# Christ of the Covenants



## doonziticus (May 26, 2005)

Is the book, Christ of the Covenants by O. Palmer Robertson worth reading?


----------



## tcalbrecht (May 26, 2005)

Yes. It's an excellent resource for understanding the relationship of the covenants to God's redemptive program.


----------



## sastark (May 26, 2005)

Yes. Great intro to Covenant Theology.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (May 26, 2005)

Palmer Robertson was one of the heroes in the Shepherd controversy in the 70's and 80's at WTS, PA. He's a terrific OT scholar and fine Reformed scholar. 

His revision of classic covenant theology, however, is problematic, from an historical and systematic perspectives. 

He rejects the covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son as speculative and that leads to other difficulties. He is not very clear on the covenant of works. 

His definition of "covenant" (a bond in blood sovereignly administered") is not a horrible definition of the covenant of grace, but it omits the covenants of redemption (which he regarded as speculative) and the covenant of works. He did not see the correlation in Reformed theology (as per Wollebius, for example) between the covenant of works as law as a hermeneutical category and the covenant of grace and gospel as another hermeneutical category.

What we needed (and still need) is a good, clear, popular account of classical covenant theology. 
 
rsc


----------



## wsw201 (May 26, 2005)

to what Tom and Seth said. Great introductory book.


----------



## ChristianTrader (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Palmer Robertson was one of the heroes in the Shepherd controversy in the 70's and 80's at WTS, PA. He's a terrific OT scholar and fine Reformed scholar.
> 
> His revision of classic covenant theology, however, is problematic, from an historical and systematic perspectives.
> ...



What do you think of webmaster's intro book on covenant theology?

CT


----------



## R. Scott Clark (May 26, 2005)

I'm sorry to say that I haven't read it yet. 

I didn't mean to omit it from consideration by my comments. I didn't think of it as I wrote.

I would be happy to see it and will try to get a copy into our seminary bookstore.

rsc


----------



## sastark (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> What do you think of webmaster's intro book on covenant theology?
> 
> CT



I know this question wasn't directed to me, but.....

I'm reading it and I'm currently about half way through it. I enjoy the "dialog" format of the text.

As far as the substance goes, it is a very basic intro to covenant theology (which is exactly what one should expect from a book entitled "A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology"). Matt deals with the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace (with it's different administrations).

Having previously read Robertson's "Christ of the Covenants", I have found Matt's book to be basic, but still a nice refresher. As Dr. Clark mentioned, Robertson does not address the Covenant of Redemption, and so it was nice to see it included in "A Simple Overview".

I plan on posting more notes/comments from "A Simple Overview" when I'm done with it.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (May 26, 2005)

Dr. Clark,

Have you read Golding's Covenant Theology? I have a review copy but have yet to read it. I thumbed through it and did not see any heading related to the Covenant of Redemption. He discusses the CW and CG, nature of Mosaic Covenant, etc.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 26, 2005)

> What we needed (and still need) is a good, clear, popular account of classical covenant theology.



How about a simple overview? 

http://www.puritanpublications.com/Books/SimpleOverview.htm


----------



## wsw201 (May 26, 2005)

Dr. Clark,

Could Robertson be looking at the CoR in light of the Westminster Standards (the Standards do not mention the CoR)? Perhaps he is taking the position of Turretin as Matt has outlined in the linked article.

Turretin


----------



## R. Scott Clark (May 26, 2005)

Okay, I've ordered Matt's book! 

I've looked at the Golding vol and was a little disappointed for the reason Rich mentioned. I need to review it more closely however to give it a fair reading.

rsc

[Edited on 5-26-2005 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## Rich Barcellos (May 26, 2005)

It is of interest to note that the 1689 Confession contains clear statements concerning the CR - 7:3, "and it [CG] is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect..."; and 8:1, "It pleased God, in his eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, his only begotten Son, according to the covenant made between them both, to be the mediator between God and man..." 7:3 is unique to the 1689. 8:1 is a slight modification of the Savoy. Also, in 1689:11:1, IAO is explicit - "...but by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness..."


----------



## R. Scott Clark (May 26, 2005)

In the forthcoming work, Foolishess of the Gospel, there is an entire chapter (sorry for the repeated commercial, but I don't want to type out here what is already done) on the pactum salutis/covenant of redemption. 

I read Matt's survey of Turretin etc. Turretin is saying what most of them said, that is, in effect, the PS is a covenant of grace when the elect are in view and a covenant of works when the Son is in view. Thus the WCF tends to look at the PS (by implication in ch 8) with the Son's covenant keeping in view and the larger catechism 31 looks at the PS with the elect in view.

So I don't accept the premise that Westminster Standards don't teach the PS.

Palmer seems to have accepted the widely shared view among modern biblical scholars and theologians that that PS was a speculative doctrine. It was rejected by Berkouwer, Barth, Murray, Hoeksema, Schilder and many others have rejected it on those grounds.

One minor cavil about Matt's summary: "intertrinitarian" is not correct. That would make the PS between multiple deities. The term is *intratrinitarian,* i.e., between trinitarian persons.

rsc


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 26, 2005)

Dr. Clark

If Trinitarian implies the Christian doctrine of three persons of one essence, why is inter incorrect. According to my references inter also means in the midst of as does intra. Is your knowledge impling that inter only makes the distinction of being between two Trinities, were as intra makes it within the Trinity? 

Just want to get it correct. Randy

[Edited on 5-26-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## fredtgreco (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Dr. Clark
> 
> If Trinitarian implies the Christian doctrine of three persons of one essence, why is inter incorrect. According to my references inter also means in the midst of as does intra. Is your knowledge impling that inter only makes the distinction of being between two Trinities, were as intra makes it within the Trinity?
> ...



Randy,

I am guessing that the key here is the term "Trinity." Inter something has reference to two distinct entities (e.g. interstate commerce is commerce that involves two or more "states" ). Intra something involves an internal reference to one thing (e.g. intrastate commerce is commerce that is confined within one state).

So inter-Trinitarian would imply two (or more) Trinities, whereas intra-Trinitarian would imply one Trinity.


----------



## kevin.carroll (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> Yes. Great intro to Covenant Theology.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 26, 2005)

This is what Matt wrote Concerning Turretin and the COR.


> Turretin does not use the more refined terminology of the "œCovenant of Redemption", but does say "œthe former is the agreement between the Father and the Son to carry out the work of redemption."[18] This is the same thought process that later theologians (just a decade later with Witsius) will use the designation Covenant of Redemption. Turretin, instead, simply divides the Covenant of Grace into two sections (the same division that the Westminster Assembly made in the Westminster Confession of Faith). Section one is the pact or agreement between the Father and the Son, and section two is the pact or agreement between God and offending man. The term, Covenant of Grace, then, becomes a vehicle in expressing these two separate ideas. As Turretin says, "œthe former [the past with the Father and the Son] was made with the surety and head for the salvation of its members; the latter was made with the members in the head and surety."[19]



Thanks Fred. I was wondering if we were just splitting hairs because inter can also mean among or in between. It is mostly used today as something between two things.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (May 26, 2005)

Its Latin. 

A Trinity is one thing in which there are three persons. Inter-trinitarian means "between two trinities." That's not what we mean to say. We mean to say that there is a covenant between two (or more) of the Trinitarian persons.

Intra refers to a relation *within*. That's why schools have intra-mural sports not inter-mural sports. 

rsc


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 26, 2005)

> So inter-Trinitarian would imply two (or more) Trinities, whereas intra-Trinitarian would imply one Trinity.



I have too much stuff on APM to find this without knowing where it is to correct it. You're right. It needs to be changed. Slip of the old lip. Like when I write "baulk" I always write "bock". Just bad data stored in the ol' cranium that refuses to be purged.

Tell me where that is so I can correct it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 12, 2005)

About 1/3 of the way down the page on your Turretin paper.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 12, 2005)

Thanks muchly - fixed!


----------

