Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture

by Brent E. Parker (Editor), Richard J. Lucas (Editor)

How does the canon of Scripture fit together? For evangelical Christians, there is no question about the authority of Scripture and its testimony to the centrality of Jesus Christ in God's salvation plan. But several questions remain: How do the Old Testament and New Testament relate to each other? What is the relationship among the biblical covenants? How should Christians read and interpret Scripture in order to do justice to both its individual parts and its whole message? How does Israel relate to the church? In this volume in IVP Academic's Spectrum series, readers will find four contributors who explore these complex questions. The contributors each make a case for their own view―representing two versions of covenantal theology and two versions of dispensational theology―and then respond to the others' views to offer an animated yet irenic discussion on the continuity of Scripture. Views and Contributors:

Covenant Theology: Michael S. Horton, Gresham Machen Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics, Westminster Seminary California
Progressive Covenantalism: Stephen J. Wellum, professor of Christian theology, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Progressive Dispensationalism: Darrell L. Bock, Senior Research Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary
Traditional Dispensationalism: Mark A. Snoeberger, professor of systematic theology and apologetics, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary

Genres: Theology, Christian, Old Testament, New Testament, Biblical Studies

266 pages, Paperback

Published February 8, 2022

Reviews

[Kirk Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

I received an advanced copy of this book from the editors in request for a review.

The editors did a great job. Their introduction gives a solid primer of the views and helpfully situates the reader to the primary issues at stake in this debate.

They also picked a top roster to represent each view:
• Covenant Theology – Michael Horton.
• Progressive Covenantalism – Stephen Wellum.
• Progressive Dispensationalism – Darrell Bock.
• Traditional Dispensationalism – Mark Snoeberger.

This is an all-star list of contributors for each of these views, and very likely my top choice for each, if I was to make the selections.

For my FULL REVIEW of this volume as well as TWO PODCAST INTERVIEWS with the editors, see here: https://kirkmillerblog.com/tag/views-...

[Todd Miles · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good book that does exactly what it sets out to do. Excellent selection of contributors as each is an able representative of their respective positions. I would love to hear further discussion between Bock and Wellum.

[Benaya Keppler · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eine spannende Diskussion von vier Vetretern unterschiedlicher theologischer Systeme. Der traditionelle Dispensationalist ist definitiv der "odd one out", die wirklich interessanten Argumentationen finden sich also eher unter den anderen drei Vertretern. Eine lohnenswerte Lektüre, vor allem wenn man Menschen besser verstehen will, die eine andere Position als einer selbst haben (außer beim klassischen Dispensationalismus, der erscheint mir nach der Lektüre sogar noch viel fragwürdiger).

[Karsten Harrison · Rating 4 out of 5]

If I were a Biblical Theology professor, Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture would be on the assigned reading list, especially for undergraduate Bible college students.

This is an excellent book that accomplishes it’s goal: setting forth the competing theological views on Scriptural continuity of our day and pitting their respective advocates against one another. The objective of the books is to provide an overview of the different positions, and it accomplishes this task successfully. Editors Brent Parker and Richard Lucas worked to gather leaders of each position and had them (1) explain their position and (2) refute opposing positions. Michael Horton discussed the Covenantal perspective; Stephen Wellum discussed the Progressive Covenantal perspective; Darrell Bock discussed the Progressive Dispensational perspective; and Mark Snoeberger discussed the Traditional Dispensational Perspective. The contributors each gave substantial dialogue to their position, although I found Snoeberger to be lacking when compared to the competition.


Overall, this is a well-composed, introductory book that puts readers into the heat of the debate, allowing them to get a broad understanding of the contemporary positions and how they differ from each other.

[Christian Barrett · Rating 5 out of 5]

The peaceful nature of the four view books makes them worth while to have in the collection of any pastor. This work provides faithful representation of all four arguments by having proponents of each defend their position. The critique and dialogue throughout the book provides great interaction for those who want to know more about the differing positions. The helpful charts throughout are a great resource in and of themselves.

[Zach Forehand · Rating 5 out of 5]

“I’ll take anything but Traditional Dispensationalism for $500, Alex.”

All jokes aside, this was a great read! I learned a lot, and every author made me think critically as they presented their respective views.

[Philip Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thoroughly enjoyed this. I hold to Progressive Covenantalism (Wellum) but found myself enthusiastically nodding along with good amount of what Horton had to say also. The wild card for me was Bock, who refreshingly conceded some of the obviously biblical points that the covenantal world latches onto. For example: "Some contend Paul does extend the "Israelite" metaphor of people here to include the Gentiles from here on in in Romans 9-11. One can speak of a "new" Israel conceived of as the people of God in continuity with Israel and her hope. ...I prefer this option, given texts like Galatians 3, 1 Peter 2, and Philippians 3:3. ...There also is a new entity God has created in the new man, the incorporation of Jew and Gentile in Christ, but those in the new man, are also connected to what Israel was to be, is, and one day will be. They can be said to belong to her as the ancestral roots and model for the people of God. In this sense they can be called Israel..."" Unreal. Was stoked to read it. I think Snoeberger was dead wrong, but I appreciate that he was attempting to logically stick to his premises consistently. In my opinion his take on the church and new covenant is nothing short of shocking.

[Samuel Barcelo · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was the most helpful book I’ve read on the subject to date. Highly recommend for anyone trying to understand some of the main systems developed for putting the biblical story together.

[Tanner Howard · Rating 5 out of 5]

Greatly helpful. Bock was wonderful. Wellum was great. Horton was good. Snoeberger was a dingus.

[Joel Opificius · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5. This is perhaps one of the best 4 views books that I have read. Each of the contributors are probably the best pick for their view. They each represented their case clearly. They also clearly explained the similarities and differences between the different views. There was generally good interaction in the response chapters. It seems that some misunderstanding occurred between some of the views (as is natural in these books), but much less than usually happens in these books. It seemed to me that the two most persuasive views in this book were Progressive Covenantalism (Wellum) and Progressive Dispensationalism (Bock). I would love to see more interaction between these two in the future, and it seems they both would like to as well. Personally, I am more convinced of Bock’s position.

I would have liked to see more Scriptural argumentation from Horton on why we can see covenants where the biblical authors do not explicitly recognize them. His view seems to put a structure over Scripture rather than read it by its own terms. His defense of paedobaptism is lacking, using texts such as Joel 2:28, which does not have any connection to baptism or circumcision. Ultimately, I find Horton’s argument to be the weakest in the book due to lack of solid, biblical arguments. Yet, Horton is the only contributor that mentioned Galatians 4; a passage which I hoped the others would have talked about.

Wellum did a great job at presenting covenants as the Bible does. He is one of my favorite systematic theologians. But while I highly respect Wellum and his view, I think he had the shallowest response chapter of the four contributors. It seems that many of his arguments in his response chapter went along the lines of “The problem with _______’s view is that he does not emphasize what I emphasize/hold my exact presuppositions or views” and “It seems that _____ misrepresented me because I do not like his critique.” His responses were generally more rhetorical than logical. Thus, he did not seem to present as rigorous interaction with the other views as the other contributors did.

Bock did a great job presenting both Israel and the Church as important parts of God’s redemptive plan; neither of them are a “parenthesis.” I expected the complementary hermeneutic to be the most problematic aspect of this view, however, he did an excellent job at explaining and defending it. Bock seems to be able to take both OT and NT at face value authorial intent. I would have, however, appreciated a thorough discussion on Romans 9–11. On a side note, I think there is need for a book on this view that is more accessible to the layperson. Such a book exists for the other three; but not for this view.

Snoeberger made a good argument by following the metanarrative through the biblical texts. But where I think his argument falls short is his notion that the new covenant is not for the church, but for Israel. He seems also to simply pass off strong intertestamental connections as mere allusions or analogies.

This is a helpful book for those who want to understand more about these views. However, I would not recommend this book for those who are completely unfamiliar with the debate. With all the various views and arguments about hermeneutics, some could potentially come away from the book thinking that the Bible cannot possibly be understood today. That is not a result of the work of this book directly, but simply the nature of the debate at hand. The contributors are all evangelically sound and have much in common outside of this debate. The conclusion collects all the information for a succinct comparison of all four views. Kudos to the editors on a fine job.

[Landon Coleman · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a helpful summary of covenant theology (Horton), progressive covenantalism (Wellum), progressive dispensationalism (Bock), and dispensational theology (Snoeberger). The response essays at the end are particularly helpful. I found Wellum's position most convincing from a biblical and theological perspective. Practically, I felt like Wellum and Bock had better interaction with the biblical text as well as with their fellow contributors, while Horton and Snoeberger presented a theological system and talked past their fellow contributors.

[James Hogan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Where do I begin with this one. Firstly, an acknowledgement and a confession that I'm not sure how comprehensive or fair of a review this will be. I approached this book as one who has been challenged to come to a better understanding of the structural framework of Scripture and the various approaches that have been heralded throughout the years. I am not one that has done a great deal of study on this myself, so my knowledge is limited. From that perspective, this book was perfect, as it could be called a survey of four of the dominant views. We have 4 authors from the various camps lay out arguments for their case and then each of them takes a turn at disputing the other 3 authors' cases. So for someone who has a basic understanding of the covenantal/dispensational disputes, this book was a helpful book to deepen my knowledge. But. Of course there's a but coming. But the primary takeaway I have from this book is how little I know and understand. And it is with deep sighs that I realize I need to do a great deal more study (involving reading of much thicker books and much more study of Scripture) to more fully grasp the issues involved in this debate. And it is a debate. I have long been a bit wary about wading too much in the covenant v. dispensational waters because...as I always thought, what does it truly matter? Yes, it is important to understand how our biblical hermeneutics influence our understanding of Scripture as well as understanding how our understanding of Scripture influences our biblical hermeneutics! And yes, as those who believe in the authority and inerrancy of the Scriptures, should I not want to know what God is communicating to his people and what his plan for his creation truly is? (I almost said "what God's plan for his people truly is", but after reading this book realized how careful I need to be with my words!) So I do believe it is important to study these matters. I also don't believe it's a top-tier issue though. I have brothers and sisters who believe all four of these views and having a right understanding of these things has no bearing whatsoever on one's salvation and position before God. So. With all that being said, how did I find this book and was it helpful to read? I believe it was indeed helpful and I'm glad I read it. I now have a fuller and deeper understanding of the dominant views and how they influence one's thoughts on various subjects(world/church/Israel/salvation/God). My background and bias leans toward the dispensational side but I have always thought that I was not a strict dispensationalist (which reading this book confirmed) so I expected I would line up most closely with the progressive dispensationalist viewpoint. I believe I still probably do believe this is the position best supported by the Scriptures, but could I be wrong? Absolutely. Like I said previously, reading this book prodded me into realizing how much more serious study I need to do to have a serious and grounded conviction in these matters. I will say that all 4 authors were formidable writers and polemicists, but what I found fascinating is I felt the clearest and most concise arguments were put forth by the far ends of the debate. Horton's covenantal position and Snoeberger's traditional dispensationalist position were both laid out and presented in a way that I found easy to track with and understand. I felt a little more muddled reading Wellum's and Bock's chapters. But I suppose that could be because as the "intermediate" views, Bock and Wellum had the harder task of reconciling disparate parts of the theological tradition. Still, I would not want to debate Snoeberger, even though I disagreed with a few of his hermeneutical stances. Horton's portrayal of covenant theology was vibrant and winsome and if I was to "pick a position" purely on attractiveness alone, it would be this one. Alas, I don't believe strict covenant theology is supported by Scripture as much as Horton and other covenant theologians believe it is. And yes, I'm aware I'm going against many brilliant and godly minds with this belief! I did appreciate that all of these men take Scripture seriously and are firmly in the traditional evangelical tradition - longing to glorify God and understand His ways and point all men towards Christ. While I didn't come away from this book with any firm convictions on my stance in this debate, I did come away from this book humbled. How little do I know and how much do I have to learn! And how rich is the Word of God and how grand is the mind of God! Lofty are His ways and beautiful is His love towards those who fear Him! I think all in this debate could agree with that. All to the glory of God, for now and forever, Amen.

[Stephen Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

Five stars because a lot of the major issues are crystallized in this book. Definitely a good resource to get a lay of the land for putting the Bible together. Some notes:

