JTB.SDG
Puritan Board Junior
O Palmer Robertson says a covenant is "a bond in blood, sovereignly administered." I really like his definition, as it relates to the Covenant of Grace. But it doesn't seem to hold up as it relates to covenants in general (the "sovereignly administered" part). And how about the Covenant of Redemption? Or the Covenant of Works? (You could argue God was promising Adam life forever in glory if he passed the test, but that's not actually in the text itself; what's forefront is the command). So, could you argue the definition remains the same for these? Would you make that argument?
Is the best way to understand Robertson's definition of covenant as actually more of a very broad definition of the Covenant of Grace?
Is the best way to understand Robertson's definition of covenant as actually more of a very broad definition of the Covenant of Grace?
Last edited: