J.V. Fesko book on Covenant of Redemption

Status
Not open for further replies.

usernamecrtamil

Puritan Board Freshman
Hey all,

Just curious to know if anyone has read Fesko's more technical work on the CoR and if so what thoughts you have. Primarily wanting to know if it's worth picking up given the price point. Below is a link to the book for reference.

 
Given the price of the above-linked book, his book on The Trinity and the Covenant of Redemption published by Christian Focus is probably worth getting instead.
 
Given the price of the above-linked book, his book on The Trinity and the Covenant of Redemption published by Christian Focus is probably worth getting instead.

Yeah, that book is about $23 on RHB, which is a great price. I was curious to know if the linked book is superior/academic enough to substantiate the price difference. Obviously, part of the difference is the scope/aim of the book.
 
There will be a review The Confessional Presbyterian journal v16 out at end of year if anyone is not in a hurry if that might help a decision.
 
Well, I was confused. It was the covenant of works book by OUP that is reviewed for 2020. Maybe we'll do the other for 2021 since I don't see that we've reviewed it (I know from experience that V&R is not as easy a publisher from which to get review copies).
That is helpful and good to know. I will wait for the review. Thank you Chris.
 
The cheaper one published by Christian Focus was pretty good. A couple of times it felt repetitive, but it doesn't lack in academic/technical content.
 
On the covenant of redemption pair of books, my understanding is that the more technical volume is the more historical-theological of the two, and the Mentor volume is more exegetical-ST (while not neglecting historical matters). They are designed to be complementary volumes.
 
Letham in his Systematic takes some swipes at the Covenant of Redemption, mostly over it implying that God has three wills between the Persons. Does Fesko deal with that objection?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
In the Mentor volume, it is front and center from pages 143 ff. His basic answer is that "the triune God has revealed the ontology of His being and shares one unified will, but nevertheless executes that will according to the unique economic roles of each person within the Godhead" (144).

My own thoughts would be this: couldn't Letham's objection be raised against any part of the decree of God, which is always unified in will, but economically distinct in its execution? From where I stand, the pactum salutis is simply another way of saying that the decree of God regarding salvation looks this way. There is always agreement in the decree among the persons, since they share the same will. Cannot the one will of God decree the actions of the three persons economically? That is all the pactum salutis is saying. It is not saying that there are three wills in God. I do think there are some formulations of the pactum salutis that give the impression that three distinct wills come together in agreement from an initially distant stance. That would be problematic.
 
I think one relevant distinction is God can’t “enter into” a covenant within the Godhead. God has an eternal will. Secondly, if we think of covenants as sovereignly administered, then a covenant within the Godhead would imply subordination. Thirdly, if we consider covenant as the bringing together parties, then that can suggest two opposing wills. At the very least, CoR needs to be nuanced if it is going to be salvaged. Both sides should agree.
 
Ron, though most of what you said is true, not all covenants imply subordination. There are covenants in the Bible between one man and another that are agreements of equals. So that would naturally have to nuance the discussion too. But certainly, there could be no beginning of a pactum salutis, it being part of the eternal decree.
 
Ron, though most of what you said is true, not all covenants imply subordination. There are covenants in the Bible between one man and another that are agreements of equals. So that would naturally have to nuance the discussion too. But certainly, there could be no beginning of a pactum salutis, it being part of the eternal decree.

Hi Lane,

I think that makes not most of what I said true but everything I said true. I almost italicized if. I’ll do it here. If we think of covenants as sovereignly administered, then a covenant within the Godhead would imply subordination.

To your point, however, not all covenants are sovereignly administered. I agree. However, because of that the “CoR needs to be nuanced if it is going to be salvaged.”

So, to salvage the CoR, we have to establish (i) that the CoR is not sovereignly administered, but that is unlike other covenants that God transacts with persons. And, (ii) the CoR is in no sense like “one man and another that are agreements of equals” (because those type covenants entail the bringing together of opposing wills, autonomous agents relative to one another.)

That’s a lot of nuance and clarification, but perhaps salvageable. We need to clarify both the matter of wills and sovereignty. And then there’s the “entering into” jargon and the absence of the Holy Spirit that has plagued so many constructs of the CoR.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top