- Horton did a fine job with the covenantal position, his idiosyncrasies notwithstanding. The Law/Gospel paradigm is mostly effective at setting the table for the covenants of works and grace. His presentation is probably the most high-level of the four, which is fine but leaves something to be desired when the others go into more specific details.
- Wellum is a very effective communicator of his position. Honestly, his defense of the covenant of works may be more effective than Horton's though his systematic formulation is different. Also, his rebuttals section is probably the highlight of the book.
- Bock is also effective at presenting progressive dispensationalism, but at the end of the day it seems like a "have your cake and eat it too" system with significant question begging. This is most clear in the handling of the New Covenant and Ezekiel 40-48. Also, didn't like his hostile tone in discussing the other positions. Wellum engages a little bit in this way in discussing Snoeberger's position as well to be fair, though historical theology provides some warrant for his incredulity.
- Snoeberger's essay is extremely helpful because it is so honest. While some dispensationalists hide some of the more uncomfortable parts of their system, Snoeberger owns them and takes Bock to task for not doing the same. There is nearly complete disdain for the historical fathers and mothers of the faith. The church/Gentiles have no legal participation in the New Covenant and actually don't take part in any covenant. The Mosaic temple service and its Mosaic sacrifices will continue as before in the Millennium.
- Bock's basis for rejecting the covenant of works is so boring and simplistic. Deal with the actual arguments or don't bring it up at all. Wellum also brings up the interesting point that Bock doesn't start the biblical story in Genesis 1-3 but rather picks up with Abraham. This is a really interesting point. I'd be interested to know how other dispensationalists deal with the first chapters of Genesis, because that may contribute to a weak anthropology due to a preoccupation with Israel.
- Bock did a great service by distinguishing between the Jewish people and national Israel, though he doesn't maintain this distinction into his responses. Horton picks up on this oft-neglected but important distinction as well.
- Wellum does an excellent job dealing with the "supersessionist" accusation that you can always count on like clockwork. Despite popular opinion, most current non-dispensationalists do not think that God is "finished" with the Jewish people. What they do believe is that the national form, including its structure and temple cult as it was in the OT, has been abrogated due to fulfillment or inaugurated fulfillment in Christ. The Jewish people will continually be saved by the Lord and receive all that they have been promised. Only by arguing that the Jewish people are indistinguishable from their national form can you maintain that anyone who disagrees with you on Israel holds to some "replacement" theology. I'm sure there are actual people who hold to replacement theology, but it's such a lazy rejoinder in most cases at this point that it should really be retired.
- The accusation that non-dispensationalists necessarily undermine how God works with nations is so ahistorical it honestly shouldn't even need a response. As Wellum rightly says, this charge merely amounts to saying that if you don't agree with dispensationalists on Israel then you're a Platonist and spiritualizing texts or other such nonsense. Some historical theology is desperately needed.

[Nathan Fisher · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a phenomenal work that lays out the 4 dominant views of the covenants. Each view writes an essay explaining their view and also a response to each other view. I believe the Covenantal, PC, and PD views made a great case for their specific interpretations and revealed a lot common ground between them. I thought that the Snoeberger was confusing in his explanation of the TD framework and was uncharitable to the other views in his initial essay (although was much more charitable in his response). This book cleared up a lot of confusions I had about the approach each view takes, specifically separating the views I had the previously conflated: the PD and TD views. I personally think Wellum gives the best defense and response and would align myself in the PC camp. However, the Covenantal and PD views do raise good questions against the PC framework that are hard to answer. I would highly recommend to anyone curious about the different views on the covenantal frameworks or anyone curious about Biblical Theology. I think this will become the go-to book for both lay people and seminarians who are being introduced to these topics as the contents are easy to digest. A work like that gets all the views in the same room and talking to each other like this is much needed. I’m hopeful for future works that carry on this same spirit.

[Hunter Maggert · Rating 5 out of 5]

Holy smokes. I don’t think I’ve ever learned more from a single book on theology than this one.
The editors have compiled four different POV’s on the continuity of the OT and NT as well as the relationship between Israel and the church.
Everything in this work is top notch, from the physical quality of the paper and type-setting to the argumentation and critical thinking of each contributor in both their essays and responses. After reading it I heavily lean towards the progressive covenantal view and will be checking out Kingdom Through Covenant by Dr. Wellum.
I will say, I found the traditional dispensationalist view to be egregiously flawed, contradictory, and nearly hostile towards clear biblical truths regarding how Jesus and the apostles interpret and explain the Old Testament.
His reduction of many NT fulfillments of the OT as simple “analogy” is downright heretical and contrary to Paul’s plain meaning.
However, I learned from every contributor and I really enjoyed the way I was challenged and stretched in my thinking, especially in having to consider my hermeneutic more deeply than ever before. I will absolutely be reading more of this series!

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Helpful summaries of the main views along the spectrum of covenant theology to dispensationalism (with progressive covenantalism and progressive dispen. in between), moving from most continuity to least between the OT & NT. The dispen. positions were unsurprisingly unconvincing so really it was only the first two views that held any water. First view could've done with the caveat that some covenant theologians differ on how they see the sinai cov [being a cov of grace/republication of the cov of works- Horton's view I think]. Good to have mutual critiques at the end, and a summary table of the hermeneutics/theology of the different positions. Goes to show how much your hermeneutics/how you put the Bible together affects your views on so many issues! PC sounded the most convincing but need to read Kingdom through Covenant now!

