# Question for Dr. R.Scott Clark



## 5 Solas (Dec 4, 2005)

Recently I was referred to buy a book by Mark W. Karlberg
"Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspectives" 
Prior to attending and becoming a member at the URC when I first wanted to learn more on Covenant Theology I was always told to buy "The Christ of the Covenants" by O. Palmer Robertson.
Now a member at the URC for about 2yrs whenever covenant theology becomes the discussion the works of Meredith Kline and Mark Karlberg are usually mentioned and recommended to get.
My question is does Meredith Kline and Mark Karlberg Covenant theology differ alot or little with O. Palmer Robertson Covenant Theology.
My understanding is and reading Karlberg's article "Reformed Interpretation of the Mosiac Covenant" is that (the principle of works-inheritance as an administrative element in the Mosiac Covenant is limited to the sphere of the symbolic-typical)pg.47
Does this understanding of the Mosiac Covenant and more of what Karlberg says differ from Robertsons interpretation of the Mosiac Covenant.
Thank you.


----------



## wsw201 (Dec 5, 2005)

Ruben,

Though I haven't read Karlberg's work I know that Robertson does not get into the Covenant of Redemption in his book "Christ of the Covenants".


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Heidelberg_
> Recently I was referred to buy a book by Mark W. Karlberg
> "Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspectives"
> Prior to attending and becoming a member at the URC when I first wanted to learn more on Covenant Theology I was always told to buy "The Christ of the Covenants" by O. Palmer Robertson.
> ...



I am away from my office at the moment and do not have Palmer's book in front of me. As I recall, however, he did not write his book with reference to the history of Reformed federal/covenant theology (RFT). He wrote it in the context of and with with reference to the followers of Murray and/or Kline. 

He rejects the covenant of redemption as speculative. This move, like tipping the first domino, pushes over the rest of RFT. I think I remember that he also rejected the covenant of works (and thus any works principle whatever under Moses). We've discussed this a great deal on the list and I'm sure there are threads on this. 

The difficulty with this move is that a) it makes it harder to account for the "works" language used in re Moses and Israel; b) it tends to diminish the uniqueness of the Israelite theocracy "“ it becomes _only_ another administration of the covenant of grace "“ and it surely was that but it wasn't _only_ that; c) it tends to weaken the foundations of Christ's active obedience. If there was no strict legal covenant, why Christ's active obedience? Here OPR's systematic theology (he was a strong and consistent critic of N. Shepherd's revision of RFT) is better than his account of redemptive history. Jesus came as the Second Adam (Rom 5; 1 Cor 15) and he came as the Israel of God (Matt 2). He fulfilled the Adamic Covenant: "Do this and live," and he fulfilled the land covenant (Heb 1-4). He entered into the rest and now, for those who believe, He is the Sabbath-Rest! That is why there remains, therefore, a sabbath rest for the people of God.

In most of the traditional formulations, Israel is seen to have re-capitulated the Adamic covenant of works which was said to be republished fro three reasons: 1) to teach the Israelites the greatness of their sin and misery and their need for a gracious salvation to be found in the coming Messiah; 2) to demonstrate in the history of redemption that the covenant of works must be fulfilled by "the righteous one" but neither Israel nor any of her kings is that righteous one. In other words, it keeps the "works" principle active in redemptive history; 3) Israel's temporary, typical, national stratus is illustrated by their inability to keep the land (not salvation!) based on obedience to the stipulations of the Torah. 

One of the more important weaknesses of Palmer's book is his definition of "covenant." It assumes a post-lapsarian state. I think he defines as a "bond in blood sovereignly administered" which works as a definition for a post-lapsarian, gracious covenant, but not as a definition for a pre-lapsarian, legal covenant (unless there was death before the fall!). 

The older definitions (of which there were several) tended to emphasise the legal nature of "covenant" as a baseline, rather than grace. Thus grace is understood against the background of law. They were distinct principles. They were not conflated as they have become in the Modern period. The theological problem of grace without law is that it is meaningless. Thus, Usrsinus definied "covenant" as legal thing, because he thought of the covenant of works as the baseline against which, the covenant of grace is contrasted. Without is law/gospel contrast there every covenant has a tendency to turn into a legal-gracious or gracious-legal covenant. Hence we find ourselves in the federal vision mess today. I'm not blaming the FV mess on this book. I'm saying that it's symptomatic of a larger problem. On the surface, defining everything in terms of grace seems to be a good thing, it seems to position us well against the Dispensationalists (which was a major concern of Mr Murray) and it seems to answer the long-standing Barthian criticisms about a "legalistic" (i.e., legal in any way!) covenant theology. Palmer's mild revisions may or may not succeed in those ways but they leave us vulnerable in other ways. 

Hope this helps.

rsc


----------



## pduggan (Dec 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_definition of "covenant." It assumes a post-lapsarian state. I think he defines as a "bond in blood sovereignly administered" which works as a definition for a post-lapsarian, gracious covenant, but not as a definition for a pre-lapsarian, legal covenant (unless there was death before the fall!).



Not at all. For Adam and Eve were related in covenant, and the foundation of their covenant relation was their physical relation, prelapsarian, which involved surgery and presumably, blood.

Breaking and Dividing, covenant sacramentology


----------



## 5 Solas (Dec 7, 2005)

That did help.
Dr. Clark next month Im planning to go the conference at Escondido Westminister seminary. 
Dr. Clark if you had $500.00 to buy books on Covenant Theology (RFT)
what would they be? 
This would be helpful.
What systematic Theology book would you consider the best to spend my money on?
Thanks for your response.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Heidelberg_
> That did help.
> Dr. Clark next month Im planning to go the conference at Escondido Westminister seminary.
> Dr. Clark if you had $500.00 to buy books on Covenant Theology (RFT)
> ...



It wouldn't take long to spend!

I would buy several of the texts on this list:

http://public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/Books.html

Esp. Witsius. Save a few dollars for Dr Horton's forthcoming book on covenant theology. Matt's new book is helpful too.

Wollebius (in Beardslee's _Reformed Dogmatics_ is really wonderful. I highly recommend that everyone read that. It is a great snapshot of early Reformed orthodoxy. I hope someday to get that re-published as part of a series.

There is also an English transl. of Polanus' _Substance..._ which is a terrific handbook. It isn't available in an modern edition, although one of my students in working on it now and I hope to include it in the proposed/prospective series.

I wouldn't limit myself to books strictly on "covenant" theology. I think the distinction is artificial. Reformed theology is covenantal, but our covenantal theology is Reformed. To learn our confessional theology is to learn our covenant theology. It isn't a special category. When we say covenant theology we're only speaking (more or less) historically. When we say "systematics" we're speaking (more or less) topically. It's the same stuff arranged in different ways. In that sense, Berkhof is a really helpful work in covenant theology (with a couple of minor exceptions).

Blessings,

rsc


----------

