I just want to let you all know that I’ll be taking a time out from the blog for the next few days. My mom is visiting and we haven’t seen her since May.  She flew in from Africa (my parents are missionaries in Zambia) to be with my sister who had her gall bladder taken out a couple weeks ago. Needless to say, we’ll be spending time with her, rather than with you all. I should be back and blogging by ’bout Thursday or Friday.
I know you all are just totally devastated right now.  Well, to tide you over, I’ll post a few links here to articles worth reading. Mind you they weren’t written by me, but then again, maybe that makes them actually worth reading!
-
“A Christological Paradigm for the Rule-Maker” by Tom Pryde. This is a great article looking at what makes for a “good rule”.
-
“How I Became a Southern Baptist” by Ryan DeBarr. This is a great look at what the Southern Baptist Convention really is.
-
Mike Hess asks: “Will the real John MacArthur please stand?” Well, he doesn’t phrase it that way, but his post compares the IFBx caricature of MacArthur, with the “real McCoy”.  (or should that be “real Mac”?)
-
Matthew Richards (aka PT Barnum) suggests that Jack Schaap has been spinning yarn (yarns, really).  In other words, he contends that Dr. Schaap has been stretching the truth concerning tales of his years at Pillsbury Baptist Bible College in the 70s.
-
Speaking of yarns, Rhett Kelley corrects an almost unbelievable misrepresentation of Calvinism in his post entitled “Bus Stop Theology” .
-
Then, Rhett tackles legalism in the SBC regarding the legislation of teetotalism.
-
Finally, my pal Nathan Pitchford reflects on 18 months of
bloggingpublishing articles advancing Christ-centered Theology and Hermeneutics. And I say publishing, because his blog is more like a theological journal as far as quality goes. For a good example, check out this article he recently posted on Reformation Theology (yeah he contributes there, too) entitled “Land, Seed, and Blessing in the Abraham Covenant.” [I know, I have been pushing this article lately. So go ahead, already, give in and read it!]
I still haven’t yet read Nathan Pitchford’s article you mentioned here and elsewhere on earlier posts. I’m still reading through the main textbooks for my Dispensationalism correspondence class from Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary. I’m currently reading Renald Showers’ “There Really Is A Difference”, and I think that one of the sections in Showers’ book is relevant to Pitchford’s essay (which I believe relate to the Abrahamic Covenant). Needless to say, Showers does make a very convincing case that the Abrahamic Covenant is unconditional. Having not read Pitchford’s essay yet, I believe that he will probably discuss the Abrahamic Covenant (and probably take the position that it is a conditional covenant agreement).
Larry,
My article, which Bob is so gracious as to paint in terms that may even lead one to conclude that it might be worth reading (whether it actually is or not I will forbear to speculate), does not even address the question of whether this or any other covenant is conditional or unconditional. But I’ll touch upon my viewpoint here, so you don’t go to all the trouble of reading the article, and still fail to find what you were looking for. I believe the covenants were unilateral and inviolable, but conditional. By which I mean that, whatever the conditions were, God undertook to fulfill them himself, and so vicariously merit their promised blessings for his elect. God promised by no one other than himself, that Abraham and his seed would be God’s people — and so it will certainly happen. And yet, as we see even in the Ishamel/Isaac account, and continue to have reinforced for us throughout the history of Israel, merely being Abraham’s offspring did not make one a true child of God — for that the condition of faith was necessary. However, even this condition, God promised to fulfill in his elect, “circumcising their hearts” (Deut. 30), “writing his law on their hearts” (Jer. 33). Christ undertook to fulfill for us all of the covenant blessings, to undergo all the covenant curses, and to create a new heart of flesh (Ezek. 37) for those whom the Father had given him (John 17), so that the unilateral promise of Abraham might be fulfilled, as God sovereignly designed that it should be. Which leads to the interest point of view of Paul in Gal. 3, that the promise had only to be fulfilled to the one, singular “seed” of Abraham, Jesus Christ — and that therefore, everyone who was in Christ, was Abraham’s seed, heir of the promises, etc.
So in sum: conditional, but unilateral, by virtue of Christ’s undertaking to fulfill the conditions as a substitute/representative.
But, like I said, the article Bob mentions has little to do with that precise question.
Blessings in our Savior,
Nathan
Nathan,
Thanks for speaking up.
Larry,
Actually the thing that I like about Nathan’s article so much is how he deals with what the nature of the promises were from an OT perspective.
I plan on reading Showers’ book some time soon, and I may post a critique.
My point in bringing this article up, Larry. Is that it might open your eyes a little into some of the reasons we have for a covenant theological perspective. And it is a fairly short read. Just the first half of the article makes its most important point.
God bless you Larry. I want to send that “box” back to you soon. I’ll be emailing about that soon.
Until then,
Bob
Nathan,
Thanks for the clarification about your article. I wasn’t sure if you were about to tackle the subject on whether or not the Abrahamic covenant was conditional or unconditional. I haven’t yet finished reading Showers’ book (I’m about half way through it). I believe he was just starting to delve into whether ‘seed’ refers to the physical offspring of Israel or to OT/NT saints. I still have three more books to read before my ‘required’ reading is finished for the course, and then I should be able to read articles from covenantal viewpoints (yours included). I also have Fruchtenbaum’s, Poythress’, and MacArthur’s books & articles to read. At any rate, I’m a convinced dispensationalist who is equally Reformed soteriologically (like Ice, MacArthur, Phillips, and Phil Johnson). Have you read Showers’ book?
While perusing the ‘Great Library’ (my local Christian bookstore), I had a very interesting conversation with the assistant manager, who is also a Reformed Baptist. He takes the covenant ‘post-millennial’ preterist view. He was fair-minded and did point out some books from his persuasion (as well as the dispensational premillennialist view). That’s how I picked up MacArthur’s “The Second Coming” book, which I plan to read after I finish Showers’ book.
Larry,
Yes, I have read Shower’s book (it was one of the required books for the course I took on Dispensationalism in college, when I was likewise a Dispensationalist). By all means, give the best Dispensationalists a thorough read, but I would certainly recommend that you go on to read some good CT authors after that (as you indicated you plan on doing).
I love MacArthur and guys like him, but I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with him on that particular issue. I don’t think either of us will care too much anymore when we’re worshipping together around the throne.
I just ordered God of Promise, by Michael Horton, which is basically a brief, simple intro to CT — once I get it, I’ll have to let you know how it was. Oh, and one more thing, J.I. Packer has an excellent article on CT here — you should check that out too, when you get to your CT reading.
Oh, yes, one more thing — you absolutely have to read that portion of Reymond’s Systematic Theology in which he addresses the question of Dispensationalism. I think this article comprises that basic segment.
Bob,
Whenever I get time to catch up on blogging you always go on vacation or something!
Have a great time with family. Keep up the good work!
Nathan,
Thanks for the links to CT resources. Most of my book reading for my seminary Dispensationalism class is by Dispensational authors (Ryrie, Showers, Fruchtenbaum, and MacArthur) although Poythress’ book, “Understanding Dispensationalists” is also a required read; Poythress is CT & amillennial. Although Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary is staunchly dispensational, we do have some reading that is required by CT authors, which is a good thing. My 10-page class thesis paper will be written about the Galatians 6:16 passage, which I will research. Both Ryrie and Showers have addressed this passage in their respective books, and it appears that the hermeneutical method (historical-grammatical) that dispensationalists employ draw out the meaning in a superior manner; the CT interpretation is lacking any substantive proofs. That’s my preliminary assessment of the passage.
At any rate, I will give your comments weight and consideration, although we fundamentally disagree on our presuppositions about hermeneutics, which will affect our interpretation of prophecy passages. Although I believe that you will make a case for CT, the manner in which you employ hermeneutics is something that I am forced to dismiss, thus rejecting CT as being unbiblical. Please keep in mind that this is a secondary doctrinal matter, although important nonetheless. I should also add that this is a subject that I’m not terribly familiar with (I tend to specialize in bibliology and prefer to debate/discuss such issues in bibliology such as cessationism vs. continuationism, Inerrancy/Infallibility vs. liberalism, and KJV-onlyism), and have stated earlier that I’m not personally engaged in discussing dispensationalism vs. CT. Considering the caustic, demeaning, and otherwise rancorous attitudes that many from both sides possess, it’s weary to get involved in discussing eschatological theologies; I’m already burned out from debating overweening KJV-only fundamentalists, and sometimes the dispensationalism vs. CT debate gets equally disgusting.