[Kevin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Probably 3.5 stars. It informed me on present verbiage and arguments. The thing is that there can be a lot of nuances within different positions, especially TD. The PC and PD positions are closest to having their standard bearers present them. I didn’t know much about PC. I learned a lot about it. I see significant flaws, but would like to read more on it. All four writers will give you something to think about and will especially be beneficial to anyone that is open-minded. I am comfortably TD, but I thought Bock probably shared his PD position the best. He also had some savage lines in his comments about CT. I am the most familiar with his writings. I would like to read more from Wellum and Snoeberger. I found that I have the least in common with Horton and his covenant position.

[Michael Jeffries · Rating 5 out of 5]

This volume from the Four Views series interested me because of its sections containing Covenant/Reformed Theology and Progressive Covenantalism, two views I’m studying currently. The whole book is fascinating and the essayists do a good job communicating their views succinctly and defend them.

[Justin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really good stuff. Wellum’s arguments are the strongest in my opinion. Horton leaves a lot to be desired in advocating for covenant theology.

[Connor Moore · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book. Still confused though. Worth reading and referencing over a lifetime.

[Hector Candelaria · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a pastor, it has always been a challenge for me to enter the discussion of systems of continuity and discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments. Because, either the discussions are so extensive or so academic that they have overwhelmed me in the past. But this book “Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four views on the Continuity of Scripture” has changed all that.

As a Baptist, I knew Covenant Theologians had arguments to baptize babies, I just didn’t understand the whole system. I needed someone to give it to me in a nutshell. And I have to say that, in my opinion, Michael Horton has developed his views on Covenant Theology that is understandable for pastors like me, but that maintains a high academic standard. I can't say I uphold his view, but I have a better appreciation for it and much respect because covenant theologians indeed try to keep a consistent argument on how the whole Bible is to be viewed.

As for the second chapter I cannot hide it, I identify, and I am biased towards the Progressive Covenantal view. My first interaction with this view was with the book “Progressive Covenentalism” edited by Stephen Wellum and Brent E. Parker. This book gave me the taste for Progressive Covenentalism but still with not knowing how the whole system ties together. Because, to tell you the truth, even though I do have in my possession “Kingdom Through Covenant” written by Stephen Wellum and Peter Gentry, it’s a massive book with many details to cover for the whole system. Again, as a Pastor, it has been a little overwhelming for me, but I want to finish the book (KTC). So, when I began reading the Covenant and Dispensational Theologies book, I knew I would have to give some effort to finish it, and my motivation was knowing the chapters would be shorter even though dense, but that gave way for me to understand Progressive Covenentalism much better as with the rest of the systems.

On the other hand, I have to say that Stephen Wellum is a mastermind, I believe that the way he formed his arguments and portrayed his hermeneutic is a plus for this chapter. Not that the other authors do not explain their hermeneutic, but I believe Wellum's methodology helps the Progressive Covenentalism side. This is because, the textual horizon, the epochal horizon, and the canonical horizon are superb, and I believe he treats the text with respect in its proper context.

Also, the way typology is handled and how the church is not automatically the new Israel but how Christ is the true Israel, and the church is the new covenant community does not allow for a continuity that is meant only to happen through Christ. I believe continuity stops and continues through Him as the mediator. In this definition, the church is the Israel of God not in itself as fulfilling Israel's role (only Jesus did that) but as part of the one people of God.

However, when I read “Progressive Dispensationalism”, everything started to change immensely. I do have to say I appreciate the way Dr. Bock laid out the system and how this view of Dispensationalism has more much in common with the other views than does Traditional Dispensationalism. Nevertheless, when he explained the complementary hermeneutic though affirming typology on the one side it seems that in practice, he does not see the escalation and the fulfillment of the promises unless it has to do with Israel.

So even though the Progressive Dispensationalism field does see the church partaking of the promises and Christ achieving those promises, they still have Israel as the end goal being the last part of the puzzle to see everything completed.

Finally, I must say that I can understand more clearly the Traditional Dispensational view. I grew up in a Dispensational church believing Israel was God's stopwatch and that the church is a parenthesis in God's plan. But I did not understand it. Now, I can say I can describe aspects of the system better, but there are interpretations in there that I truly have no idea how the author reached those conclusions. Although, in a sense, I can understand it, because the Traditional view does not believe in typology (wow), it took me a minute to take that in.

Also, the Traditional view does not give priority to the New Testament and that's where I believe he can reach certain conclusions. Even though, I do have to say that Dr. Snoeberger is an excellent writer. I am not even close to uphold his view, but I appreciate his efforts to write this chapter. Now I can understand my father better since he was a Pastor in this field.

