EFBT: Complementarian Methodology

Date September 22, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton

My last post on motivation leads us to consider our
methodology. We claim to seek adherence to Scripture, but how are we doing
this? I’m afraid some split the Bible into “Egalitarian verses” and
“Complementarian verses.” There is no such dichotomy in Scripture. The whole of
Scripture teaches a complex, yet uniform view of how men and women can best
live lives glorifying to God.

We must allow the Bible to inform our view, not form the
Bible according to what we’d like it to teach. The Bible is our first and final
authority for theology and practice. It is first in that we must begin with
what it reveals to us before pursuing other sources of knowledge. It is final
in that if it conflicts with any other source of knowledge, the Bible wins.

So, because the Bible is of such authority, we look to it
for an explanation of the proper functions of men and women. The wrong way to
answer this question would be to pick and choose verses that we are comfortable
with, and conform the uncomfortable ones to them. Instead, we must look at the
complete testimony of Scripture on the subject and discern guiding principles
that we can apply to everyday life.

In doing this, we must begin with basic hermeneutical
principles, such as:

1)     
Scripture is a commentary unto itself.

2)     
Scripture never contradicts itself.

3)     
Clearer Scriptures should be used to interpret those that are
less clear.

Especially in this case, we must also discern between
didactic or exhortive passages and narrative or historical passages. Narrative
passages do often have the intention of instruction, but they do not usually
provide the explicit guiding principles that didactic passages do. So, in general,
we look to didactic passages that provide guidelines that should be supported,
or at least not conflicted, by narrative passages.

So here’s the method in action: The case we’ve made in
previous posts is that the Bible provides specific roles for men and women in
church and marriage. Here are a few:

•     Men
and women, though unique in many ways, are of equal value because they are made
in God’s image (Gen 1:27).

•     Husbands
are the head (authority) of their wives (1 Corinthians 11:3)

•     Husbands
are ultimately responsible for their families (Gen 3:9)

•     Wives
are to submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22)

•     Husbands
are to love their wives as Christ loved the church (Eph 5:25)

•     Women
are not to perform the role of elder, which includes teaching the Bible in the
assembled church (1 Timothy 2:11-15)

•     Elders
should be men with no more than one wife (1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6)

What about the narrative passages that give us examples of
women functioning with God’s blessing? We believe none of these passages
conflict with the above biblical principles that make up the Complementarian
position…

Judges 5:4-5- Deborah was a judge with the gift of prophecy
appointed by God whom the people of Israel sought for wisdom. Many people
believe this passage attributes political authority to Deborah, I think that’s
unclear. Regardless, I’ve seen no biblical principle restricting women from
having political authority, so this does not conflict with women not teaching
in the assembled church, nor them having ruling authority in the church
(eldership). Neither is there any restriction on women regarding the possession
of spiritual gifts. The Bible teaches that women can have (and have had) the
gift of prophecy as well as men (1 Corinthians 11:2-16). So there is nothing in
this example that conflicts with the Complementarian understanding of
Scripture.

Romans 16:1-2- Phoebe is described as a deaconess or
minister. Without getting too far off track, the office of deacon is not a
ruling office of the church; it is distinct from elder. I believe the Bible is
rather clear that women are restricted from the office of elder, but I see no
restriction against the office of deacon. Complementarians differ on this
matter, but I find Andreas Kostenberger’s reasoning compelling. (I’m not sure
what Grudem’s position is yet.)

We’ve only covered the first two chapters of Grudem’s
book. Chapters 3-13 will offer defenses of the Complementarian position against
Egalitarian objections, so I don’t want to go too far down that road at this
point. However, I hope that these examples are enough to show the
Complementarian methodology (at least how I understand it) as a sound paradigm
for understanding the complete testimony of Scripture on this matter.

Category Posted in Gender Issues, Main Page, Roger's Posts Comments 11 Comments »

Congress Agrees to New Policy and Vacation

Date September 22, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton

Unfortunately, one of the liabilities of having a blog is
that it occasionally gets spammed. In our case, we are spammed with inappropriate
trackbacks and comments on a regular basis. Such spam not only presents a bad
message to our readers, but in most cases would qualify the blog to be banned
by family safeguard programs. In an effort to quell the influx of spam
postings, the Congress of The A-Team Blog has passed new legislation effect
immediately:

1)     
All comments must be made by users who have registered on our
blog. The anonymous commenting has been deactivated. Registration is free and
does not require users to make their personal information public- in your
profile you decide what becomes public and what remains private. (Micah, you’ll
need to remember your password :))

2)     
Trackbacks are now being moderated. If you post a trackback
and don’t see it right away, don’t panic. It may be a day or two until we get
around to moderating them.

The Congress of The A-Team Blog has also petitioned for a
vacation from Gender Friday effective following tomorrow’s post. Next weekend,
The A-Team bloggers will be in Minneapolis for the Desiring God National
Convention and will be unavailable for discussing controversial posts. We’ll take
an additional week off just to have a breather from the gender topic since it’s
consumed so much of the blog in recent weeks.

Category Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts Comments No Comments »

Would Postmodernism Create a Better Society?

Date September 20, 2006 Posted by Amy Hall

A few weeks ago (yikes–has it been that long?), I promised Brian a response to his comment on my post, “Postmodernism Will Lead to Violence.”   Brian argued that there’s no way, yet, to determine which worldview (modernism or postmodernism) would be more destructive when mixed with our sinful tendencies.  However, he believes that the record of history argues against modernism (specifically, against people holding the idea that we can know and be confident about truth).

 

First, I think the root of the problems that have occurred within modernism was not that people thought they were right.  History has shown that the bad didn’t come when people thought they were right, the bad came when people were wrong about what they thought was right (how to behave, what is good, the right way to persuade, etc.).  Thinking one is right is actually neutral and can serve either good or evil.  When people were right and thought they were right, great goodness was accomplished.  I think, then, it’s a definite harm to try to get all people not to care so much about things because one then loses a strong, persevering goodness along with everything else.

 

If being wrong (about ideas and right behavior) is actually the core problem (as I’m saying it is), then without an objective, universal standard to appeal to (one that is true and that can be known), the world will be even less likely to know or care about the right way to behave, and people will drift farther and farther towards their sinful tendencies, leading to a worse world.  If the core problem is people being objectively wrong, then the solution is to persuade people of what constitutes true goodness so that society will uphold that standard through rewards and punishments. 

 

If, in contrast to this (and according to postmodern Christians), the core problem is strong beliefs, passion, and commitment stemming from the confidence that one knows what is good and true, then therefore, the solution is to quench everyone’s zeal–zeal for both good and bad–because we can’t determine what is right; therefore, better to stop everyone’s confidence just in case.  This is the reasonable conclusion if, as a postmodernist, one has given up on knowing what is good.  I’m not willing to give up the good (either on knowing it or on trying to reason with others to recognize it), and I don’t see any reason biblically to think this is the course we should take.

 

So how can we judge between these two worldviews to determine which would be more destructive when mixed with our sin?  Would one lead to a more just, good society than the other?  As I said, it depends on what is really our core problem (having wrong ideas/values or being passionate/thinking one is right) and what is the true solution for improving societal behavior (a corrective standard that can be known or a reducing of one’s confidence in knowing).

 

I can only give you this as a way to determine between the two:  First, read the Old Testament.  It is centered around God giving the Law–the standard of goodness–which He says specifically is not beyond their comprehension (Deut 30:11-14).  From that point on, the rest of the Old Testament is about the negative results that occur when the Israelites forget the standard (the truth revealed by God) and the positive results when they remember it.  Meanwhile, the prophets’ purpose is to continually call people back to the standard and to measure the nation’s behavior against it.  It does seem that God encourages confidence in a standard.

 

Then read the New Testament.  Paul seems intent on our increasing our knowledge.  He reasons with us in order to increase our confidence (1 Cor 15:1-19) and challenges us to persevere in the knowledge we have “become convinced of” (2 Tim 3:14-17) for the purpose of fulfilling the work we’ve been given to maintain the standard of truth (4:1-5).  John makes a case for the truthfulness of Christian belief (1 John 1:1-4) and shares it with us so we can know we have eternal life (5:13).  Jude even pleads with us to “contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 3).  We are specifically called to be strong in our beliefs yet to display that strength in love (1 Cor 16:13-14).  (Note that the corrective offered for the dangers of strong belief is true belief held in love, not a decrease in the strength of that belief.)

 

God thought these things were extremely important.  But where are the passages exhorting us not to believe too strongly we are right lest we cause harm?  Or those claiming (or even demonstrating) that we should not attempt rational persuasion of those who disagree?  If this were the correction we really needed, and these views would truly bring about a greater good than believing we know truth and the standard for goodness, wouldn’t God have focused on these things instead of urging us to increase our confidence and strength in His truth? 

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Philosophy Comments 27 Comments »

Book Review: Swashbuckling Faith by Tim Wesemann

Date September 19, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton

Pirates of the Caribbean, the original Disney movie, had plenty of supernatural elements to it. But is there anything we can learn from it about Christian living? In Swashbuckling Faith, former pastor Tim Wesemann contends that there are pearls of truth throughout the film worthy of our exploration.

The book contains 32 brief chapters, each a lesson using the movie’s plot as a springboard (or plank) for discussion. Each chapter begins with a “pirate’s hook,” a snapshot from the movie illustrated the pearl of truth. The topics range from honoring codes and mutiny to captains needing crews and trusting our anchor.

Perhaps my favorite treasure/lesson in the book was “One Good Deed Deserves…” In the movie, Commodore Norrington tells Jack, “One good deed is not enough to redeem a man of a lifetime of wickedness.” Wesemann pillages this spiritual truth wonderfully: “Maybe a better question is whether one good act should redeem us from a lifetime of iniquity.” (30)

With almost any book of this nature, one appropriately expects a certain amount of cheesiness. While there are cheesy elements in Swashbuckling Faith (such as the JSV Bible translation- Jack Sparrow Version), it’s kept at an appropriate level without going too far over board. Tim Wesemann is a poetic writer who skillfully navigates the deeper waters of living faith. Avast me heartys, this be a fun and practical read whether yer landlubbin or out to sea. Now, bring me that horizon…

Category Posted in Book Reviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts Comments No Comments »

Shiver me timbers, it be Talk Like a Pirate Day!

Date September 19, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton

On one glorious day a yeer, we resign all forms of proper speech fer that of the pirate. It be International Talk Like a Pirate Day! Mateys, if ye not lookin' to spend eternity in Davy Jones' locker, ye best brush up on yer pirate talk!

Here be the official site: TalkLikeaPirate.com
A better treasure: The British Site

Fer those who be lackin in pirate talkin skills, watch this here video:

Video made and hosted by: LoadingReadyRun.com.

Category Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts Comments 4 Comments »

EFBT: Complementarian Motivation

Date September 16, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton

Thus far we’ve provided a positive case for the
Complementarian view of biblical manhood and womanhood through summarizing
Wayne Grudem’s arguments in Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth.
Over the course of the past five posts, some questions have been raised as to
Grudem’s (and, in general, complementarians’) motivations for making these
arguments. Specifically, he has been charged with being “power-hungry” and
“politically manipulative;” as well as “divisive and coercive.”

This is a common liberal strategy for dismissing arguments
instead of thinking critically about them: label someone or their view with
derogatory terms and it is then no longer necessary to deal their arguments.
(Not that conservatives do not occasionally use this strategy, but it is far
more common from the liberal side.) Along those lines, most accusations about
power grabs betray a postmodern/liberal worldview.

Beyond being a dismissive rhetorical strategy, these sorts
of accusations reflect moral deficiency. As Christians, we are called to love
each other (John 13:34-35) and be reconciled to one another (2 Corinthians
5:20), but accusations such as these reflect neither love nor a concern for
unity within the Body of Christ. Some time ago I posted some guidelines for
discussing the emerging church. These standards ought really apply to every
conversation between Christians, especially this one.

So what are Grudem’s motivations? What are we
complementarians really up to? The clearest motivation is for men and women
to find joy and harmony by living in adherence to Scripture. Take these quotes for
example:

“I hope this book will enable women to rejoice once again
that God has made them women, and men to rejoice once again that God has made
them men. I hope that we will be able to look at each other once again as
brothers and sisters in God’s family and feel something of the joy that God
felt just after He first created us male and female (Gen 1:31)” Grudem in EFBT,
page 19.

“We want to help Christians recover a noble vision of
manhood and womanhood as God created them to be…

We hope that thousands of Christian women who read this book
will come away feeling affirmed and encourage to participate much more actively
in many ministries, and to contribute their wisdom and insight to the family
and the church. We hope they feel fully equal to men in status before
God, and in importance to the family and the church. We pray that, at the same
time, this vision of equality and complementarity will enable Christian women
to give wholehearted affirmation to Biblically balanced male leadership in the
home and in the church…

If that happens, then perhaps the path will be opened for
clearing away much confusion, for diffusing much frustration over male-female
relationships, and for healing many of the heartaches that smolder deep without
direction on how to understand our wonderful gift of sexual complementarity.”
Grudem & Piper in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, page
xiv. The entire page is worth reading (it is the first book listed).

