unacceptable as well, because it wasn’t formulated as a complete system until later in the church’s history.  However, what I do mean is that dispensational (as opposed to covenant theology) does contradict what the church has confessed from early on.  The problem is not that the complete system wasn’t there from early on, but rather that it contradicts what has been there for a long time (including of course, the theological formulations of the Reformers and their ecclesiastical descendants).

The fundamental assertion of dispensationalism (in all of its varieties) is that there is a distinction between Israel and the church, which means that the church is not currently “spiritual Israel,” “true Israel,” or any variation on those terms.  Michael DeWalt, who blogs at Gospel Centered Musings, posted this quotation from Justin Martyr (an early church father):

“For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham (who in uncircumcision was approved of and blessed by God on account of his faith, and called the father of many nations), are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ.” (Justin Marty Was Premil, but Was He Dispensational? ~ Citation at his site)

Of course, this does not prove by any means whether or not dispensationalism is biblical.  I do not believe it is, but obviously a quote from Justin Marty hardly proves anything either way.  What it does show, however, is that even one who is regularly claimed as a premillennial early church father, clearly opposed the central thesis of dispensationalism.  Even this one (clear) quote doesn’t prove anything historically with reference to the early church fathers as a whole.  But it does provide at least a little (early) context to the issues between covenant theology and dispensationalism.

Read More

Posted by on Jun 19, 2010 in Book Reviews, Dispensationalism, Eschatology |

A Case for Amillennialism by Kim Riddlebarger

As I mentioned in my last post (From Spark to Sun: Calvin on the Covenant of Grace), I decided to go ahead and read a book that I have owned for some time: A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times by Kim Riddlebarger (see his blog: the RiddleBlog).  What follows is just a brief overview of the contents of the book with some observations about what I thought were positive and negative elements of his presentation.

Brief Overview

In Part 1, Riddlebarger seeks to provide a clear foundation for the discussion of eschatology (the last things/end times).  He provides an overview of the issues separating the three primary views (premillennialism, in classic and dispensational forms, amillennialism, and postmillennialism).  Additionally, he gives an overview of the issues of interpreting prophecy (particularly addressing the issue of “literalism” from the dispensational camp).

In Part 2, Riddlebarger seeks to approach the issue of eschatology from biblical-theological perspective.  In other words, he attempts to put the discussion of the end times in the context of the whole Bible and the whole story of the Bible.  Dealing with such topics such as “the covenant context of Old Testament eschatology,” “Christ and the fulfillment of the prophecy,” and “the kingdom of God,” he argues for the amillennial approach to the end times.

In Part 3, he moves on to look at four key texts that affect eschatological viewpoints: Daniel’s Prophecy of the 70 weeks, the Olivet discourse, Romans 11, and the millennial passage, Revelation 20.  He argues that only the amillennial approach adequately deals with these texts.  Contra premillennialism, he argues that there simply is no Scriptural evidence to suggest that there is a 1000 year gap between Christ’s second coming and the consummation.  Against postmillennialism, he argues that Scripture presents suffering and persecution as the norms for the church’s experience till the return of Christ.

Positives

There are a number of things that I thought Riddlebarger did very well.  (1) His presentation of the two-age model of eschatology (this age, and the age to come) presented in the New Testament was quite convincing.  This forms the foundation for the amillennial insistence on “the already and the not yet,” and his presentation was convincing enough that I need to spend some time figuring out how that fits into my own view of these things.  (2) His refutation of (classic) dispensational premillennialism was outstanding.  Critiquing the dispensational view of hermeneutics, of the dichotomy between Israel and the church, of its dual view of redemptive history, and the “we’ll-return-to-types-and-shadows-like-the-Temple-in-the-Millennium,” he makes the case very well against such a view of Scripture. (3) His exposition of Revelation 20 was quite compelling, particularly because of the clear connection he made with the parallel passage in Revelation 12.  (4) His exposition of Romans 11 was, for the most part, quite balanced.  I’m not sure that he characterized postmillennialism completely fairly, but for the most part, he examined the various options and explained what view he takes, which is that national Israel will en masse convert to Christ and therefore become part of the church right before Christ returns.

Questions/Negatives

I hesitate calling this section “negatives,” because I do have a lot of respect for Rev. Riddlebarger, and I thought that his book, overall, was quite well done.  However, there are some points at which I don’t think he made his case well.

