# Covenant Theology Made Simple



## Santos (May 19, 2021)

Could someone please recommend some basic covenant theology resources? I would prefer videos or audio if possible.


----------



## Taylor (May 19, 2021)

Our brother @JTB.SDG has just written a book on the subject. I'm sure he will chime in. As for audio, I have heard good things about Ligon Duncan's lecture series, which can be found here.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ethan (May 19, 2021)

I'd recommend Covenants Made Simple by Jonty Rhodes. You can't go wrong with a book that's essentially identical to the title of the thread! I believe Reformed Forum also has a free class on Covenant Theology.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Timmay (May 19, 2021)

Ethan said:


> I'd recommend Covenants Made Simple by Jonty Rhodes. You can't go wrong with a book that's essentially identical to the title of the thread! I believe Reformed Forum also has a free class on Covenant Theology.



I’ve read this book and am currently going through it with two young gentlemen who come out of a dispensationalist background. It’s been very helpful for them understanding covenant theology. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (May 19, 2021)

"Baptist Covenant Theology"



https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-X4EbnqDjjNJo0LL4bfcCBhpt37VLSx3

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (May 19, 2021)

1689 Federalism | The distinctive biblical theology of confessional particular baptists







www.1689federalism.com

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Taylor (May 19, 2021)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> 1689 Federalism | The distinctive biblical theology of confessional particular baptists
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah, I didn't notice our brother is a "1689er." In that case, I also would recommend, as a comparative study, Pascal Denault's _The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology_. It is quite an interesting and informative piece.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Santos (May 19, 2021)

Thank you all very much for your recommendations! Although I have not been here in a while, I know that this is the place to go for such information. I appreciate all of your help. Praise God for the brethren.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Santos (May 19, 2021)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> "Baptist Covenant Theology"
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-X4EbnqDjjNJo0LL4bfcCBhpt37VLSx3


This looks good. I am watching the first now. Thanks brother.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (May 19, 2021)

Ethan said:


> Covenants Made Simple by Jonty Rhodes.


This is the best intro to Covenant Theology from a Reformed perspective—no quirks and no controversy.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Miss Marple (May 19, 2021)

I loved "Studies in the Covenant of Grace" (Nielands). Out of print but available used. Board's thoughts?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager (May 19, 2021)

Regi Addictissimus said:


> This is the best intro to Covenant Theology *from a Reformed perspective*—no quirks and no controversy.


what other perspective could there be?


----------



## Ethan (May 19, 2021)

De Jager said:


> what other perspective could there be?


Baptist perspectives. 1689 Federalism, Progressive Covenantalism, New Covenant Theology to name a few.


----------



## JM (May 19, 2021)

I wouldn't call NCT a Reformed Baptist view, it's more like a modern Baptist reaction from Dispensationalists _to_ Reformed covenant theology. 

1689 Federalism is similar to the "minority report" (see A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life, section titled _The Minority Report) _held by some in attendance during the Westminster Assembly and would recommend the following: https://www.solid-ground-books.com/detail_1987.asp

For something deeper I would suggest picking up The Divine Covenants by A.W. Pink. 

Yours in the Lord, 

jm

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ethan (May 19, 2021)

JM said:


> I wouldn't call NCT a Reformed Baptist view


I wouldn’t either. I was just pointing out that there’s a lot more than the reformed perspective on CT.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JM (May 19, 2021)

Ethan said:


> I wouldn’t either. I was just pointing out that there’s a lot more than the reformed perspective on CT.


Agreed.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (May 20, 2021)

De Jager said:


> what other perspective _should_ there be?


Corrected.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (May 20, 2021)

Ethan said:


> Baptist perspectives. *1689 Federalism*, Progressive Covenantalism, New Covenant Theology to name a few.



That is a Reformed perspective. The others probably not so much, but then again those other things aren't Covenant Theology.


----------



## JM (May 20, 2021)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> That is a Reformed perspective. The others probably not so much, but then again those other things aren't Covenant Theology.


John Gill didn't hold to 1689 Federalism, James White doesn't either unless he changed his mind. @brandonadams might be able to help clarify.


