The battle between Covenant Theology (CT) and Dispensational Theology (DT) is notoriously intense and shows no signs of calming down. Over time, however, the emergence of mediating positions has blurred the sharp distinction. On such “via media” is dubbed Progressive Covenantalism, first articulated in Kingdom Through Covenant (KTC). This new book, Progressive Covenantalism, is considered “a continuation of KTC” (p4) by consisting of essays collected from like-minded scholars that address issues “underdeveloped and not discussed” (p4) in KTC.
As I sit down to write this review, I can hear the words ringing in my head, “another commentary series?” Or maybe, “another review defending the existence of another commentary series?”. The answers to these questions are yes and yes. However, I admit I too have skepticism of my own when I hear of a new commentary series being launched, but in the case of the new Biblical Theology for Christian Proclamation series, and Thomas Schreiner’s flagship Hebrews commentary in particular, I can say that my hesitations were quickly dispelled.
In Perspectives of Our Struggle with Sin, Stephen J. Chester argues for a “Retrospective View” of Romans 7. That is, Paul is reflecting on his experience as a Pharisaical Jew before he placed his faith in Christ.
Romans chapter 7 is a treasured section of a treasured letter. The depiction of Paul in turmoil, struggling to honor God’s Law stands as a comforting testament to the plight that every believer faces. Or does it? What if this is not the correct interpretation? In teaching through Romans, I get the twisted joy of ruining this passage for my students! Not really; in fact, that’s exactly what I try to avoid doing to them. However, it’s unavoidable that they would be unsettled a little when a beloved text is challenged. What is really going on here? In the next few posts, we will use B&H’s Perspectives of Our Struggle with Sin as our guide to interpretations of this knotty chapter. In this post, I will introduce the options and the scholars that argue for them.