(1) It seemed to me that he did very little in the way of serious interaction with postmillennialism. Now, that’s an overstatement in some ways, as he did certainly mention it regularly and did interact with some postmillennial writers such as J. Marcellus Kik.  But it seemed to me that to convincingly make his case against postmillennialism, he needed to extensively interact with the arguments of Ken Gentry, Greg Bahnsen, Gary DeMar, Keith Mathison, and others.  I’m somewhat confident that they wouldn’t have entirely agreed with his characterizations of postmillennialism.  In particular, his primary argument against postmillennialism was that Scripture doesn’t indicate economic, social, and political success for Christianity prior to Christ’s return.  There are postmillennialists who wouldn’t necessarily expect success in that way, but rather in the propagation of the gospel.  Additionally, in what reading I’ve done on the issue, it seems that postmillennialists argue that the whole period between the two advents of Christ is the millennium (as amillennialists would), not some future golden age (that was a version of postmillennialism more commonly held by some Puritan authors).

(2) His critique of dispensationalism focused almost entirely on the classic form of it. Now, given that in many churches today, this form of dispensationalism is alive and well, that’s understandable.  And I can’t expect that he would cover everything in one 250-page book.  However, given that many (scholarly) dispensationalists would now consider them progressive (PD), it seems that it would have been helpful to more extensively interact with their views.  He did briefly mention PD, but did not really address its approach in much detail.

(3) His exposition of the Olivet Discourse was, in my opinion, weak.  That’s not to say that he did nothing well in that chapter.  His basic approach was that some parts of it referred to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, some will happen in the future, some will happen at the Second Coming, and some have a double fulfillment (AD 70 and the future).  However, I did not get the sense that there were any strong guidelines for deciding which elements went where.  He made a lot of assertions about when each part was/will be fulfilled, but I didn’t see much in the way of textual evidence to support these claims.  In particular, I felt that his refutation of orthodox preterism (partial preterism) was not very strong, for one primary reason: he did not deal well with the orthodox preterist insistence on the hermeneutical guideline of Matthew 24:34 (“This generation will not pass away till all of these things have been fulfilled“). As I have studied Matthew 24, I simply can’t get away from the implications that verse has for the first 33 verses of the chapter.  Riddlebarger argues that some of the elements prior to verse 34 refer to Christ’s second coming, and he doesn’t adequately address how that can be the case with the statement of verse 34 (he primarily discusses verse 34 in connection with dispensational predictions of the future).

Regardless of these aspects of his presentation, I felt that his book was an excellent contribution to the literature on the subject.  And I know now that I need to think through some of this more before figuring out where I stand between amillennialism and postmillennialism.

Read More

Posted by on Jun 17, 2010 in Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism | 2 comments

From Spark to Sun: Calvin on the Covenant of Grace

After finishing up my series on MacArthur, Calvinism, and (Dispensational) Premillennialism (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4), I decided to read a book that I’ve had for a few years, but have never taken the time to read: A Case for Amillennialism by Kim Riddlebarger (see his blog: the RiddleBlog).  It’s helping to remind me again of some things that I didn’t have time to talk about in my series, and it’s also helping me to think through a little more the differences between amillennialists and postmillennialists.  I’ll post a review of the book as soon as I’ve finished it and thought through some important sections.

For now, though, I thought I’d mention a paragraph from Calvin that Riddlebarger cites.  I read it a few a months ago when I was making my way through the first half of Calvin’s Institutes, but it struck me today as a particularly beautiful expression of why I believe in covenant theology: because it so powerfully explains the redemptive storyline of the Bible in Christ.  Here it is:

The Lord held to this orderly plan in administering the covenant of his mercy: as the day of full revelation approached with the passing of time, the more he increased each day the brightness of its manifestation.  Accordingly, at the beginning when the first promise of salvation was given to Adam [Gen. 3:15] it glowed like a feeble spark.  Then, as it was added to, the light grew in fullness breaking forth increasingly and shedding its radiance more widely.  At last–when all the clouds were dispersed–Christ the Sun of Righteousness fully illumined the whole earth. (Institutes, II.x.20)

I might expand on this in a later post, but the beauty of it is this: that from Adam to the end of time, there is one plan of redemption, and it all centers on Christ.  Each successive covenant in the Old Testament progressively revealed more of this “brightness.”  But when Christ came, the Sun burst forth in brilliance, because in the New Covenant, we get to finally see the beginnings of the culmination of God’s plan, to be finally completed when Christ returns.  And that story is good news.

Read More
%d bloggers like this: