Introduction to covenant theology

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christ of the Covenants by Robertson,
Introducing Covenant theology by Horton

for baptists, I found reading those and then reading "The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology" by Pascal Denault to be very helpful.
 
Hi Jonathan,

The books mentioned above are excellent. Witsius and Denault in particular are very helpful. I'd add to the book list Nehemiah Coxe and John Owen's Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ.

Beyond these works, study the various Reformation catechisms and confessions; and consult some of the (multitudes of) commentaries on the confessions.

A book which I felt to be largely a waste of time is Greg Nichols, Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective.

Not a book, but I noticed that the Founders Study Center has a course on Baptist Covenant Theology available.

Enjoy your studies!
 
reaganmarsh said:
A book which I felt to be largely a waste of time is Greg Nichols, Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective.
Click to expand...

Rev. Marsh,

What about Nichols' book did you not care for? I picked up a copy at the recommendation of a Reformed Baptist friend, but have not read much of it. Curious to hear your thoughts.
 
I would commend to you the Denault book as well. Also, this site is really helpful in separating some strains of CT held even the in same Reformed Baptist tent.
 
I can't recommend A Puritan Theology by Beeke and Jones enough. It introduces who the Puritans are and has excellent chapters on Covenant Theology.
 
Natertot said:
Christ of the Covenants by Robertson
Click to expand...
This is good, I wouldn't recommend Horton for Presbyterians or URCNA guys for many reasons. He dichotomizes law and grace too much.

Bavinck is good but you have to read so much.
Witsius has to be read in context and with a lot of understanding.

If you want to get a Reformed Baptist take on Covenant Theology I whole heartedly recommend Nehemiah Coxe. Get the theology of the 1689 Founders.
http://www.rbap.net/our-books/covenant-theology-from-adam-to-Christ-by-nehemiah-coxe-and-john-owen/
 
Beezer said:
reaganmarsh said:
A book which I felt to be largely a waste of time is Greg Nichols, Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective.
Click to expand...

Rev. Marsh,

What about Nichols' book did you not care for? I picked up a copy at the recommendation of a Reformed Baptist friend, but have not read much of it. Curious to hear your thoughts.
Click to expand...

Hi Brian,

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the current in-house debate between Baptistic covenant theologians, but the 2 sides may be represented as being the "classic" view and the "contemporary" view. The classic view is that which Pascal Denault has explained very well in his Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, and is represented historically by the Coxe/Owen volume to which I referred you. The contemporary view is represented by Nichols and Waldron, and after you read Coxe/Owen and Denault, you'll find that it does not do justice to the 1689.

That's not to say there aren't some helpful aspects to Nichols' book; I hope I'm not sounding uncharitable! I simply found myself, after reading it, saying, "I don't think that was the best use of my time." I'm confident that he's a godly man and a faithful servant of the Lord. I simply think his reading of the 1689 is wrong.

If you have more questions, I'll be happy to discuss them via PM! I don't want to give the wrong impression on a public forum like this. My heart is not to criticize but to help.

Grace to you.
 
If you want to "understand" the system from the standpoint of a beginner, and you don't want to get embroiled in too many of the in-house debates among contemporary people, I would prefer Robertson over Horton as the first book to read. He states the more classic version of the view without taking you down any of the tangents. Randy is correct that Horton has been faulted for emphasizing things in a way that might take you in some directions not typical for all proponents of CT. Lillback's book on the Binding of God helpfully shows Calvin's role in developing CT. And, if you want to tackle the 2 vol. tome by Witsius (a classic), there is a nice outline by Ramsey and Beeke that will be a kind of Cliff's Notes to have at your side as you read it.

Generally speaking, books written by the profs at Westminster (CA) will typically have a more appreciative evaluation of the work of OT scholar Kline and a more pronounced expression of Law and Gospel. While some of them are excellent, and should be included in a full orbed understanding of the ins and outs of CT, they would not be the place for a beginner to start.
 
reaganmarsh said:
Beezer said:
reaganmarsh said:
A book which I felt to be largely a waste of time is Greg Nichols, Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective.
Click to expand...

Rev. Marsh,

What about Nichols' book did you not care for? I picked up a copy at the recommendation of a Reformed Baptist friend, but have not read much of it. Curious to hear your thoughts.
Click to expand...

Hi Brian,

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the current in-house debate between Baptistic covenant theologians, but the 2 sides may be represented as being the "classic" view and the "contemporary" view. The classic view is that which Pascal Denault has explained very well in his Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, and is represented historically by the Coxe/Owen volume to which I referred you. The contemporary view is represented by Nichols and Waldron, and after you read Coxe/Owen and Denault, you'll find that it does not do justice to the 1689.

That's not to say there aren't some helpful aspects to Nichols' book; I hope I'm not sounding uncharitable! I simply found myself, after reading it, saying, "I don't think that was the best use of my time." I'm confident that he's a godly man and a faithful servant of the Lord. I simply think his reading of the 1689 is wrong.

If you have more questions, I'll be happy to discuss them via PM! I don't want to give the wrong impression on a public forum like this. My heart is not to criticize but to help.

Grace to you.
Click to expand...

What's the difference between the classic and contemporary views? At what points do Nichols and Waldron not read the 1689 right? I am asking because you said they differed and were not doing justice to the 1689 without explaining why.
 
I really like Christ of the Covenants but for someone like me who was not familiar with covenant theology, it took me a couple reads of the book, along with Ligon Duncan's RTS course, for me to finally "get it." Robertson does not take much time to explain certain aspects of covenant theology. His writing is more concise so I am not sure if I would necessarily recommend this as a sole source for someone new to covenant theology.

I am not very well read in this area so I do not have an alternative to recommend but wanted to offer my opinion of the book.
 
zsmcd said:
Natertot said:
What's the difference between the classic and contemporary views? At what points do Nichols and Waldron not read the 1689 right? I am asking because you said they differed and were not doing justice to the 1689 without explaining why.
Click to expand...

This video provided by the folks at www.1689federalism.com does a fine job of describing the differences between some of the Reformed Baptist views mentioned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvPoAnMGuGE
Click to expand...

Once again, if you're seeking to learn how Reformed Baptists express CT in accordance with the 1689 LBCF, this site is the place to do that. One of their great passions is to point out how some Reformed Baptist expressions are closer to the WCF/paedobaptist expressions, which, they would claim (rightly, I may add), is against the 1689 confessional expression.
 
Hi Nate,

Sorry for a delayed reply -- this has been quite a busy week of ministry already (several of our congregants hospitalized and a funeral today, plus sermon prep and our biblical counseling training conference is this Fri-Sat! Pray for us!)

To your question:

Waldron, on the whole, provides a very helpful exposition of the 1689's theology; but his treatment of the covenant of grace is not the classic 1689 view as espoused and intended by Coxe, et al. It is the modern view, which essentially reads Westminsterian covenant theology categories into baptistic categories. Nichols shares that same view, which is a modern interpretation, but is not the founding intent. If you'll reference Denault's book, read the Coxe & Owen volume I linked to, and check out the videos which a couple of folks have linked to above, you'll develop a good understanding of the differences.

While the WCF and the LBC warmly agree in a huge percentage of their convictions, it is the 1689's particular approach to the covenant of grace from which our convictions and practice regarding a confessors' church and credobaptism emerge. This has been the subject of numerous discussions here on the PB.

No offense or pokes in the eye at all intended by that statement to our dear Presbyterian brothers and sisters here on the PB, so I do hope none take offense. And I sincerely apologize to our OP for managing to hijack this thread. That was not at all my intention, brother; I was simply typing quickly and reflecting on my thoughts after reading Nichols. You are certainly free to disagree with me.

Studying covenant theology has been one of the most fruitful theological exercises I ever undertook. It has, quite literally, changed my life and ministry. May the Lord grant you his help as you study, and insight into his precious word.

Grace to you.
 
I think it is important to take note what Rev. Marsh has observed, in that there are differences between baptists and the reformed on this matter. I would suggest, however, that one not read Owen as in "introduction" into the matter of CT. Owen (who wouldn't side with baptists on CT, despite some claims by modern 1689 guys), does not have a classical formulation of CT. My suggestion is start with the more classic works like Rutherford's "The Covenant of Life Opened".
 
Andrew P.C. said:
there are differences between baptists and the reformed on this matter. I would suggest, however, that one not read Owen as in "introduction" into the matter of CT. Owen (who wouldn't side with baptists on CT, despite some claims by modern 1689 guys), does not have a classical formulation of CT. My suggestion is start with the more classic works like Rutherford's "The Covenant of Life Opened".
Click to expand...

Quite so. It is definitely one of the interesting quirks of Reformed Baptist history that we have co-opted Owen's (paedobaptist) arguments and essentially said, "Yes, that's exactly what we mean!" :lol:

I've not read Rutherford's COLO yet, but I hope to one of these days!
 
reaganmarsh said:
Hi Nate,

Sorry for a delayed reply -- this has been quite a busy week of ministry already (several of our congregants hospitalized and a funeral today, plus sermon prep and our biblical counseling training conference is this Fri-Sat! Pray for us!)

To your question:

Waldron, on the whole, provides a very helpful exposition of the 1689's theology; but his treatment of the covenant of grace is not the classic 1689 view as espoused and intended by Coxe, et al. It is the modern view, which essentially reads Westminsterian covenant theology categories into baptistic categories. Nichols shares that same view, which is a modern interpretation, but is not the founding intent. If you'll reference Denault's book, read the Coxe & Owen volume I linked to, and check out the videos which a couple of folks have linked to above, you'll develop a good understanding of the differences.

While the WCF and the LBC warmly agree in a huge percentage of their convictions, it is the 1689's particular approach to the covenant of grace from which our convictions and practice regarding a confessors' church and credobaptism emerge. This has been the subject of numerous discussions here on the PB.

No offense or pokes in the eye at all intended by that statement to our dear Presbyterian brothers and sisters here on the PB, so I do hope none take offense. And I sincerely apologize to our OP for managing to hijack this thread. That was not at all my intention, brother; I was simply typing quickly and reflecting on my thoughts after reading Nichols. You are certainly free to disagree with me.

Studying covenant theology has been one of the most fruitful theological exercises I ever undertook. It has, quite literally, changed my life and ministry. May the Lord grant you his help as you study, and insight into his precious word.

Grace to you.
Click to expand...

Thank you for responding. These forums are really great for fleshing out the nuances of such things.
 
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Jonty Rhodes's book yet. His book Covenants Made Simple is absolutely superb. It is the perfect introductory book.
 
This doesn't directly answer your query, and might sound a tad counter-intutitve, and not knowing your reading intake thus far, I'd say Calvin's Institutes is really a good start. If you've not studied it then it will repay every moment of your time with "theological interest" that would prove usurious if converted to coin. A solid handle on God's sovereignty will make Covenant Theology proper much clearer. There are numerous vantage points on this topic. Berkhof will give you a good initial dip in the pool, and Bavinck will take you to the deep fathoms. But, frankly, Ephesians and Hebrews and Romans cannot be topped when studied as a group. Ephesians 1-2 settle many an issue for we Reformed folk; Romans 9-11 is essential; and the middle section of Hebrews doesn't have an English adjective that adequately describes it.
 
Jonathan, This might be a strange question but I sense I need to ask it. Have you read the whole Bible yet? It is first important to gain a view of the scriptures from an overall perspective. My Mother was a bank teller. She really was. And I know for a fact that she studied to original to be able to spot counterfeits. I would recommend you first gain a whole view of the whole Counsel of God. Things will fall into place better when you start to think about Covenants between God and Man. That kind of reading made me look for similarities and differences as I read passages that seemed to be out of sorts. It also made me study the word Grace more intently. Grace is more than unmerited favor. I also learned to allow the Bible to speak for itself and testify. Sometimes the Old is explained in the New covenant. Sometimes the Old Testament reveals what the New Covenant means. I would encourage you to first give the whole book a few readings. If you have I am excited for you because you have done more than 99 percent of us have done by your age.
 
Just to emphasize the importance of reading the whole Bible first. I had a Pastor Kimber Kauffman who proclaimed that he could make Ronald Reagan look like a Communist or Socialist by lifting portions of his speeches out of their contexts and presenting them. Ronald Reagan was the President when I went in the Navy. A lot of people loved him. What Kimber states is true. He could do that. But President Reagan was never a Socialist nor a Communist. He stood strongly against the Countries who adopted those World Views and he stood strongly against those doctrines. So it is first important to become familiar with the Whole Counsel of God.

Covenant Theology will flow a lot more easily in understanding after you do that.
 
Thanks for the great advice. I have read the entire New Testament twice but I am a bit lacking when it comes to the Old. Out of the Old I have read the Torah, Joshua-2 King, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Most of Psalms, most of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes,Songs of Solomon, Large portions of Isaiah, Daniel, Joel, Jonah, Habakkuk,and Malachi. So although I plan on reading the rest soon I do think it is safe to say that I have a pretty good understanding of the History of Redemption in the Bible. The main reason I have asked so many questions regarding CT on the PB is because I have been raised dispensational and I am trying to to get firm grasp of what the Bible really teaches in regard to the Covenants and to the people of God.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Scott Bushey
  • Locked
Introduction to Covenant Theology
Replies
15
Views
4K
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Sailor
pianoman
  • Locked
Changing to Covenant Theology
Replies
22
Views
4K
JohnGill
JohnGill
FivePointSpurgeonist
Resources to understand covenant theology?
Replies
11
Views
2K
Grant
Grant
Reformed Roman
  • Locked
New Covenant Theology vs Covenant Theology
2
Replies
35
Views
16K
zsmcd
zsmcd
C
  • Locked
Classical Covenant Theology vs Klinean Covenant Theology
Replies
2
Views
4K
eqdj
eqdj
Back
Top