----------



## Ethan (May 20, 2021)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> That is a Reformed perspective.


My definition of reformed must be different than yours. That's fine, I believe 1689 Federalism is a viable option for Baptists. New Covenant Theology is obviously not. I know we can all agree on that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (May 20, 2021)

JM said:


> John Gill didn't hold to 1689 Federalism, James White doesn't either unless he changed his mind. @brandonadams might be able to help clarify.


What do either of those comments have to do with anything? John Gill and James White didn't hold to NCT or Progressive Covenantalism either.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (May 20, 2021)

Ethan said:


> My definition of reformed must be different than yours.



Sure, I am willing to accept that my definition is right and yours is wrong.  Doesn't hurt me any.

Reactions: Wow 2


----------



## JTB.SDG (May 20, 2021)

I would third Jonty Rhodes' little volume; very concise and helpful. You can also check this out if you like; it's simple but not necessarily concise, 10 lessons on covenant theology in all; but it's also not audio or video: www.ruinandredemption.com

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Santos (May 20, 2021)

JTB.SDG said:


> I would third Jonty Rhodes' little volume; very concise and helpful. You can also check this out if you like; it's simple but not necessarily concise, 10 lessons on covenant theology in all; but it's also not audio or video: www.ruinandredemption.com


Thank you brother.


----------



## Ethan (May 20, 2021)

Santos said:


> Thank you brother.


I’m currently reading through Jon’s book, Ruin and Redemption, and can vouch that it is a quality read. I can also vouch that you could finish Covenants made Simple by the time you got through chapter 1 of his book!

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## Santos (May 20, 2021)

Thank you all for your replies. I appreciate the suggestions. Keep em coming. The NCT info is helpful also. It is actually why I am trying to become a better apologist for CT.


----------



## JM (May 20, 2021)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> What do either of those comments have to do with anything? John Gill and James White didn't hold to NCT or Progressive Covenantalism either.


Thank you for your question Sean Patrick Cornell. You wrote, "That is a Reformed perspective" in reference to 1689 Federalism. I mentioned that famous Reformed Baptists like Gill and White do not hold to 1689 Federalism. In the context of the discussion I was trying to point out that Reformed Baptists can hold to another form of Covenant theology not yet mentioned that other form of Covenant theology is express by Nichols. 






Covenant Theology - A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God's Covenants: Greg Nichols: 9781599252629: Amazon.com: Books


Covenant Theology - A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God's Covenants [Greg Nichols] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Covenant Theology - A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God's Covenants



www.amazon.com

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## rookie (May 20, 2021)

Brian Borgman has just started a series on this on Sermon Audio or Podbean. The church and Israel. Excellent expositor.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Branson (May 20, 2021)

I greatly benefited from O Palmer Robertson’s book “Christ of the Covenants”, Ligon Duncan’s course already mentioned, and the relevant sections in Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology. The Marrow of Modern Divinity was helpful also.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (May 22, 2021)

Ethan said:


> I'd recommend Covenants Made Simple by Jonty Rhodes. You can't go wrong with a book that's essentially identical to the title of the thread! I believe Reformed Forum also has a free class on Covenant Theology.


I ordered this book and have begun reading it, and have a question. In discussing the covenant of works, Mr. Rhodes says that the agreement or conditions that God made with Adam in the garden were 1. That positively, humans must obey God, fulfilling the "cultural mandate," which Mr. Rhodes defines as pertaining to work, families, marriage, art, sciences. 2. Negatively, they must not take the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

I've never heard of the positive command related to the cultural mandate as being part of the covenant of works. Is this historically the position of Reformed and Puritan teaching?


----------



## Andres (May 22, 2021)

The best and most succinct explanation of covenant theology is Chapter 7 of the WCF. If you understand this, you will have a solid, reformed view of the covenants.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ethan (May 22, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I've never heard of the positive command related to the cultural mandate as being part of the covenant of works. Is this historically the position of Reformed and Puritan teaching?


I’ve always heard the conditions of the CoW described as moral law and positive law, moral being the law written on Adam’s heart and positive being the command not to eat the fruit of the tree.
On page 26 he elaborates, “This means Adam could break the covenant either by pinching the fruit or by sitting on his backside and doing nothing to obey God.” To me this sounds like the same concept, just worded differently.
I agree with you that his quote on page 21 regarding family, marriage, art, and science is an interesting way to put it but I think his point is that complete submission to God through his moral law necessarily entails the fulfillment of the cultural mandate.
As for the historical aspect of your question, I’m not qualified to answer. I’m sure someone here can chime in.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (May 23, 2021)

Ethan said:


> I’ve always heard the conditions of the CoW described as moral law and positive law, moral being the law written on Adam’s heart and positive being the command not to eat the fruit of the tree.
> On page 26 he elaborates, “This means Adam could break the covenant either by pinching the fruit or by sitting on his backside and doing nothing to obey God.” To me this sounds like the same concept, just worded differently.
> I agree with you that his quote on page 21 regarding family, marriage, art, and science is an interesting way to put it but I think his point is that complete submission to God through his moral law necessarily entails the fulfillment of the cultural mandate.
> As for the historical aspect of your question, I’m not qualified to answer. I’m sure someone here can chime in.


I am definitely not qualified to delve too deeply into this! But just wanted to offer one more thought of it. Taking Andres’ advice I’m studying Chapter 7 of the WCF, using Robert Shaw’s Exposition. Shaw: “That God entered into a covenant with Adam in his state of innocence appears from Genesis 2:16-17: “The Lord God commanded the man, saying, ‘Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.’ Here, indeed, there is no express mention of a covenant; but we find all the essential requisites of a proper covenant... There is a condition expressly stated, in the positive precept respecting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which God was pleased to make the test of man’s obedience.”

So for Shaw, the entering into the covenant happens explicitly in Genesis 2:16 and 17; the conditions are tied specifically to the eating of the fruit of the tree, and apparently this was the view of the Westminster divines. Reading through some past, pertinent discussion on this on the PB, I came across some hopefully helpful conversation.

Comment:
“While the specific Tree probationary stipulation carried a unique application to Adam as our federal head, it did not exhaust the covenant stipulations, did it? Didn't God command mankind through Adam and Eve to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it for the glory of God? If so, isn't that covenant sanction still in effect?”

Reply:
“... (There) was a creation mandate in the covenant of works, but this creation mandate is founded in the moral order governing creation as a whole; it was not a positive commandment which could serve as a test for man to be confirmed in life. The old divines were surely correct to point out that the prohibition to eat from the tree served as an ideal means for man's probation, seeing as it was well suited to his earthly appetites while abstinence would prove his spiritual and heavenly nearness to God.”

Discussing O. Palmer Robertson’s “Christ of the Covenants” in regard to his view of the CoW:
“...(Robertson) refers to it as the Covenant of Creation and discusses its general aspects and focal aspect. Under the general aspects he demonstrates that the Sabbath, Marriage, and Labor are established in this Covenant. He then goes on to discuss its focal aspect on pages 81-87. Some excerpts:

“In considering the prohibition of Genesis 2:17, it is essential to appreciate the organic unity between this commandment and the total responsibility of man as created. The requirement concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil must not be conceived of as a somewhat arbitrary stipulation without integral relation to the total life of man. Instead, this particular prohibition must be seen as the focal point of man's testing.”

“Adam under the covenant of creation did not have one set of duties relating to the created world, and another more specific duty of an entirely different nature which could be designated as "spirituaL" All that Adam did had direct bearing on his relation to the covenant God of creation. The creational ordinances of marriage, labor, and Sabbath did not have a distinctive existence separated from Adam's responsibility to refrain from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. His life as a covenant creature must be viewed as a unified whole.”

“When this focal character of the probationary test is appreciated, something of the reality of the entire scene becomes apparent. The narrative does not recount a silly story about a stolen apple. Instead, a most radical test of the original man's willingness to submit to the specific word of the Creator is involved.”


In response to comments re: Mr. Robertson’s views, the statement was made, “The ‘mutual’ aspect of covenant, as seen in the excerpt from a Brakel, has been removed. The older divines only perceived a covenant in the Adamic administration because of the two elements of promise and condition tied up with the probation. Remove the mutuality of covenant, as they conceived it, and there is really no basis for saying that the Adamic administration is a covenant. One is forced, then, to posit a broader covenant of creation which incorporates more than the probation.”

So it seems to me that as Mr. Robertson’s view represents a departure from earlier Puritan and Reformed thought; and made a conflation, if that’s the right word, of the creation mandate with the actual explicit terms of the covenant as presented in Genesis; that the same view seems to be represented in Mr. Rhode’s book.
I don’t know how this would impact the rest of his teaching, but that it would do so seems unavoidable.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------