“The subtitle of this little book is ‘Manhood and Womanhood
Defined According to the Bible.’ What this means is that I have made
every effort to bring the thinking of this book into accord with what the Bible
teaches.” Piper in What’s the Difference? Page 14.

In EFBT, Grudem stresses that this is an issue of obedience
to the Bible: “In this generation, one of those tests is whether we will be
faithful to God in the teaching of His Word on matters of manhood and
womanhood… Today, by the controversy over manhood and womanhood, God is testing
all of His people, all of His churches. The egalitarian alternative would be
easy to adopt in today’s culture, and it can appear on the surface to make so
little difference. But will we remain faithful to the Word of God?” Grudem in EFBT,
page 56.

In a sense, this is about power. The Complementarian view is
an attempt to submit to the powerful authority of God’s Word. We see ourselves
recognizing God’s standards over our culture’s. Wise wives are called to live
in submission to responsible husbands who love their wives just as Christ loved
the church. Neither role is easy, but that is God’s standard for us.

I was going to continue by explaining Complementarian
methodology, but I’ve taken up enough space as it is. So that will be my next
post…

Category Posted in Gender Issues, Main Page, Roger's Posts Comments 12 Comments »

Book Review: Is the Bible Intolerant? By Amy Orr-Ewing

Date September 15, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton

The past few centuries of criticizing the Bible has resulted
in a culture that generally mistrusts the authenticity and authority of the
Bible. Even many Christians are willing to accept that the Bible contains
errors. This mistrust is often a stumbling block in evangelism since the Gospel
depends on the Bible being God’s inspired Word. In Is the Bible Intolerant?
apologist Amy Orr-Ewing tackles the ten most common objections to the Bible.

Mrs. Orr-Ewing begins with the most postmodern objection-
“Isn’t it all a matter of interpretation?” She analyzes contemporary language
(mostly through Foucault) and describes reader responsibility through proper
interpretation. The next challenge addressed is similar- whether history is
something we create or something we learn. 

These two issues set the foundation for directly addressing
the Bible. Mrs. Orr-Ewing looks at whether the biblical manuscripts are
reliable, whether their content is reliable, why we hold only to the
traditional 66 books of the Bible, and how the Bible compares to the scriptures
of Islam and Hinduism. She also looks at the Bible’s view of women, war, and
sex. The final chapter asks the question: “How can I know?” After sharing her
testimony, she explains that we can know Jesus because God has revealed Him to
us.

There are a couple of points that detract from this
otherwise great book. One is that readers unfamiliar with the philosophic
discussion of postmodernism will likely not easily grasp some of the points in
the first chapter on matters of language. Apart from the section, though, the
book is incredibly beginner friendly. The other point is that in her discussion
on the Bible’s view of women, Amy Orr-Ewing offers some less than accurate
portrayals of the biblical data and contemporary views of it. For example, she
states “God is predominantly spoken of with male imagery.”(97) This is a real
understatement since the Bible describes God with more than just male imagery;
it describes Him with male language almost universally.

These points are small exceptions to a book that does
an excellent job introducing readers to a variety of issues while providing
helpful answers to difficult questions. Weighing in at only 127 pages, Is
the Bible Intolerant? should be the first choice for those seeking quick
answers about challenges against the Bible.

Category Posted in Apologetics, Book Reviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts Comments 3 Comments »

A Greater Good than Peace

Date September 11, 2006 Posted by Amy Hall

Today you're likely to hear stories of evil, suffering, and death–stories of such enormous sorrow and power that they seem to engulf the smaller vignettes of goodness, bravery, and self-sacrifice.  I know that God is good and that therefore goodness will prevail over evil…at least, I know this in my head.  The level of my heart's comprehension of this varies.  Sometimes it just seems like goodness is powerless when up against evil–not only in large issues like terrorism, but in every place where our sins corrupt even the simplest bit of goodness, truth, or beauty in this world.  All it takes is a little leaven to leaven the whole lump of dough, as they say.  Even with a thousand people working for good (as I know so many of you are), it only takes one action or idea by another to destroy all they worked for.  If nothing in this world can escape corruption, how does good prevail?  I can't even keep the wildflowers my roommate and I planted and nurtured (a small good that yet brings joy) from being destroyed by those tiny, accursed, death-bearing bugs!

 

As I was struggling through this last week, I happened to be reading in 2 Chronicles 15 about the Israelites who were wandering from God and living in a world of constant war and death:

 

In those times there was no peace to him who went out or to him who came in, for many disturbances afflicted all the inhabitants of the lands.  Nation was crushed by nation, and city by city, for God troubled them with every kind of distress. 

 

Why did God do this?  The answer is in verses 3-4 (emphasis mine): 

 

For many days Israel was without the true God and without a teaching priest and without law.  But in their distress they turned to the God of Israel, and they sought Him, and He let them find Him.

 

God had a purpose for “troubling them with every kind of distress”–and He still does.  It was not that evil was overcoming good in the lives of the Israelites; instead, God was bringing distress to bring about a greater good than peace–the repentance and turning of the people to Himself. 

 

A relationship with God is our ultimate good–better than health, or prosperity, or a pain-free life, or even life itself.  But it's easy to wander alone forever amongst the latter unless we're jolted into seeking the former.  God wants more for us than we want for ourselves, and so He brings suffering into our lives as “a severe mercy” (as Sheldon Vanauken called it), taking sometimes even what we love most, and giving to us instead what He knows is the greatest good–Himself.

 

Whenever suffering comes your way–especially when it comes as you're serving God, respond quickly to this opportunity to draw closer to Him, driven by the conviction that you will know Him, love Him, and trust Him far more deeply when it's all over.  Be encouraged by the words of verse two:  “If you seek Him, He will let you find Him,” and remember the closing exhortation of the 2 Chronicles passage:  “But you, be strong and do not lose courage, for there is reward for your work.” 

 

Persevere even when you feel small and overwhelmed by those who oppose you.  You will not be alone, “for the eyes of the Lord move to and fro throughout the earth that He may strongly support those whose heart is completely His” (2 Chronicles 16:9).

 

[For more on suffering, please see a short series of posts I did last year on suffering for God's glory, accepting suffering from God, and the fruit of suffering.]

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Miscellaneous, Theology Comments No Comments »

EFBT 2.2: Men and Women in Ministry

Date September 9, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton

Chapter 1 Summary: The Complementarian Position (Roger)
Chapter 2.1 Summary: Men and Women in the Church (Roger)
An Argument for Hierarchy (Amy)
Biblical Hierarchy in Marriage (Amy)

For those who don’t know, this book (Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth) is available for free
online in PDF form. It would be particularly helpful for this post to read
Grudem’s actual text (Chapter 2 Section 8) since he provides lists I’ll be
referring to but not reproducing.

In my summary of the first half of the chapter, I quoted
Grudem noting different dispositions between men and women in relation to
logical analysis and nurturing (see discussion of 1 Timothy 2:11-15). One
commenter went on a rant that women are “less rational than men” (a gross mischaracterization of what Grudem claimed).  I’d like to
reply with another quote to clarify Grudem’s position (as well as mine). “To say
this is not to say that men are better than women or that women are inferior to
men. That would be contrary to the entire biblical testimony. But if in fact
God has created us to be different, then it is inevitable that women will be
better at some things (in general) and men will be better at other things (in
general).” (72).

Section 8 asks the question, “But what should women
do in the church?” To help answer the question Grudem distinguishes between
three areas of church ministry: governing authority, Bible teaching, and public
recognition or visibility. Under each heading he provides a list of possible
functions that should either be restricted to men or should be open to both men
and women. These functions are ranked quantitatively. For example, under
governing authority “President of a denomination” is ranked higher than “Church
treasurer.” Grudem gives a word of caution” “These lists are not rankings of
value or importance to the church! Paul tells us that all members of the body
are needed and that ‘the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are
indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we
bestow greater honor’ (1 Corinthians 12:22-23)” (85)

Applying the principles discerned from Scripture earlier in
the book, Grudem sees that being the head of regional and local groups
(denominations/churches) ought to be restricted to men. However, being a
chairperson on a local committee and anything of lesser authority should be
open to both genders. For him, women should not be permanent leaders of
fellowship groups meeting homes, but they can moderate “a Bible discussion in a
home Bible study group.” (94) Certainly a thin line there!