If you want to know more about the last four chapters of the book and each other's responses to the other views you should just buy the book. You won't regret it. By the way, I have not made any profit to write this review. May God bless you with His grace.

[Adsum Ravenhill · Rating 5 out of 5]

Before I Begin: I Saw the Light

A few years ago I served in a Church plant in Berlin, Germany, and we were asked to send a photo of our pastor to our founding Church. He spoke no German, and so we thought it would be high time to play a game with him.

We chose a bible verse, something like 1 Samuel 14:27, the final words of which translate as “und seine Augen wurden hell” and printed each word out on a card and got a few people, himself included, to hold a card up. Smiling, he held up the card which said, “Hell” on it. We sent the photo back to the church he’d previously served at for years and it was then used for quite some time in prayer meetings, newsletters and the like, he was not best pleased. We found it hilarious.

That wouldn’t happen within the English language though? Right? Well, if I held up a card with the word ‘Progressive’ on it what comes to mind? Is it positive, negative? Political, theological? To take it a step further, how many different meanings of that word do you think you could come up with if you had 10, 15, or 70x7 people in the room with you?

From the off, you need to be aware that not only are there words used in this book that hold different meanings from the ones you might be most familiar with, but also—whether they would openly say so or not—the authors differ on their own meanings of the words too, to one degree or another.

These words include, but I’m sure are not limited to progressive, traditional, covenant, and dispensations. What’s more, from time to time, the differences between theological convictions, as well as arguments for/against them, are somewhat obfuscated.

Remember: Words, even in the same language, do not always mean the same thing, even in the same profession and faith.

I want to say this from the start because if you’re already convinced that you should read this book, this is the most important thing you need to know before tackling it.

United

This book explores the differences between four major theological frameworks held primarily by those who would affirm the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, that the Bible hold ultimate authority, and that though creeds, confessions, elders, and deacons hold some authority, none on the same level as the Bible, not even close.

I won’t discuss the differences here, you should read the book to find out about those, but rather, as is characteristic of my reviews, I want to explain why and how you should read this book.

First of all, you should know that this shared conviction is of utmost importance to all of the authors, and all of them would affirm each other as brothers in Christ and servants of the King. Darrell L. Bock puts it like this:

“A theological system is an articulation of what most holds the Scripture together. In the case of the essays in this book, all of us are making a case for the view we think makes the most sense of the whole with the least number of problems. There are many judgments being made by all of us about what seems most coherent. This is very much an in-house, family discussion within evangelicalism. That needs to be remembered, since what we hold in common is in many ways far more important.”

Too often our differences—secondary differences, or worse still tertiary ones—keep us from saying things like Bock just said. To be clear, I’ve chosen Bock for two reasons:

I disagree with his theological position
He said it best and his essay was by far the most gracious
I have not chosen the theologian I most agree so I can illustrate this point by saying, “Look how well we do this in our camp,” I’ve chosen a brother who has, in my estimation, carried out his work here in the most gracious and ecumenical way, so I can say, “Look how well we as Christians, all of stripes and denominations, should do this.”

With that said.

Difference → Division? Why distinguish?

A book like this will not lead everyone to join hands, rejoice and sing Kumbaya together. For some, it will do the opposite, so why read it at all, don’t differences in opinion simply breed division? By no means.

Differences don’t cause division, people do.

My wife Anna and I are faced with something in the region of 1000 different decisions we need to make a week, and that’s a conservative estimate. Even if we say that 99% of the time we agree completely, that would still leave 10 decisions a week we would disagree on. If we get into an argument, is it:

a. The opinions fault?

or

b. Our fault?

Oh how I wish I could blame it on the opinions but we all know that’s just not the case. We are responsible for how we deal with those differences. This is especially important when one of us wants the desk to be 91cmx30cmx60cm and the other wants it to be 90cmx30cmx60cm (the great desk controversy of 2019) or one of us holds to Covenant Theology and the other to Covenant Theology + Credobaptism.

Is there a case to be made for eschewing the opinions that cause division entirely? It’s all a matter of worth. If you and I were given 100,000 pounds/dollars, it would be important to know what each of us thought we should do with it. We might come to different conclusions, but it's important that we understand why we think what we do, that we have good reasons for thinking so, and that we understand that the provision ultimately came from God. $100,000 is worth a lot, and I’m sure you would have opinions of what to do with it if you were offered it (watch Mr Beast’s videos on YouTube if you’re not convinced of that.) God, and the price Jesus paid so that you could come into a relationship with him is of so much more worth. If that is true, it should lead us to discover more of who He is, the depths of His love, the extent of His sovereignty, the words in His holy scriptures, the ways in which they fit together, and the ways in which they don’t.

