A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology, 2nd edition?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Casey

Puritan Board Junior
A few comments on this little book. First, I really like it. Why? It's simple! I'm presently using it in an adult Sunday school class at my church. I checked out a few other introductions to Covenant Theology (e.g., Horton's new book), but found them often either/both: 1) too detailed and thus confusing (i.e., discussing suzerainty vassal treaties to the extreme), or 2) with too many things I would have to "repair" in the course of teaching the class (i.e., one book seems to deny that the Mosaic Covenant is part of the one Covenant of Grace).

That said, and not to diminish my appreciation for the book and it's author ;) . . . there are a few things I wouldn't mind hearing comments on:

One. Why the book takes issue with the term "Covenant of Life" when such terminology (referring to the Covenant of Works) is used in the Westminster Confession. For being a simple overview, I thought whatever polemic issues introduced this point could only lead to confuse (seeing as how many using the book having subscribed to the Confession).

Two. Why the book discusses the Covenant of Redemption before the Covenant of Works? I am not aware of any Reformed systematic theologies (off the top of my head) that handle the covenants in this order. Traditionally, this covenant has been something of a preface to the Covenant of Grace. Doing so makes it very difficult to understand the Covenant of Redemption (in my opinion). I am not saying it is inherently wrong to modify the order, but in my class I have returned the order to the more traditional sequence.

Three. Why the book makes such a big to-do about whether the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah is new or renewed. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I don't see the value of including such a lengthy discussion on this particular point in a simple introduction. (I am not saying discussing this point isn't important, but that it seems overbearing for this particular book.)

Four. I would liked to have seen a slightly more detailed discussion of the Covenant of Works. Much controversy in Reformed circles today centers on this very issue, yes? (Or is, at least, an outworking of a mistaken view of this covenant.) I would also liked to have seen a more detailed discussion of Adam's representative headship, and also of the Fall (particularly its consequences).

Again, I highly recommend the book, and these comments are in no way meant to deter anyone from reading or recommending it. Actually, I recommend it for if you were going to do a class on Covenant Theology--for that, I haven't found anything better.

(Sorry, I don't have the book in front of me to actually references pages . . maybe I'll edit this post later tonight!)
 
One of the main issues with the book that came up in my mind as I read it is that it solely presents the view that includes the Covenant of Redemption or Counsel of Peace, and does not clarify that some people instead speak only of a Covenant of Grace, emphasizing its internal and external aspects. I think this would have been an important clarification to make especially since the Confession does not use the Covenant of Redemption or Counsel of Peace language, and hence, though many of the divines held to that language, and it was even used in some of their other documents, readers of this book who are new to Covenant Theology and unfamiliar with those facts will most likely be somewhat confused when they look for those terms in the Confession.

With that, here are some :2cents: thoughts of mine on some of the issues you bring up:

Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian
One. Why the book takes issue with the term "Covenant of Life" when such terminology (referring to the Covenant of Works) is used in the Westminster Confession. For being a simple overview, I thought whatever polemic issues introduced this point could only lead to confuse (seeing as how many using the book having subscribed to the Confession).

I think you mean the Catechisms. In any case, I think this is a good question.

Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian
Two. Why the book discusses the Covenant of Redemption before the Covenant of Works? I am not aware of any Reformed systematic theologies (off the top of my head) that handle the covenants in this order. Traditionally, this covenant has been something of a preface to the Covenant of Grace. Doing so makes it very difficult to understand the Covenant of Redemption (in my opinion). I am not saying it is inherently wrong to modify the order, but in my class I have returned the order to the more traditional sequence.

While I admittedly have not read most of the full systematic theologies, Matt's presentation of it in this order seemed most natural to me in fact, largely because it is the true chronological order.

Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian
Three. Why the book makes such a big to-do about whether the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah is new or renewed. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I don't see the value of including such a lengthy discussion on this particular point in a simple introduction. (I am not saying discussing this point isn't important, but that it seems overbearing for this particular book.)

As you noted with regard to the Covenant of Works, this is also one of the very most controversial passages questioned by those new to, or not fully accepting of, classical Covenant Theology - so for that reason, I was actually glad the book included such a treatment of it.

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by Me Died Blue]
 
Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian
Three. Why the book makes such a big to-do about whether the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah is new or renewed. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I don't see the value of including such a lengthy discussion on this particular point in a simple introduction. (I am not saying discussing this point isn't important, but that it seems overbearing for this particular book.)

This is a very crucial point in refuting dispensationalism and credo-only baptism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top