In application of Bible teaching Grudem draws the line
between teaching adults (restricted beginning at college age) and teaching
children (open through high school). He sees women as restricted from “teaching
Bible or theology” at seminary or Christian college, but not at secular
institutions. According to Grudem, women ought not be restricted from writing
or editing study Bibles, biblical commentaries and notes, or books on theology.
This appears to me to be blatantly inconsistent. What authoritative or instructive difference is
there really between teaching Bible at a Christian college and writing the commentary
that’s used in the college? In my opinion, it should all
be open or all be restricted in order to be consistant (I lean toward open).

Only one function under public visibility should be
restricted to men, according to Grudem- the ordaining of a pastor. He believes
women ought to be able to perform baptisms, serve the Lord’s Supper, take
offering, and read Scripture publicly.

I’ve specifically chosen examples that would be more
controversial among complementarians. It’s important to note that in most of
these cases, the Bible does not make a clear statement either way. We must
infer the right decision based on the broad principles it does establish. Due
to this circumstance, we often find disagreements on these particular issues
among those of us who agree with the broader principles. We’re all still
complementarians, though we apply the principles differently.

Category Posted in Gender Issues, Main Page, Roger's Posts Comments 24 Comments »

Book Review: God of Promise by Michael Horton

Date September 6, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton

The Bible is replete with references to covenants, but how
are we to understand them? What does it mean for created man to be in a
covenant relationship with the Almighty God? How can understanding the biblical
covenants impact our understanding of Scripture? Dr. Michael Horton seeks to
answer these questions and more in his new book, God of Promise: Introducing
Covenant Theology.

Dr. Horton begins in the first chapter by looking at the big
picture of covenant thinking and why it matters. According to him, our
understanding is important because “God’s very existence is covenantal” and “we
were not just created and then given a covenant; we were created as
covenant creatures.” (10) Chapter two looks more directly at Scripture by
comparing Old Testament covenants with some secular covenants contemporary to
them (known as suzerain treaties). From the Old Testament, Dr. Horton draws out
two types of covenants and explores them in his third chapter: covenants of works
and covenants of grace.

Following the examination of covenants in the Old Testament,
Dr. Horton looks to the New Covenant noting that it is entirely distinct from
the previous Sinai covenant. After the foundation work in the Bible is done,
chapter five moves the discussion to systematic theology by considering the
larger categories of the covenants of redemption, creation, and grace. In the
sixth chapter, Dr. Horton explores themes of common grace from free will to how
Christians are to view their place on Earth.

Finally in chapter seven, covenant theology is compared
against its main theological competitor (dispensational theology) and looks at
the relationship between Israel and the Church. The eighth chapter explores
baptism and the Lord’s Supper as signs and seals of the New Covenant. In the
final chapter, Dr. Horton distinguishes between different understandings of
biblical law in order to explain Christian obedience under the New Covenant.

As much as I agree with Dr. Horton on the major issues and
mostly enjoyed the book, there were a number of issues that detracted from its
quality. On at least point, Dr. Horton’s position is unclear, and at worst
inconsistent. On one hand he affirms that those in the New Covenant are true
believers-“There are real partners in this covenant (God with believers and
their children)” (105), but on the other he asserts, “not everyone in the
covenant of grace is elect.” (182) Another problem is that on a few occasions
(pages 105, 131, 167, 182) he references children as members of the New
Covenant, with the implication that they are eligible for the sacrament of
baptism, but never supports this idea. Since infant baptism is a contentious
issue among Reformed believers, he should have at least attempted to make a
case for it.

A common criticism of theological discussion these days is
that it’s not practical. Following the principle that good practice is built
upon sound theology, Dr. Horton had a great opportunity to make the book
incredibly practical in the last chapter by explaining specifically what laws
Christians ought to view as guidelines. Unfortunately, his (worthwhile)
discussion remained abstract and readers will have to do their own work to
figure out what use it has for Christian living.

Though the book is an introduction to covenant
theology, it is more academic in nature, so readers would do well to have some
theological experience. However, God of Promise fulfills a substantial
need in our Reformed libraries. Very few books address the system of covenant
theology directly, and Michael Horton is likely the best contemporary
theologian to do so. God of Promise is a valuable resource for those seeking to
understand the picture of biblical teaching and the resulting categories of
Reformed theology.

Category Posted in Book Reviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology Comments 1 Comment »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »