Books on covenant theology - please recommend.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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...