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!)
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!)