Don’t get me wrong here, I have my contender for the most well-thought-out theological framework out of the four represented in this book, but it would be better that you pick this book up, read it, and go away confused but knowing that these four men love one another and love God and that’s the only thing you’re sure about, than simply read it and agree with what I say because I say it, or what Horton, Wellum, Bock, or Snoebeger think because they’ve said it.

“If I speak human or angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so that I can move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give away all my possessions, and if I give over my body in order to boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.”

Christian Standard Bible, (Holman Bible Publishers, 2020), 1 Corinthians 13:1-3

[Lee Irons · Rating 5 out of 5]

Michael Horton’s contribution defending covenant theology is fantastic. I was particularly gratified that Horton dealt with the issue of the works principle in the Mosaic administration of the covenant of grace. He quotes Vos as follows: “The covenant with Israel served in an emphatic manner to recall the strict demands of the covenant of works … It truly contained the content of the covenant of works. But—and one should certainly note this—it contains this content as made serviceable for a particular period of the covenant of grace” (Reformed Dogmatics, Single-Volume Edition, trans. and ed. by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. [Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020], 348. In the multi-volume edition, it is in vol. 2, p. 130).

Stephen Wellum ably articulates progressive covenantalism. Darrell Bock does a good job explaining progressive dispensationalism. Finally, Mark Snoeberger defends traditional dispensationalism (which I think is the same as revised dispensationalism, as articulated by Ryrie). In his view, the church has no legal relationship to or participation in the new covenant whatsoever. Yikes!

Anyway, I highly recommend this book, if only for the sake of clarifying the issues and different positions.

[Will Cunningham-Batt · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have mixed feelings about this one. Some of the presentations of the views feel so jumbled that it’s hard to get a grasp on what they’re actually saying (especially Bock - ironically, despite some quite jaw-dropping assertions, I found Snoeberger’s traditional dispensationalist approach to be very articulately written), whilst other parts feel too brief to do real justice to the topic at hand. And I think Bock was right to call out Horton’s essay as relying too heavily on the opinions of Reformed theologians. What’s more, aside from a few useful critiques, the response sections were largely pretty disappointing, with each contributor churning out the same arguments and proof-texts already given in their essays. We really needed a second response section analysing the first responses! All that said, I found my view of covenant theology somewhat nuanced and my understanding of dispensationalism greatly increased, making this worth a read.

[Paul Vawter · Rating 3 out of 5]

These multiple views books are generally very helpful in clarifying differences between theological positions. It's always best to get it straight from the horse's mouth rather than second hand, and in this the book does not disappoint.

The format of this particular volume is unfortunate. It would have been helpful to have the various responses to each position placed immediately after, rather than grouped by author. I found myself reading them that way in order to keep the ideas fresh in mind when reading the criticisms.

Another observation is that the editors are both from Southern, presumably students of Dr. Wellum's and, unsurprisingly, seem quite sympathetic to his view. This helps explain why the book included such a minor view as progressive covenantalism in lieu of other positions, such as 1689 Federalism.

[Jon Cheek · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book presents four views on systems of covenantal and dispensational theology: Covenant Theology (Michael Horton), Progressive Covenantalism (Stephen Wellum), Progressive Dispensationalism (Darrell Bock), and Traditional Dispensationalism (Mark Snoeberger).

Of all of the different "3/4/5 Views" books I have read, this is the best so far. This provided a very helpful presentation of each view. This is formatted somewhat differently than most other books of this kind. The first four chapters are the authors' presentations of their view. The responses of the other authors do not come until after all the views have been presented. I think this is helpful in being able to think through the responses more thoughtfully.

Thoughts:

- Covenant Theology and Traditional Dispensationalism seem too tied to the structure of the system rather than developing a biblical theological methodology.
- Progressive Covenantalism and Progressive Dispensationalism are rooted much more strongly in a biblical theology methodology.
- Progressive Covenantalism makes a number of important corrections to Covenant Theology. However, their use of typology is not justifiable (Bock and Snoeberger's criticisms are quite helpful). Also, they seem to skirt over way too much detail of OT prophecy by simply stating that Christ is the true Israel so all the promises to Israel are fulfilled in Christ and the church.
- The responses section was much less irenic than it normally is in this type of book. Horton and Wellum came across fairly harsh toward Snoeberger in particular. As good as Wellum's content is in other books, I felt his responses to the dispensational views was out of character. At times, Wellum and Horton seemed to be responding to a caricature of Dispensationalism rather than Snoeberger's actual arguments. Snoeberger's response section was about half the length of the other authors. This seemed odd. Also, some of his responses to Bock seemed to be a response to other writings of Bock's rather than Bock's arguments in this book.
- I most closely align with Progressive Dispensationalism. It does the best job of (1) taking seriously the OT promises and (2) also taking seriously the reality of the New Covenant for the church.

For a helpful and more thorough review of this book, see Andy Naselli's review here, and Layton Talbert's review here.

[Christopher Humphrey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Does Scripture have a meta narrative? If so, what is it? Covenant theologians have historically answered this question by explicating the covenants of Scripture, by understanding the role of law and gospel, by seeing and overarching covenant of redemption, by seeing the redemption of mankind as God’s highest end with mankind. But dispensational theologians have answered the same questions using the same scriptures, but interpreting those scriptures in a very different way. And the historical poles at both ends of the continuity versus discontinuity debate have been stretched toward the middle but progressive covenantalists and by progressive dispensationalists.

In “Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture “. four authors argue for one of these positions, attempting to explain their understanding of scriptures unifying themes. I found these essays to be educational, informative, helpful and largely without rancor, especially given the fact that each of the authors is an evangelical that places a premium on the authority of Scripture.

After the authors make their individual cases for their respective positions, then each author presents an essay to interact with the other three views. This is so helpful to have this debate in writing, because the format allows one to think deeply over time, and to study with the book open in one hand and the Bible in the other hand.

If you are interested in the biblical covenants, in the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament, the relationship between Israel and the Church, then this book is definite must read. Happy reading!

[Christian Cunningham · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was very helpful in surveying the landscape of various biblical theological approaches that inform or influence doctrinal distinctives. These four systems are without question the most dominant and influential, and the authors of each chapter represent the best scholarship in each respective system.

The authors also did an excellent job stating their case and responding to other contributors succinctly. I’d argue that Snoeberger’s response was probably the least helpful since he seemed simply to reassert his proposals. This served as his critique instead of analyzing the systems and showing how they do not comport with Scripture.

The summary questions at the end of the book were also really clarifying. Although, I do wish more attention was given to some of the distinctives between the covenantal systems together and the dispensational systems together. They mostly answered the questions in the same way.

My only issues with the book are editorial. It would’ve helped if all the authors had to abide by the same formatting. However, I have no idea what that formatting could be considering the wide array of presuppositions held to by the individual authors.

All in all, this is a helpful introduction to these issues and should gain a wide reading of those trying to understand these issues better.

[Brandon Siwula · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you are a hermeneutics nerd, this is a must read. It is helpful and challenging as it examines the major hermeneutical schemes, in their current state, from some of their strongest proponents.

I recently read Continuity and Discontinuity edited by Feinberg in Dr. Vlach's class at STS. It was a good read, but I was disappointed that the covenantal chapters didn't challenge my understanding much. Though I was still unconvinced by Horton and Welum's perspectives, they were certainly more challenging and up to date. PC is also a fastly growing system, so it was nice seeing the interaction between the scholars on all sides. It was also nice to see Covenantalists forced to deal with modern dispensational scholarship rather than resorting to attacking strawmen and outdated thinking like they many times do.

I found Dr. Bock's perspective to be the closest to my own, but Dr. Snoeberger makes some good points as well. All essays are written well, though Wellum does come off as kind of a jerk in his responses.

Overall 10/10 for me. It was hard to put down and I would highly recommend to anyone that wants to have a grasp on the modern hermeneutical landscape.

[Ethan · Rating 4 out of 5]

The quality of a "multiple perspectives" book is severely dependent on the quality of the individual contributors. In this case, Horton, Wellum, Bock, and Snoeberger all do an excellent job of presenting their views and interacting with the other contributors charitably. I benefitted especially from reading Bock's and Snoeberger's dispensationalist views, as they shed some light on a perspective that I've not heard as often.

I was only a bit disappointed by Horton's presentation of the Covenantal view. He engaged with the text of Scripture noticeably less than the other contributors. Bock's concern that he does "not start with Scripture but with a theological construct of Reformed theologians" (224) is admittedly fair. It makes his argument less compelling when compared side-by-side to some of the others.

All said, this is an excellent introduction to the Covenantal and Dispensational conversation. If you've ever wondered why Christians disagree on the end times, recipients of baptism, God's plan for national Israel, or the value of Old Testament laws for Christians today, this is a great place to start.