Books on covenant theology - please recommend.

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.

:book2:

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Nathan,

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

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?

Amazon
 
\
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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).
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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."
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top