Doulos McKenzie
Puritan Board Freshman
Do y'all have any introduction to CT books suggestions?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A book which I felt to be largely a waste of time is Greg Nichols, Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective.
A book which I felt to be largely a waste of time is Greg Nichols, Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective.
This is good, I wouldn't recommend Horton for Presbyterians or URCNA guys for many reasons. He dichotomizes law and grace too much.Christ of the Covenants by Robertson
A book which I felt to be largely a waste of time is Greg Nichols, Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective.
Rev. Marsh,
What about Nichols' book did you not care for? I picked up a copy at the recommendation of a Reformed Baptist friend, but have not read much of it. Curious to hear your thoughts.
A book which I felt to be largely a waste of time is Greg Nichols, Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective.
Rev. Marsh,
What about Nichols' book did you not care for? I picked up a copy at the recommendation of a Reformed Baptist friend, but have not read much of it. Curious to hear your thoughts.
Hi Brian,
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the current in-house debate between Baptistic covenant theologians, but the 2 sides may be represented as being the "classic" view and the "contemporary" view. The classic view is that which Pascal Denault has explained very well in his Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, and is represented historically by the Coxe/Owen volume to which I referred you. The contemporary view is represented by Nichols and Waldron, and after you read Coxe/Owen and Denault, you'll find that it does not do justice to the 1689.
That's not to say there aren't some helpful aspects to Nichols' book; I hope I'm not sounding uncharitable! I simply found myself, after reading it, saying, "I don't think that was the best use of my time." I'm confident that he's a godly man and a faithful servant of the Lord. I simply think his reading of the 1689 is wrong.
If you have more questions, I'll be happy to discuss them via PM! I don't want to give the wrong impression on a public forum like this. My heart is not to criticize but to help.
Grace to you.
What's the difference between the classic and contemporary views? At what points do Nichols and Waldron not read the 1689 right? I am asking because you said they differed and were not doing justice to the 1689 without explaining why.
What's the difference between the classic and contemporary views? At what points do Nichols and Waldron not read the 1689 right? I am asking because you said they differed and were not doing justice to the 1689 without explaining why.
This video provided by the folks at www.1689federalism.com does a fine job of describing the differences between some of the Reformed Baptist views mentioned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvPoAnMGuGE
there are differences between baptists and the reformed on this matter. I would suggest, however, that one not read Owen as in "introduction" into the matter of CT. Owen (who wouldn't side with baptists on CT, despite some claims by modern 1689 guys), does not have a classical formulation of CT. My suggestion is start with the more classic works like Rutherford's "The Covenant of Life Opened".
Hi Nate,
Sorry for a delayed reply -- this has been quite a busy week of ministry already (several of our congregants hospitalized and a funeral today, plus sermon prep and our biblical counseling training conference is this Fri-Sat! Pray for us!)
To your question:
Waldron, on the whole, provides a very helpful exposition of the 1689's theology; but his treatment of the covenant of grace is not the classic 1689 view as espoused and intended by Coxe, et al. It is the modern view, which essentially reads Westminsterian covenant theology categories into baptistic categories. Nichols shares that same view, which is a modern interpretation, but is not the founding intent. If you'll reference Denault's book, read the Coxe & Owen volume I linked to, and check out the videos which a couple of folks have linked to above, you'll develop a good understanding of the differences.
While the WCF and the LBC warmly agree in a huge percentage of their convictions, it is the 1689's particular approach to the covenant of grace from which our convictions and practice regarding a confessors' church and credobaptism emerge. This has been the subject of numerous discussions here on the PB.
No offense or pokes in the eye at all intended by that statement to our dear Presbyterian brothers and sisters here on the PB, so I do hope none take offense. And I sincerely apologize to our OP for managing to hijack this thread. That was not at all my intention, brother; I was simply typing quickly and reflecting on my thoughts after reading Nichols. You are certainly free to disagree with me.
Studying covenant theology has been one of the most fruitful theological exercises I ever undertook. It has, quite literally, changed my life and ministry. May the Lord grant you his help as you study, and insight into his precious word.
Grace to you.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Jonty Rhodes's book yet. His book Covenants Made Simple is absolutely superb. It is the perfect introductory book.