Horton Reviews Kingdom Through Covenant

Kingdom Through Covenant has been touted as presenting a significant alternative between covenant theology and dispensationalism.  I must confess that I own the volume, but have not yet had a chance to read it.

Mike Horton was asked to review the book and offer his assessment.  You can find that review here:  Horton's Review of Kingdom Through Covenant

Comments

[Lloyd I. Cadle]

I read the review. Very good review. As one that really believes and sees the need for understanding the Bible from a covenantal perspective, I see no need for having an alternative theology mixing dispensational theology and Reformed covenant theology. That would be akin to mixing the Lakers and Celtics traditions--it just doesn't work.

Horton points out that the authors don't see much of a need for the classifications of having unconditional and conditional covenants. That being the case, where is law and Gospel in their view of the covenants? That is the primary purpose of Cov't. theology, to demonstrate through the covenants of works and grace, how Christ, with His active obedience (which Adam failed at) fulfilled it and He applies the benefits to the believers in the covenant of grace.

Within the covenant of grace, we see the Abrahamic covenant as being
unilateral. Christ fulfills all of the conditions for us, and imputes the benefits to us in the doctrine of justification. Whereas the Mosaic covenant has both parties involved in doing their part--Israel and God, in a temporary covenant, which requires Israel (in this non-salvation cov't) to obey the commands within, or they will receive the curses.

Even if you look at the covenant of grace, it has the Mosaic covenant in it as a national covenant with Israel. The Mosaic cov't. acts like a schoolmaster to Israel, and the promises are for obedience and the blessings are only temporary--Canan.

I am in a hurry here......so in sum, I would only add that at least the dispensationalists are coming to grips with the flaws of dispenstional theology, but you can't harmonize the two.

[Kim Riddlebarger]

Zechariah:

I removed your post because you will not use your real name or take personal accountability for your comments. Debate is fine--drive-by sniping is not. You've been warned how many times in the past???

You are not helping your cause.

[David Lauer]

I really appreciate Dr. Horton's gracious attitude toward those he disagrees with in his review. He is truly a scholar and a gentleman. May he be a model for all of us in this regard -- myself in particular! I always read his articles with great pleasure and find them to be very profitable. I am slowly working through the book KTC. The middle, exegetical chapters are particularly challenging, but very edifying. Only time will tell, but I think I have been coming to a position somewhat similar to the one presented in the book for some time now, though few people will agree with everything in such a long and detailed book as this. I think we should let a civil and respectful two-thousand-year-old conversation continue. That seems to be what Dr. Horton was suggesting as well.

[Zechariah]

Please help me to understand the difference between debate and drive by sniping. Is this a snipe or a debate ?

I am in a hurry here......so in sum, I would only add that at least the dispensationalists are coming to grips with the flaws of dispenstional theology, but you can't harmonize the two.

Is classifying all Dispensatiionalists into a preconcieved strawman a snipe or a debate ? It seems the only people who can "debate" are those with a PhD or ThM etc.

If you wish to "debate" how about answerwing the review from DullBot on Amazon ? My cause is a sincere search for the truth and one of this this Blog's main purposes is to lump all people who do not use the secret hermaneutic of Covenentalism into the Hal Lindsay camp.

[Kim Riddlebarger]

Zechariah:

If you are sincere about your quest for truth, then you can certainly understand why you need to identify yourself by name before I will respond to you.

Oh, and this is what I mean by "drive-by sniping"--"one of this this Blog's main purposes is to lump all people who do not use the secret hermaneutic of Covenentalism into the Hal Lindsay camp."

Thanks for the great example!

[John]

Dr. Riddlebarger,

A new critique on Monergism.com of KTC's rejection of the visible/invisible church, expanding on something Horton mentions in his review:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/visible_invisible.html

Hope you find it helpful.

John

[Zechariah]

OK, let me remove the sarcasm and ask a different way.

I know there are some very smart people I deeply respect who teach this, but frankly speaking I do not get it. I do not disagree with the 3 covenants, even though they are not mentioned clearly in scripture, but where I get confused when we start cancelling some covenants and putting them in certain categories. Where I also get confused is the argument about multiple ways of salvation in the Dispensational system, if a person believes in the 7 dispensations (which from what I read says nothing about multiple ways of salvation) does that mean he automatically believes in multiple ways of salvation?
Can a person believe in a literal 7 yr tribulation and 1000 yr millennial kingdom and not be heretical ? From what I read on this blog it appears not, this is a sincere request for someone to clarify these things for me as I really do not understand. Also, what if parts of each system are true ? Do they need to be mutually exclusive ? What if everybody is wrong ? Another questions I have is when I do die, am I going to lose rewards because I took the Bible too literally ? These are my sincere questions can someone please answer them ?