# Books on covenant theology - please recommend.



## MRC

As I am currently studying the doctrine of paedobaptism I have come to realize I do not know enough about covenant theology. I have read an intro systematic text from a Presbyterian background, and Vos' Biblical Theology. I currently have Michael Horton's _Introducing Covenant Theology_ as a recommended resource on the monergism bookstore. However, having bantered back and forth here a bit with some of my more learned brothers (in particular, thanks Bruce) I am realizing that not everyone in the reformed camp agrees about the covenant(s). Could anyone recommend some other, modern and excellent introductions to covenant theology from a mainline confessional (Westminster or Three Forms) perspective?


----------



## py3ak

John Brown of Haddington, while not quite modern, is very stimulating on covenant theology in both his "Questions and Answers on the Shorter Catechism" (originally "An Easy, Plain, Practical", etc., etc.) and his "Systematic Theology" (originally "A Compendious View of Natural and Revealed Religion", etc., etc).


----------



## Bookmeister

Horton's book is excellent!


----------



## Wayne

_Christ of the Covenants_, by O. Palmer Robertson and the trilogy by Dr. Gerard Van Groningen: 1. _Biblical Theology_; 2. _Messianic Revelation in the O.T_.; 3. _From Christ to Consummation_. Then _The Economy of the Covenants_, by Hermann Witsius.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Here are some introductory resources: 

Westminster Seminary California clark

Here are some books:

The Bookstore at WSC: Introducing Covenant Theology (Paperback) by Horton, Michael S.

The Bookstore at WSC: Baptism, Election, & the Covenant of Grace by Clark, R. Scott

The Bookstore at WSC: Caspar Olevian on the Substance of the Covenant by Clark, R. Scott

The Bookstore at WSC: Covenant, Justification and Pastoral Ministry by Clark, R. Scott

Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, trans. William Crookshank, 2 vols. (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1990).

The Bookstore at WSC: The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis by Waters, Guy Prentiss


----------



## westminken

Is the Van Groningen trilogy, the set Creation to Consummation at the CTS bookstore?


----------



## MRC

Bookmeister said:


> Horton's book is excellent!


 
Good to hear, I think I am going to start it soon.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ is a necessary work from the Particlar Baptist Background. 

SGCB | Book Search


----------



## Andres

MRC said:


> As I am currently studying the doctrine of paedobaptism I have come to realize I do not know enough about covenant theology. I have read an intro systematic text from a Presbyterian background, and Vos' Biblical Theology. I currently have Michael Horton's _Introducing Covenant Theology_ as a recommended resource on the monergism bookstore. However, having bantered back and forth here a bit with some of my more learned brothers (in particular, thanks Bruce) I am realizing that not everyone in the reformed camp agrees about the covenant(s). Could anyone recommend some other, modern and excellent introductions to covenant theology from a mainline confessional (Westminster or Three Forms) perspective?



Mike, I went through a study of Covenant theology not too long ago myself. The "standard" recommendation for a study of CT seems to be Palmer's book, _Christ of the Covenants_, and while certainly not a bad book, I found Horton's to be more helpful. Obviously this is just my opinion, but since I read both of them within a few weeks of each other back in January, I thought I would share. 

Something else I found really helpful is Richard Phillip's MP3 series on CT. Phillips is an excellent speaker and explains many of the doctrines/ideas of CT beautifully and easy to understand. The series can be found here towards the bottom of the page.


----------



## Irish Presbyterian

Covenant Theology: The Key of Theology in Reformed Thought and Tradition by Peter Golding.

I loved Horton's book and second Andres recommendation of Rick Phillip's Mp3 series.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Irish Presbyterian said:


> Covenant Theology: The Key of Theology in Reformed Thought and Tradition by Peter Golding.
> 
> I loved Horton's book and second Andres recommendation of Rick Phillip's Mp3 series.



Most people don't know about the Peter Golding book on CT. His book is more of a historical defense of it. What are you looking for precisely? This is a life long study that will take a few years to digest from any angle. So don't think you are going to get a book that will bring you to a precise point of understanding in one read. Are you looking for an intro or a indepth look at the subject? Herman Witsius' Economy of the Covenants is a must have. 

If you want to know stuff topically you can look at a few blogs on the Puritanboard. I have a few on this discussion of baptism and Covenant. But if you want to be specific on an area you will have to ask me which one applies. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/


----------



## Tirian

I have purchased several copies of this book A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology by C. Matthew McMahon in Christianity to hand out to people who are interested in knowing more about CT and can highly recommend it as a good intro to the topic. 

May God bless your study of His word,
Matt


----------



## Christopher88

Bookmeister said:


> Horton's book is excellent!


 
I'm reading this book, and I must say I agree.


----------



## Peairtach

The problem with Horton's book is that it introduces the intermural debate between Covenant Theologians about whether or not the Mosaic Covenant is a republication of the Covenant of Works. Horton believes that it is, and introduces that added complexity to his Intro to Covenant Theology.

I'm still not sure if ''Republicationists'' have clearly explained what they mean by the Covenant of Works being republished '' in some sense'' at Sinai. I don't think Horton clearly explains how the Sinai Covenant - as Republicationists like to call it - can be a republication of the Covenant of Works - when there are so many material and substantial and essential differences between the Covenant made with Adam and that made with Israel.

It's an additional and rather opaque debate being brought into the explanation of Covenant Theology for some who are reading Horton's book as coming to Covenant Theology for the first time. Some of the beauty and simplicity of Covenant Theology is obscured by the Republicationist approach.

The concerns of Republicationists could be covered more simply by saying that the Mosaic/Sinaitic Covenant was an administration of the Covenant of Grace but had legal and typological conditions which were a graciously given teaching aid, subservient to the Covenant of Grace and thus essentially graciously given teaching aids, to the under age Church, and which somewhat echoed the Edenic administration while also pointing forward to the eschatalogical realities of the New Covenant and the Heavenly Kingdom.

