In this post I will summarize the two presentations on Israel and the church in Progressive Covenantalism (my review). Though I very much appreciated both chapters (and the book as a whole), I want to respond to two shortcomings.
Category: Interactions & Quotes (page 1 of 14)
How is all of Scripture for us? Aren’t we “not under the Law”? If so, how are we to think of the moral laws in the OT that are not repeated in the New? Some argue that Christians are not under the civil and ceremonial elements of Mosaic Law but that we continue to remain under the moral commands. Though such a conclusion feels right, the problem is that Scripture does not present a threefold distinction within the Law. Given the fact, who decides which is which? In fact, what we consider moral and civil and ceremonial are all found in the same sections of Law. Rather, it appears that the Christian is not under the Mosaic Law in its totality. This is the argument of Progressive Covenantalism. But does this not result in antinomianism? Wouldn’t it mean that Christians are lawless? Stephen Wellum wants to argue that, against some critics, Progressive Covenantalists hold that “Scripture’s ethical teaching is consistent across the canon because it is grounded in God’s unchanging nature and will” (p215). Over five steps, Wellum presents a Progressive Covenantal biblical basis for ethics:
Hell is a sobering topic to say the least, but it must be studied if we want to understand God and represent His word. The time is ripe to reevaluate Scriptures’ teaching on hell since Zondervan just updated its “Views on Hell” volume. This is welcome, as the original book had a few quirks: separate chapters defending “literal” and “metaphorical” views of hell (that looked suspiciously alike), along with a Roman Catholic defense of purgatory in a book aimed for Evangelicals, and a highly-charged emotion-driven defense of Annihilationism that was more heat than light. More crucially, it had become quite dated and the discussion has moved forward significantly, with Annihilationism (aka. Conditionalism) gaining popularity and credibility, and evangelical Universalism even being on the table.
Joshua Jipp’s Christ is King has garnered much discussion and rightfully so: he argues against a common dismissal of Christ as being a royal title, by comparing ancient royal discourse (Jewish and Greco-Roman) to the writings of Paul. Along the way, he also presents some unique exegetical insights. In this post I want to present one of these insights that potentially unravels a very knotty problem: to what does Paul refer when he speaks of “The Law of Christ” (Gal 6:2; 1 Cor 9:22)?
We are working through B&H’s Perspectives on Israel and the Church: 4 Views. See my introduction and other posts in this series. This post summarizes the responds to the Progressive Covenantalist viewpoint of Tom Pratt and Chad Brand.