I.e. in Israel it was possible to lose your place in the Land - but not in Heaven if you had true faith - by being executed for grossly, wilfully and presumptiously breaking the 10C. Also the nation as a whole could lose their place in the Land - although true believers, e.g. Daniel, ejected from the Land would still go to Heaven - if the nation did not live up to God's commandments. But since all the Israeltes were sinners to start off with - unlike Adam - all these conditions would have to be met by grace, common and saving grace, if the individual was to avoid execution or the nation was to avoid expulsion - which things typologically expressed '' the curse of the Law''.

Theonomists need to take these matters into account when trying to derive/apply the general equity of the Mosaic criminal/penal law to modern states.


----------



## MRC

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Irish Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Covenant Theology: The Key of Theology in Reformed Thought and Tradition by Peter Golding.
> 
> I loved Horton's book and second Andres recommendation of Rick Phillip's Mp3 series.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people don't know about the Peter Golding book on CT. His book is more of a historical defense of it. What are you looking for precisely? This is a life long study that will take a few years to digest from any angle. So don't think you are going to get a book that will bring you to a precise point of understanding in one read. Are you looking for an intro or a indepth look at the subject? Herman Witsius' Economy of the Covenants is a must have.
> 
> If you want to know stuff topically you can look at a few blogs on the Puritanboard. I have a few on this discussion of baptism and Covenant. But if you want to be specific on an area you will have to ask me which one applies.
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/
Click to expand...


Thanks for the info. I was just looking for somewhere to start, as I appreciate the large scope of this issue. Baptism was the issue I realized I could not solve properly without a study of covenant theology, so I am starting. I feel like I have a pretty good list of resources to start with, I am particularily interested in gaining a full-orbed understanding of the P&R perspective on covenant theology as it pertains to paedobaptism, as opposed to the reformed Baptist take on credobaptism.


----------



## Covenant Joel

I would highly recommend _Far as the Curse is Found_ by Michael Williams (CTS prof). I found it easy to read, helpful, and even enjoyable.


----------



## fredtgreco

I also think that Horton is not the place to start for someone just learning covenant theology. It not only gets into muddy waters about the Mosaic Covenant, but it also is distinctly Klinean (following Meredith Kline) which cannot be called simple (or "mere" or standard) covenant theology. It has major distinctives, some of which are very much not standard to covenant theology.

I would start with O Palmer Robertson's book, which is far more standard. Another good choice (though a bit harder since it is written in a dialog format) is the Marrow of Modern Divinity. Another good option is to simply take standard Systematic Theologies (Hodge, Berkhof, Dabney, etc.) and read their respective sections on covenant theology.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

I quite agree with Rev Greco re the Marrow. Everyone should read it and the new edition from Christian Focus is very well done.

As one who has been studying the history of covenant theology since 1993 (see the links above), Mike Horton's presentation is quite mainstream. Mike went out of his way not to make it distinctly Klinean. He did not insist on the doctrine of republication, even though it was widely taught in the 17th century (and in the late 16th century as I've shown here and on the HB several times). His account of two parallel covenants in throughout redemptive history, a covenant of works and a covenant of grace is right down the middle of the mainstream.

From a historical perspective Palmer Robertson's presentation is more idiosyncratic than Horton's. 

Horton's volume is a sometimes difficult read but it is worth the effort as is Witsius.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I make a third and very strong motion for the Marrow of Modern Divinity.


----------



## rbcbob

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ is a necessary work from the Particlar Baptist Background.
> 
> SGCB | Book Search


 
Thanks, Randy. I just ordered it!


----------



## MRC

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I make a third and very strong motion for the Marrow of Modern Divinity.


 
Thanks guys, I am going to get Marrow ordered.

---------- Post added at 03:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:23 PM ----------




R. Scott Clark said:


> Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, trans. William Crookshank, 2 vols. (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1990).


 
Any idea where I might be able to purchase a copy of this?


----------



## greenbaggins

I would highly NOT recommend the book by Michael Williams, which confuses law and gospel and denies the covenant of works. Witsius is hard to beat. If you were to read the relevant sections of Witsius, Turretin, and a'Brakel, you would be fairly well-grounded in the doctrine of the covenant. The Marrow is also excellent, and in a brand new beautiful edition from Christian Focus.


----------



## py3ak

It's been a long time since I read (or owned) O. Palmer Robertson, but doesn't he deny the covenant of works? 

You could always go with Thomas Boston: Internet Archive: Free Download: A view of the covenant of grace from the sacred records. Wherein the parties in that covenant, the making of it; its parts ... and the administration thereof, are distinctly considered. Together with the trial of a sa


----------



## JM

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ is a necessary work from the Particlar Baptist Background.
> 
> SGCB | Book Search


 
That one is still on my list...but I'd like to recommend Divine Covenants by A. W. Pink. Pietan Publications


----------



## greenbaggins

py3ak said:


> It's been a long time since I read (or owned) O. Palmer Robertson, but doesn't he deny the covenant of works?
> 
> You could always go with Thomas Boston: Internet Archive: Free Download: A view of the covenant of grace from the sacred records. Wherein the parties in that covenant, the making of it; its parts ... and the administration thereof, are distinctly considered. Together with the trial of a sa


 
Definitely not. He affirms the covenant of works.


----------



## py3ak

Then it's the Covenant of Redemption he wasn't too crazy about?


----------



## greenbaggins

py3ak said:


> Then it's the Covenant of Redemption he wasn't too crazy about?


 
Unfortunately, his work contains no subject index whatsoever, and the chapter headings don't help either. I can't tell by simply going to a section.


----------



## py3ak

I seem to remember it was right at the beginning, in the first chapter or introduction where he sets out what he intends to discuss; but as I misremembered something else from when I read it 9 years ago, I don't know how good that recollection will be!


----------



## MRC

greenbaggins said:


> I would highly NOT recommend the book by Michael Williams, which confuses law and gospel and denies the covenant of works. Witsius is hard to beat. If you were to read the relevant sections of Witsius, Turretin, and a'Brakel, you would be fairly well-grounded in the doctrine of the covenant. The Marrow is also excellent, and in a brand new beautiful edition from Christian Focus.


 
What about Bavinck, does he deal with the doctrine of covenant? I have started investing in his _Reformed Dogmatics_ due to some excellent reviews I heard on one or two of the podcasts put out by the Reformed Forum. I am definitely thinking about investing in Turretin, and will if I can find a copy of Witsius to buy.


----------



## MW

The problem with recommendations is that they often reflect where people are now rather than where they were when they began studying the subject. From the perspective of a pastor hoping to impress a general sense and appreciation of the subject upon a reader, I would suggest the best place to begin is the Westminster Confession, chapter 7, and Robert Shaw's Exposition. As questions emerge from that reading more specific treatments might then be consulted with a sense of their bearing on the overall subject.


----------



## Bookmeister

Just speaking as one who was in a non-confessional, dispensational credo-baptist type church Horton's book convinced me of covenant theology and I still stand behind my recommendation.


----------



## JM

Rev. Winzer makes an excellent point.

I'll recommend 1689 LBC: Chapter 7: "Of God's Covenant" and Samuel Waldron's exposition of the chapter.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

JM said:


> Rev. Winzer makes an excellent point.
> 
> I'll recommend 1689 LBC: Chapter 7: "Of God's Covenant" and Samuel Waldron's exposition of the chapter.



I actually appreciate the WCF more on the Covenants than the LBCF. The Westminster is a bit more definitive than the LBCF is concerning the Covenants. 

Of God's Covenant with Man



> Section I.—The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him, as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.
> 
> Section II.—The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.
> 
> 
> Section III.—Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> Section IV.—This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ, the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.
> 
> 
> Section V.—This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all fore-signifying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation, and is called the Old Testament.
> 
> Section VI.—Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed, are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.



LBCF


> CHAPTER 7*- GOD'S COVENANT
> 
> 1.	THE distance between God and His creature man is so great that, although men, endowed as they are with reason, owe obedience to Him as their creator, yet they could never have attained to life as their reward had not God, in an act of voluntary condescension, made this possible by the making of a covenant.
> 
> Job_35:7-8; Luk_17:10.
> 
> 2.	Furthermore, since man, by reason of his fall into sin, had brought himself under the curse of God's law, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, in which He freely offers life and salvation by Jesus Christ to sinners. On their part He requires faith in Him that they may be saved, and promises to give His Holy Spirit to all those who are elected unto eternal life, in order that they may be made willing and able to believe.
> 
> Gen_2:17; Psa_110:3; Eze_36:26-27; Mar_16:15-16; Joh_3:16; Joh_6:44-45; Rom_3:20-21; Rom_8:3; Gal_3:10.
> 
> 3.	God's covenant is revealed in the gospel; in the first place to Adam in the promise of salvation by 'the seed of the woman', and afterwards, step by step, until the full revelation of salvation was completed in the New Testament. The salvation of the elect is based upon a covenant of redemption that was transacted in eternity between the Father and the Son; and it is solely through the grace conveyed by this covenant that all the descendants of fallen Adam who have been saved have obtained life and a blessed immortality; for the terms of blessing which applied to Adam in his state of innocency have no application to his posterity to render them acceptable to God.
> 
> Gen_3:15; Joh_8:56; Act_4:12; Rom_4:1-5; 2Ti_1:9; Tit_1:2; Heb_1:1-2; Heb_11:6; Heb_11:13.


----------



## JM

Good point. Why did the Baptists of 1689 leave out mention of the covenant of works? Hummm....don't want to get side track, back to the op.


----------



## nnatew24

MRC said:


> Thanks for the info. I was just looking for somewhere to start, as I appreciate the large scope of this issue. Baptism was the issue I realized I could not solve properly without a study of covenant theology, so I am starting. I feel like I have a pretty good list of resources to start with, I am particularily interested in gaining a full-orbed understanding of the P&R perspective on covenant theology as it pertains to paedobaptism, as opposed to the reformed Baptist take on credobaptism.



Let me just say that Randy's book recommendation doesn't really dive into the baptism debate. However, it isn't so much as an introduction to CT as it is a close examination of the Abrahamic and Mosaic and New Covenant, as opposed to a broad overview of them all. 

I am also fairly new to Covenant Theology. I began by reading Horton's book, several O Palmer Roberson books on the subject, Berkof, Reymond, and some other unpublished articles (see, for example, these excellent articles by Ligon Duncan), but Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ is one of the best treatments I've read --regardless of whether you're paedo or not. Remember that the last half of the book is actually by John Owen. 

Don't count it out, even if you don't want to get into the baptism debate right now. It is an excellent book on Covenant Theology.


----------



## fredtgreco

nnatew24 said:


> MRC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the info. I was just looking for somewhere to start, as I appreciate the large scope of this issue. Baptism was the issue I realized I could not solve properly without a study of covenant theology, so I am starting. I feel like I have a pretty good list of resources to start with, I am particularily interested in gaining a full-orbed understanding of the P&R perspective on covenant theology as it pertains to paedobaptism, as opposed to the reformed Baptist take on credobaptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me just say that Randy's book recommendation doesn't really dive into the baptism debate. However, it isn't so much as an introduction to CT as it is a close examination of the Abrahamic and Mosaic and New Covenant, as opposed to a broad overview of them all.
> 
> I am also fairly new to Covenant Theology. I began by reading Horton's book, several O Palmer Roberson books on the subject, Berkof, Reymond, and some other unpublished articles (see, for example, http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/apologetics/Covenant%20Theology%20&%20Justification/index.htm"]these excellent articles[/URL] by Ligon Duncan), but Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ is one of the best treatments I've read --regardless of whether you're paedo or not. Remember that the last half of the book is actually by John Owen.
> 
> Don't count it out, even if you don't want to get into the baptism debate right now. It is an excellent book on Covenant Theology.
Click to expand...

 Nathan,

You should know that John Owen is almost universally viewed to have one of the most idiosyncratic views of the Covenant of Works.


----------



## nnatew24

fredtgreco said:


> Nathan,
> 
> You should know that John Owen is almost universally viewed to have one of the most idiosyncratic views of the Covenant of Works.



My point was that Owen was a paedobaptist, and is given half of the book. So the book isn't a polemic work against paedobaptism, which seemed to be his objection to picking it up. Granted, however, it does present a Particular Baptist view on the Covenants.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

MRC said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I make a third and very strong motion for the Marrow of Modern Divinity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks guys, I am going to get Marrow ordered.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 03:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:23 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, trans. William Crookshank, 2 vols. (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1990).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any idea where I might be able to purchase a copy of this?
Click to expand...

 
Amazon


----------



## R. Scott Clark

fredtgreco said:


> \
> You should know that John Owen is almost universally viewed to have one of the most idiosyncratic views of the Covenant of Works.


 
Fred,

Can you substantiate this? If he's almost universally viewed in a certain way there must be a great lot of literature on this question.

Thanks


----------



## Peairtach

I think there could be a rapprochement between Republicationists and other Covenant Theologians. I'm sure in their better moments, non-Republicationists admit that there is a conditional '' legal'' element to the Mosaic Covenant, involving susceptibility to removal from the Land by execution or expulsion. 

And I'm sure in their better moments Republicationists admit that the language of ''Republication of the Covenant of Works'' is infelicitous and misleading, because Adam being without sin could keep a Covenant by His works, whereas if the Israelites were to produce the good works necessary to avoid execution and/or expulsion, being already sinners, they needed grace.


----------



## Casey

Richard Tallach said:


> I think there could be a rapprochement between Republicationists and other Covenant Theologians. I'm sure in their better moments, non-Republicationists admit that there is a conditional '' legal'' element to the Mosaic Covenant, involving susceptibility to removal from the Land by execution or expulsion.


No, their removal from the land was evangelical, not legal. It was an administration of the covenant of grace, not the covenant of works. They were removed from the land, not in the first place because they sinned (the stipulation of the covenant of works), but because they had not faith (the stipulation of the covenant of grace). See Hebrew 2-3 and 2 Kings 17:14.


----------



## Peairtach

Casey said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there could be a rapprochement between Republicationists and other Covenant Theologians. I'm sure in their better moments, non-Republicationists admit that there is a conditional '' legal'' element to the Mosaic Covenant, involving susceptibility to removal from the Land by execution or expulsion.
> 
> 
> 
> No, their removal from the land was evangelical, not legal. It was an administration of the covenant of grace, not the covenant of works. They were removed from the land, not in the first place because they sinned (the stipulation of the covenant of works), but because they had not faith (the stipulation of the covenant of grace). See Hebrew 2-3 and 2 Kings 17:14.
Click to expand...


I agree. But it was their lack of good works, both negative and positive, that demonstrated their lack of faith, and led to their expulsion. In the Torah the emphasis sometimes seems to be that the curse falls on those that do not demonstrate their grace produced faith by good works, both negative and positive, rather than on the faith itself.

But because the test of works had to be produced by faith through grace in the case of the Israelites, I don't like the language of "Republication of the Covenant of Works"

The emphasis seems to be on the Israelites producing the requisite works and this being the test as to whether they would live or die (by e.g. execution) physically or live, or live in the Land collectively or be expelled from the Land collectively. But the Republicationists have not yet explained how the Israelites could do this without saving or common grace, like Adam. Adam of course could keep his Covenant of Works without grace - i.e. God's unmerited or demerited favour - because he was sinless.

Adam and the Israelites are chalk and cheese. Any typological teaching aids like death by execution for those who forfeited a sacrifiice by their gross breach of nine of the 10C, or expulsion from the Land for all the Israelites if they did not live up to a certain standard, were given by the grace of God for the sake of a church under age. If some turned God's grace into a reason for their sorer judgment, then that was their fault.


----------



## Peairtach

We have also to remember that even in the Old Covenant period, God's law could only be _truly_ kept evangelically rather than legalistically.

By their turning to false Gods, many/most of the pre-exilic Israelites demonstrated that they were not keeping God's law evangelically _or_ legalistically.

By their additions to the law and their covenantal nomism, many/most of the Jews of the Second Temple Period, were trying to keep the law legalistically. But this was also unacceptable to God, and they were expelled from the Land.

Thanks for reminding me of this, Casey. Our Lord's interpretation of the law in Matthew 5-7, and of the Sabbath and the rest of the law in other parts of the Gospels, was the way in which the Israelites were _always_ meant to keep it from the beginning at Sinai, and _was_ the way in which truly justified Israelites always did keep it, _in measure_, as they made progress in what we would call sanctification.


----------



## thegospel

I read through Dr. McMahon's book "A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology". I enjoyed it because of the dialogue that the book presents. The dialogue is between a professor and a student. The student has a dispensational background and wanted to learn more about covenant theology and paedobaptism. The professor really helps the student to understand the major differences between the dispensational understanding of scripture and covenantal understanding. 

I read the book through twice in a two week period because of how the concepts of covenant theology were presented and I wanted to grasp the information. The book was a quick read, but I felt McMahon was more clear than Horton. McMahon's book presents covenant theology from the view of Witsius and the early covenant theologians, and uses their language and definitions more than Horton does. I would recommend reading McMahon's work first, then Horton's. 

If you can handle reading a pdf I would purchase McMahon's book in the electronic format, I think it is only $10. He also has Rutherford's work "The Covenant Life Openned" and Blake's book "The Covenant of God" (which McMahon says is a must read for those looking for an exhaustive work on Covenant Theology).

McMahon effectively deals with paedobaptism and covenant theology. This book left me with a great sense that paedobaptism is a biblically sustainable position. If you would have asked me this before I read this book I would have told you that our presbyterian brethren just loved their traditions (boy was I confused).


----------



## DMcFadden

If you can tolerate a Baptist's opinion: Michael Horton, Palmer Robertson, Witsius, and The Marrow. Witsius is longish (nearly 900 pages) but breathtaking in its scope and detailed consideration of so many points and passages.


----------



## greenbaggins

DMcFadden said:


> If you can tolerate a Baptist's opinion: Michael Horton, Palmer Robertson, Witsius, and The Marrow. Witsius is longish (nearly 900 pages) but breathtaking in its scope and detailed consideration of so many points and passages.


 
This is easily tolerated when all the works you recommended are paedo!


----------



## Rich Barcellos

*Owen on the CW*

Owen's view of the covenant of works was pretty standard in his day. See my dissertation at Amazon.com: The Family Tree of Reformed Biblical Theology (9780980217957): Richard C Barcellos: Books.


----------



## Rich Barcellos

Here is a review of Golding's book I wrote a few years ago.

Covenant Theology: The Key of Theology in Reformed Thought and Tradition,
Peter Golding
(Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor imprint by Christian Focus Publications, 2004),
reviewed by Richard C. Barcellos

The last twenty years have seen the publication of several books on Covenant Theology both biblical and historical. Peter Golding’s Covenant Theology (CT) is a helpful resource and should be added to anyone’s library interested in this subject. It is well-written and amply supported with endnotes.
Golding gives a brief history of Covenant (Federal) Theology from the Sixteenth to the Seventeenth Centuries then jumps to the Twentieth. He shows awareness of the Calvin versus the Calvinists theory of the relationship between the sixteenth-century Reformers and the seventeenth-century Protestant Scholastics. He sees the relationship as one of development and refinement, not departure (and rightly so). Golding acknowledges that though full-blown (confessional) federalism came about in the Seventeenth Century, all the essential ingredients of it were latent in the sixteenth-century writers (18). This is a major point to make and important in the contemporary discussions of the relationship between the first and second generation Reformers and their Protestant Scholastic heirs.
Golding provides an historical survey (chapters 1 and 2), brings the reader up to the late 1980s and early 1990s (chapter 3; this chapter is highly dependent on John Murray and O. Palmer Robertson), discusses three perspectives on ‘The Import of the Covenant’ (chapter 4), discusses the covenants of works and grace (chapters 5 and 6), conducts a survey of covenantal/redemptive history (chapter 7), then draws some contemporary conclusions (chapter 8).
Though Golding is highly dependent on Murray in many places, he does take him to task. After highlighting the strengths of Murray’s contributions to Covenant Theology, he identifies his weaknesses as follows: “(i) Murray defines covenant basically as an ‘administration’, …‘the term “administration” does not represent adequately the essence of the covenant-concept in Scripture [quoting Robertson].’ For instance, a marriage is in some senses an administration, yet to use such an impersonal term in defining the essence of marriage hardly captures the heart of the relationship: the covenant binds persons.”(179); “(ii) Furthermore, Murray defines covenant fundamentally from the perspective of one selected covenantal bond, appealing to the Noahic covenant as proto-typical. … Consequently, it is illegitimate to elevate any single covenantal bond to the level of providing the basis for a general definition of covenant. As Robertson points out, ‘When such a procedure is followed, the resulting definition inevitably will be unbalanced in its emphasis.’” (179); “(iii) Connected to the foregoing is the fact that Murray defines covenant in terms of that which the covenant administers, rather than focusing more broadly on the nature of the covenant itself. In Murray’s definition, a covenant is ‘an administration of grace and promise’, but while it may be readily acknowledged that grace and promise are administered in the covenant relationship, ‘yet without question covenant also administers law.’ [quoting Robertson] ” (179).
It is of interest to note that Golding utilizes Robertson’s definition of covenant on page 75, “a bond in blood sovereignly administered.” However, not all biblical covenants involve blood (i.e., Noahic, Davidic, and Marriage). If Golding applied the scrutiny he did to Murray to Robertson’s definition, it seems that he would not have utilized it. Though the word covenant has a basic lexical definition, it can and does take on various nuances as it is used in various texts/contexts. This ought to caution us from creating a definition of covenant that fits all textual usages. It is impossible.
I found his references quite dated for a book published in 2004. For instance, the most recent reference I could find in the bibliography and the endnotes is from 1992. The last fifteen years have seen many works published which deal with federalism in its sixteenth- and seventeenth-century context (for instance, the many titles in the Baker Academic series “Texts & Studies in Reformation & Post-Reformation Thought” and Richard Muller’s monumental four volume Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics). Several authors (Trueman [1998], Rehnman [2002], Daniels [2004], Kapic [2007]) have shown that when discussing the Federal Theology of the Seventeenth Century, John Owen deserves a prominent place. Golding did not give Owen such place. The critiques Golding offers of Dispensationalism and Theonomy are both very brief. The references to dispensational authors are very dated and the critique of Theonomy ends abruptly.
Godling’s book will introduce readers to the world of Covenant Theology (something much needed in our day) and will whet the appetite for further study.


----------



## jwithnell

> Then it's the Covenant of Redemption he wasn't too crazy about?



I'm not sure where anyone would get this idea. Mr. Robertson shows a continuity of the OT covenants reaching their culmination in Christ and the new covenant. 



> What about Bavinck, does he deal with the doctrine of covenant?


The impression I get from those coming out of Westminster is that Mr. Bavink is foundational to the 20th century works on the covenants.


----------



## Covenant Joel

jwithnell said:


> Then it's the Covenant of Redemption he wasn't too crazy about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure where anyone would get this idea. Mr. Robertson shows a continuity of the OT covenants reaching their culmination in Christ and the new covenant.
Click to expand...


I believe you're referring to the covenant of grace. The question refers to the covenant of redemption, the pact between Father, Son, and Spirit in eternity past to accomplish the redemption (which obviously led to the CoG). I don't remember 100% for sure whether Robertson doesn't accept this. If my memory serves correctly, he says that the language of covenant is never used to describe such an arrangement, so there's no need to call it a "covenant of redemption."


----------



## jwithnell

Defined in those terms, then I'd have to agree. (Actually I hope to take a look at the distinction between CoG and CoR in the next day or two.) Mr. Robertson does not address and inter-trinitarian covenant. 

Frankly, I'm not sure we can state that there is one; certainly we know that we were chosen from before the foundation of the world, but what communication existed amongst the Godhead is not shown in scripture. If you see the covenants as a unilateral agreement of superior to inferior with life and death consequences, I'm not sure that this pre-creation covenant holds up. 

I'm certainly open to investigating this. I know there are many godly teachers that I highly respect who hold to the pre-creation covenant.


----------



## Peairtach

I'm not against the expression "covenant" of redemption being used as long as it is understood it is in some sense analogical. 

When Father, Son and Holy Spirit "decide" or "agree" to do something, do they "need" to covenant? These things are somewhat beyond our tiny minds, but what is revealed belongs to us. The Father chose a number which the Son agreed to die for and the Spirit agreed to sanctify.


----------



## Prufrock

Regarding the current sub-discussion of the Covenant of Redemption; this illustrates the importance in Reformed dogmatics of not *separating* the Covenant of Redemption from the Covenant of Grace. Theologians have often *distinguished* them, but they cannot be separated. For instance, though Rutherford treats the two separately, even he does not truly make them to *really* differ, but calls the CoR the _prototype_ and the CoG the _ectype_. In Westminster language, the Covenant of Grace is made _with Christ_, and with the elect in him. So no matter how one distinguishes the CoR and CoG, there is still a covenant being made with the Son of God in our confessional formulae.


----------



## MW

Rich Barcellos said:


> Several authors (Trueman [1998], Rehnman [2002], Daniels [2004], Kapic [2007]) have shown that when discussing the Federal Theology of the Seventeenth Century, John Owen deserves a prominent place.


 
Would you please provide some support for this claim or at least some reference to pagination of the works cited. I recall Rehnman showing Owen's "revelational" use of the federal scheme as well as a disagreement with reformed scholasticism over the use of reason for the systematisation of theology. I also recall Kapic speaking of the federal theology in relation to the sinlessness of Christ in Owen's thought. But that Owen deserves a prominent place in discussions on 17th century federalism seems to be an over-statement at best.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> Rich Barcellos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Several authors (Trueman [1998], Rehnman [2002], Daniels [2004], Kapic [2007]) have shown that when discussing the Federal Theology of the Seventeenth Century, John Owen deserves a prominent place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you please provide some support for this claim or at least some reference to pagination of the works cited. I recall Rehnman showing Owen's "revelational" use of the federal scheme as well as a disagreement with reformed scholasticism over the use of reason for the systematisation of theology. I also recall Kapic speaking of the federal theology in relation to the sinlessness of Christ in Owen's thought. But that Owen deserves a prominent place in discussions on 17th century federalism seems to be an over-statement at best.
Click to expand...


There is a recent dissertation that many paedo's endorsed. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/family-tree-reformed-biblical-theology-new-book-rich-barcellos-59986/

Just look it up. If you want I will have one sent to you at my cost. I am third of the way through the book. It is heavily footnoted.


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> There is a recent dissertation that many paedo's endorsed.
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/family-tree-reformed-biblical-theology-new-book-rich-barcellos-59986/
> 
> Just look it up. If you want I will have one sent to you at my cost. I am third of the way through the book. It is heavily footnoted.


 
Thanks for the offer, Randy. It is something I will be interested to look into in the near future; but for the present, I'm interested in the claim being made on the basis of the cited works.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

That is a lot. I just read that section. You really want all the endorsements? I would have to spend a lot of typing doing it.


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> That is a lot. I just read that section. You really want all the endorsements? I would have to spend a lot of typing doing it.


 
Our wires are getting crossed. I'm not speaking of the endorsements of the book you are recommending. I'm referring to the works by Trueman, Rehnman, Daniels and Kapic, which were cited as giving support to the claim that John Owen deserves prominent place in discussions on 17th century federalism.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Like I said. That is a lot. Rich's book has a lot of documentation. I will most gladly have the book sent to you. It isn't just endorsements. That was a poor word to say. I have never read a dissertation with this much reference. It is there. Do you want me to copy and print it here? It is in the book. Are you claiming that Owen didn't have a Federal theme here? That would be most interesting in light of all I have read in many years past.


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Are you claiming that Owen didn't have a Federal theme here?


 
I am doubting that he ought to be prominent in discussions on 17th century federalism, contrary to what has been claimed. He clearly had a federal theology; it is apparent in his works. I don't think he is difficult to understand, so he does not need a school of interpretation to write Sentences on his works. He did not write a work on federal theology, nor was he influential in forming or furthering a federal school of thought.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

That seems out there Rev. Winzer. It was J. I. Packer and Owen who were big on teaching me the Headship of the Second Adam and First Adam. Are you saying he didn't do this? What are you suggesting. Owen wrote more than most men of the time. Did he neglect what you are saying? The Westminster Assembly was Awesome. He was a little younger and not a part of it but he did have a lot to do with Savoy. Is that not a Federal document? Some might say it is more from what I have read recently. Are you saying that Owen in all his volumes didn't advocate or teach Covenant Theology and therefore be a prominent part of this brand of theology? I am not quite getting your drift? He is called the Prince of the Puritans. Are you suggesting that the Prince of the Puritan's didn't teach a foundational point? This sounds like a ludicrous charge. No, I have not spoken to Rich about your post. These are my thoughts.

BTW, Rich did say this in the very next sentence you quoted.....



> Golding did not give Owen such place.



I read the Golding book a few years ago. It is an outstanding book that others should read also.


----------



## Prufrock

I don't believe Rev. Winzer has said any such thing; he of course affirmed that Owen was a federalist -- he merely questioned whether Owen played an important role in the development of federalism, or whether he simply (with his contemporaries) represented the federalism of the day.


----------



## Rich Barcellos

I said: "Several authors (Trueman [1998], Rehnman [2002], Daniels [2004], Kapic [2007]) have shown that when discussing the Federal Theology of the Seventeenth Century, John Owen deserves a prominent place."

Well, I said they "have shown" not that they have said it in those words, though I think they would. I can ask two of them if you would like. 

Trueman laments, "The name of John Owen (1616-1683) is little known today even in theological circles outside of very conservative evangelical churches and the narrow and highly specialized field of early modern intellecutal history. This is unfortunate, for Owen was without doubt the most significant theological intellect in England in the third quarter of the seventeenth century, and one of the two or three most impressive Protestant theologians in Europe at the time" (Trueman, _John Owen_, 1). It think these words imply that Trueman thinks Owen deserves a prominent place in discussing anything related to seventeenth-century theology. I think the recent increase in Owen studies and some pointed focus on his "Biblical Theology" will serve to prove my point. When Owen speaks, we should listen. Owen speaks utilizing the federal method, therefore we should listen to "Puritanism's theological Everest," as Packer has called him.

---------- Post added at 10:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 AM ----------

As far as Rehnman goes, he qualified what he said, showing that Owen utilized the loci method elsewhere. Owen was a Post-Reformation Reformed Scholastic and, thus, utilized various methods in his formulation of Christian doctrine.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

One more thing I would like to ask... Wasn't Owen responsible for contributing to a better understanding on the Covenant of Redemption? If that is true than he would have been a major contributor.


----------



## Rich Barcellos

Trueman has a section on Owen and the CR in his _John Owen Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man_, 80ff. I think it is safe to say that Trueman sees Owen further developing a concept already present, though not fully worked out. For instance, the CR made it into the Savoy, probably due to its later date (1658) and Owen's influence (Trueman, 82). As far as a distinct Owenian contribution to the further development of the doctrinal formulation of the CR, Trueman says, "Where Owen does make a significant contribution is in his attention to the role of the Holy Spirit with reference to the covenant, a point which represents a distinctly Trinitarian advance on the works of Fisher and Bulkeley..."

I reviewed Trueman's book here: Themelios | Issue 35-1


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> That seems out there Rev. Winzer. It was J. I. Packer and Owen who were big on teaching me the Headship of the Second Adam and First Adam. Are you saying he didn't do this? What are you suggesting.


 
Randy, please go back and read my previous posts. I have already acknowledged that Owen taught a federal theology. Again, it is the claim of prominence in the context of 17th century federalism which I am doubting. Mr. Barcellos has now affirmed that it would require him to ask two of the gentlemen in order to substantiate the claim. In other words, the works cited do not show this in and of themselves. Of course Owen should be given a prominent place in certain latter 17th century orthodox discussions, especially relative to issues like the use of reason in the systematising of theology and Trinitarian structures for theology. But federal theology is another matter.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Reverend Winzer. I also made an implication that he helped develop the doctrine of the Covenant of Redemption. Rich did answer this. To me that is big thing.


----------



## MW

Rich Barcellos said:


> Well, I said they "have shown" not that they have said it in those words, though I think they would. I can ask two of them if you would like.


 
It would be interesting to see their response, but my question was based on the claim being made from the works cited. If you claim that the works cited show the prominence which ought to be given to Owen in general, I do not disagree; but there was a specific claim made for his federal theology, and I fail to see any such plea for federal prominence in those works, nor anything which even unintentionally suggests it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I guess you are a few posts behind Rev. Winzer.


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Reverend Winzer. I also made an implication that he helped develop the doctrine of the Covenant of Redemption. Rich did answer this. To me that is big thing.


 
That he has contributed, with Thomas Goodwin, to the reformed literature on the Holy Spirit is undoubted. The doctrine of the covenant of redemption itself, however, developed without him. The Sum of Saving Knowledge is the usual target for those who reject this doctrine, and its context developed independent of Owenian influence.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

So what are you saying Rev. Winzer? That Owen is not a primary influence at all in the 17th Century? I would beg to differ. His influence on the English Church was paramount. He was a big influence on Cromwell and others. Does not the Savoy have any influence a Primary teaching?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

BTW, we are so sidetracked it is ridiculous In my humble opinion.


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> So what are you saying Rev. Winzer? That Owen is not a primary influence at all in the 17th Century? I would beg to differ. His influence on the English Church was paramount. He was a big influence on Cromwell and others. Does not the Savoy have any influence a Primary teaching?


 
Randy, your statements sound like the kind of fervour that is generated from being personally influenced by him. That is good. Anyone infiuenced by Owen in reformed theology is on the right track, in my humble opinion. But let's keep everything in perspective when speaking of objective history. When others of the same period are taken into account it will be seen that Owen's contribution to the literature on federal theology was rather small in comparison. Further, the formative period had already taken place. Is the Savoy important? Yes, for understanding "calvinistic congregational" and then "calvinistic baptist" sources and influence. But let's be clear that the reformed tradition itself was well and truly developed by then.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what are you saying Rev. Winzer? That Owen is not a primary influence at all in the 17th Century? I would beg to differ. His influence on the English Church was paramount. He was a big influence on Cromwell and others. Does not the Savoy have any influence a Primary teaching?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Randy, your statements sound like the kind of fervour that is generated from being personally influenced by him. That is good. Anyone infiuenced by Owen in reformed theology is on the right track, in my humble opinion. But let's keep everything in perspective when speaking of objective history. When others of the same period are taken into account it will be seen that Owen's contribution to the literature on federal theology was rather small in comparison. Further, the formative period had already taken place. Is the Savoy important? Yes, for understanding "calvinistic congregational" and then "calvinistic baptist" sources and influence. But let's be clear that the reformed tradition itself was well and truly developed by then.
Click to expand...

 
So, he was either an influential in the 1600's or he wasn't. What would you say? I think his influence in the 17th century is was great as it was back in the 18th Century as it is in the 20th and 21st.

BTW, you didn't address his extensive contribution to the CofR in my opinion. Not good enough, because he was a definite contributor on that topic and it was in lightomb light of what we are discussing.


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> So, he was either an influential in the 1600's or he wasn't. What would you say? I think his influence in the 17th century is was great as it was back in the 18th Century as it is in the 20th and 21st.



I've already stated he was important in general in the latter part of the century. I'm doubting whether "prominence" can be given in the specific area of federalism. Overall, we must remember Owen had his times of trial, not only with the high church but also in the Protectorate and with the Baxterian Presbyterians. These contributed to hinder his influence at that time. I would say the two reprintings of his Works in the 19th century brought him back into prominence, as did the Banner reprint in the 20th century. We can't assess a man's historical influence apart from historical factors. At present all you are suggesting is a rather personal appraisal which fails to take into consideration the historical factors.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> BTW, you didn't address his extensive contribution to the CofR in my opinion. Not good enough, because he was a definite contributor on that topic and it was in lightomb light of what we are discussing.


 
I thought I did address this. Please consult #70.


----------



## Rich Barcellos

*Richard Daniels on Owen's federalism*

Rev. Winzer, Richard Daniels sent me this note: "Owen represents, I believe, the most mature development of federal theology in England, because 1) he is fully acquainted with the thoughts of contemporaries on it & 2) it forms the basic skeleton in all his theologcial work and grows up as that theolgy takes shape." Daniels displays this in his _The Christology of John Owen_. That's saying more than I said. Of course, Daniels could be wrong.


----------



## MW

Rich Barcellos said:


> Rev. Winzer, Richard Daniels sent me this note: "Owen represents, I believe, the most mature development of federal theology in England, because 1) he is fully acquainted with the thoughts of contemporaries on it & 2) it forms the basic skeleton in all his theologcial work and grows up as that theolgy takes shape." Daniels displays this in his _The Christology of John Owen_. That's saying more than I said. Of course, Daniels could be wrong.



I don't doubt the premises, but the premises don't lead to the conclusion. Besides, notwithstanding the excellence of "The Christology of John Owen" so far as it discusses that topic, Owen's broader "federal" context is not examined. It is therefore a rather adventurous leap to claim that the book displays anything so far as Owen's relation to England's federalism is concerned. It is a fact that the covenant of redemption was being developed as a theological motif in various writers around the middle of the century. That argues internal importance in terms of the individual's thought categories, but it does not entail external importance to the extent of influencing others. The fact is that English (Puritan) federalism contained diverse concepts. Calamy's work on the two covenants points to this fact. To speak of "the most mature development of federal theology in England" would require one to neglect this apparent diversity.


----------



## the Internet

I picked up Horton recently. It is unfortunate but I am an academic at University [not theological]. Even so, I found Horton to be a little difficult, and not a little 'dry'. I persevered ... though suzerainty, through Sinai and Sarah, on and on ... there was a sea-change in providence, and the more I read, the better he got. By the time I came to the Supper and then obedience, I was shattered and could not put the thing down.

So it was that equipped with all my intellectual ability, armed with frameworks, models, paradigmatic building-blocks, and all the rest of my little secular armoury and baggage, I came to realise that I was becalmed. We should make a movie ... Back to the Christ!

What a fantastic little write that was ... thank you Michael!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Prufrock said:


> Regarding the current sub-discussion of the Covenant of Redemption; this illustrates the importance in Reformed dogmatics of not *separating* the Covenant of Redemption from the Covenant of Grace. Theologians have often *distinguished* them, but they cannot be separated. For instance, though Rutherford treats the two separately, even he does not truly make them to *really* differ, but calls the CoR the _prototype_ and the CoG the _ectype_. In Westminster language, the Covenant of Grace is made _with Christ_, and with the elect in him. So no matter how one distinguishes the CoR and CoG, there is still a covenant being made with the Son of God in our confessional formulae.


 
So, is the CofR and CofG solely made with the elect? That will bring problems in the Presbyterian scheme of things. Just my humble opinion as a Credo only kinda guy.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

the Internet said:


> I picked up Horton recently. It is unfortunate but I am an academic at University [not theological]. Even so, I found Horton to be a little difficult, and not a little 'dry'. I persevered ... though suzerainty, through Sinai and Sarah, on and on ... there was a sea-change in providence, and the more I read, the better he got. By the time I came to the Supper and then obedience, I was shattered and could not put the thing down.
> 
> So it was that equipped with all my intellectual ability, armed with frameworks, models, paradigmatic building-blocks, and all the rest of my little secular armoury and baggage, I came to realise that I was becalmed. We should make a movie ... Back to the Christ!
> 
> What a fantastic little write that was ... thank you Michael!


 
I think we would all see Christ from the beginning to end. He is the whole of all things. The Alpha and Omega as it says. Surprised? I wish many more were. It seems as though Jesus is still saying today....



> (Mat 16:17) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.


----------



## Prufrock

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding the current sub-discussion of the Covenant of Redemption; this illustrates the importance in Reformed dogmatics of not *separating* the Covenant of Redemption from the Covenant of Grace. Theologians have often *distinguished* them, but they cannot be separated. For instance, though Rutherford treats the two separately, even he does not truly make them to *really* differ, but calls the CoR the _prototype_ and the CoG the _ectype_. In Westminster language, the Covenant of Grace is made _with Christ_, and with the elect in him. So no matter how one distinguishes the CoR and CoG, there is still a covenant being made with the Son of God in our confessional formulae.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, is the CofR and CofG solely made with the elect? That will bring problems in the Presbyterian scheme of things. Just my humble opinion as a Credo only kinda guy.
Click to expand...

 
The Covenant is struck fundamentally with Christ, its benefits flowing to all those united to him; internally and really, it is undertaken only for the elect; externally, it is with all those externally united to Christ.


----------



## toddpedlar

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding the current sub-discussion of the Covenant of Redemption; this illustrates the importance in Reformed dogmatics of not *separating* the Covenant of Redemption from the Covenant of Grace. Theologians have often *distinguished* them, but they cannot be separated. For instance, though Rutherford treats the two separately, even he does not truly make them to *really* differ, but calls the CoR the _prototype_ and the CoG the _ectype_. In Westminster language, the Covenant of Grace is made _with Christ_, and with the elect in him. So no matter how one distinguishes the CoR and CoG, there is still a covenant being made with the Son of God in our confessional formulae.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, is the CofR and CofG solely made with the elect? That will bring problems in the Presbyterian scheme of things. Just my humble opinion as a Credo only kinda guy.
Click to expand...

 
The CofR is made ONLY between the Father and the Son. 

The CofG is made with Christ, and in Him, the elect - this is the Westminster formalism and thus defines the Presbyterian scheme of things. Therefore I'm not sure how this can thereby "bring problems", as you state...


----------

