Request for Assistance in Covenant Theology

[DMcFadden]

OK, aspiring theologs, help an old man out, will ya?

I have been doing some reading on covenant theology in Witsius, Lillback, Horton, Robertson, Golding, Ball, Boston, Ward, and now beginning Karlberg.

Does anyone have a handy chart denominating the various positions vis a vis the covenant, Law vs. Gospel, merit, Murray's revisions, Kline, Covenant of Redemption, Covenant of Works, Covenant of Grace, etc.??? Or, if you do not have one, maybe you have seen one someplace?

I would love to see some clear (tabular or a graph would be GREAT) representations of the various options popular today. Maybe one of you Reformed brothers had a clear handout in a seminary class that you would be willing to share???

Thanks!

 

[chbrooking]

That would be great! Wish I could help. I'd be interested, too, if you find it here or elsewhere.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

The following Diagram of the Covenants is a simplified pictrail representation of the historical Baptist Covenant view

 

[DMcFadden]

GREAT chart! Thanks.

Now if some of you Presbyterian brethren can chime in with something to differentiate the various views extant among the Reformed today . . .

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Hey Dennis,

Did you ever read the Nehemiah Coxe book?

 

[pesterjon]

I have seen comparison charts for dispensationalism vs. covenant vs. new covenant, but nothing comparing within covenant theology. Look forward to seeing what this thread produces.

 

[DMcFadden]

Randy,

It is great to have both Cox and Owen together. I was especially anxious to consider the appendices by Barcellos. His treatment of John Owen and the NCT was useful in disputing Wells' theory regarding Owen's purported alignment with the NCT ideas of today. I have Owen's Complete Works AND his Exposition of Hebrews in the Logos edition. The editorial decisions by Orozco to make Owen easier to read . . . make Owen EASIER to read!!! Comparing the two shows how far Owen's style is from the lazy expectations of today's readers!

Matthew McMahon's chart on covenant theology is helpful, but does not get into the weeds of competing nuances between the proponents today.

My specific interest, however, is in a score-sheet comparing and contrasting some of the leading voices of today, particularly in the Presbyterian camp. I'm still looking for it so that I can put some of the 20th century authors in some semblance of relationship to each other. Listening to various luminaries (many of them teaching at Reformed seminaries today) deny that other luminaries (also teaching at Reformed seminaries) are really "Reformed" and that their views are counter confessional raises more questions than it settles. This Baptist boy would appreciate a scorecard!

 

[MW]

There is an interesting chart in Brenton Ferry's essay in "The Law is not of Faith," p. 104. I think it is a good start for mapping out various positions, but more work needs to be done. It claims Dickson held to five covenants and Boston held to three, which is obviously false when Dickson refers to three and Boston explicitly claims there are only two covenants.

 

[pesterjon]

We need a Clarence Larkin (Dispensational Truth) equivalent for non-dispensationalists. I'm only kidding, but the dispensationalists sure do love their charts.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I see your dilemma Dennis. Even the Paedo's have a problem with what to do with the Covenant of Works and its contribution and working in all the following Covenants. They even struggle with the Who is a member of the Covenant of Grace. Some only believe it is for the elect and others don't. I believe the Particular Baptists have a more consistent and uniform understanding than they do on those two topics alone. I also believe in a Covenant of Redemption. So maybe I hold to a threefold understanding in a more solid sense even though I consider all the other covenants that subserve the CofW and the CofG.

 

[DMcFadden]

There is an interesting chart in Brenton Ferry's essay in "The Law is not of Faith," p. 104. I think it is a good start for mapping out various positions, but more work needs to be done. It claims Dickson held to five covenants and Boston held to three, which is obviously false when Dickson refers to three and Boston explicitly claims there are only two covenants.

Thanks, Matthew! I have been meaning to purchase the book. You've given me the excuse.

 

[MW]

Even the Paedo's have a problem with what to do with the Covenant of Works and its contribution and working in all the following Covenants.

Not confessional paedobaptists; they hold two covenants, works and grace, and two administrations of the covenant of grace, law and gospel, WCF 7. Step outside of the Confession and confusion develops.

 

[MW]

Thanks, Matthew! I have been meaning to purchase the book. You've given me the excuse.

Oops.

 

[DMcFadden]

I am also planning to listen to the "Office Hours" )one of the few I'd missed) with the authors of "The Law is Not of Faith."

Karlberg is proving to be a very helpful guide to the historical development. Still, his position on Murray's mono-covenantalism and Kline's view of the covenant puts him squarely in the middle of the issue. I was hoping for some kind of taxonomic guide that would not come from within the fray.

Greenbaggins? Are you out there?

 

[Michael Doyle]

This is the chart of the covenants from my history of redemption class. Does this help? It comes from Brian Kelso


Hmmm...now I am wondering if I am ok to distribute this. I will delete of course if I am not and in the meantime I will look into it

 

[greenbaggins]

I am also planning to listen to the "Office Hours" )one of the few I'd missed) with the authors of "The Law is Not of Faith."

Karlberg is proving to be a very helpful guide to the historical development. Still, his position on Murray's mono-covenantalism and Kline's view of the covenant puts him squarely in the middle of the issue. I was hoping for some kind of taxonomic guide that would not come from within the fray.

Greenbaggins? Are you out there?

I'm here, Dennis. ;-) Unfortunately, I do not have possession of such a chart. I was going to recommend Ferry's article, but Matthew has already done that. I also agree with Matthew that more work needs to be done in this area. The problem is, there's so many different aspects of theology that factor in here that it is difficult to come up with a list of things that would clarify every major player's position.

 

[DMcFadden]

Great chart, Michael. Thanks!

I was afraid you would say that, Lane. It was a pretty arcane request. But, with people throwing mud at Kline, Murray, Sinclair Ferguson, etc. I was hoping that there might be a simple chart with a few of the options and the players identified. I'll wait for my copy of "The Law is not of Faith" to come in the mail and check out that taxonomy for starters. My theological education was not completely lame. But, nobody thought that a (then) mainline Baptist needed to know anything about intra-Presbyterian food fights. For example, my mail today brought Dennison's Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries, Vol 2. But my mind remembers the highly polemical opening of the Kerux book review of The Law is Not of Faith and the suggestion of the dreaded "Escondido hermeneutic" (aka the "Kline-Works-Merit Paradigm"). Do I need to get some kind of immunization from my doctor before opening the book?

Of course, if Dr. Clark wants to send any of his wonderful lecture notes this way . . . well, just saying . . .

 

[greenbaggins]

Great chart, Michael. Thanks!

I was afraid you would say that, Lane. It was a pretty arcane request. But, with people throwing mud at Kline, Murray, Sinclair Ferguson, etc. I was hoping that there might be a simple chart with a few of the options and the players identified. I'll wait for my copy of "The Law is not of Faith" to come in the mail and check out that taxonomy for starters. My theological education was not completely lame. But, nobody thought that a (then) mainline Baptist needed to know anything about intra-Presbyterian food fights. For example, my mail today brought Dennison's Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries, Vol 2. But my mind remembers the highly polemical opening of the Kerux book review of The Law is Not of Faith and the suggestion of the dreaded "Escondido hermeneutic" (aka the "Kline-Works-Merit Paradigm"). Do I need to get some kind of immunization from my doctor before opening the book?

Of course, if Dr. Clark wants to send any of his wonderful lecture notes this way . . . well, just saying . . .

I doubt you'd need any immunization beyond what the PB can give you. And there are plenty here who would dispute Kline's formulations on this matter. The strength of the book, in my opinion, is the justice it does to Galatians (a difficult book for anyone with an absolutely strict Covenant of Grace paradigm for the Mosaic economy), and the taxonomic article by Ferry.

 

[jwright82]

I'm no where near as learned as most others on the PB in theology but I have been studying berkhof on this subject and he lays out all the differing positions historically (up to his time of course) and the pros and cons of each. I would say that you, or anyone, would profit from reading him on this subject. Thats just my .

 

[MW]

Galatians (a difficult book for anyone with an absolutely strict Covenant of Grace paradigm for the Mosaic economy)

When I preached through Galatians I found no difficulty in setting forth a single covenant of grace. No person alleges that the gospel is anything other than a covenant of grace; yet Paul did not hesitate to apply the curses of the law to those who fell away from the gospel. Clearly, then, the curses of the law belong to the administration of the covenant of grace under the Gospel. If so, there is no reason why the same may not be applied to the administration under the Law. Galatians itself teaches the key element for understanding the gracious nature of the law in chapter 4 -- Israel's minority.

 

[DMcFadden]

There is an interesting chart in Brenton Ferry's essay in "The Law is not of Faith," p. 104. I think it is a good start for mapping out various positions, but more work needs to be done. It claims Dickson held to five covenants and Boston held to three, which is obviously false when Dickson refers to three and Boston explicitly claims there are only two covenants.

Matthew, thank you thank you thank you for the suggestion. "The Law is not of Faith" arrived yesterday and Ferry's taxonomy chapter and chart are EXACTLY what I was looking for in a "score card." I would have liked a little more interaction with some of the competing voices among Reformed covenant theologians today. For example, which of today's writers are opposed to the Kline thesis and why?

Do you have any other concerns with Ferry's taxonomy beyond the couple of points you referenced?

My next stop is the Kerux article. Perhaps my questions are already answered there?

 

[MW]

Do you have any other concerns with Ferry's taxonomy beyond the couple of points you referenced?

My general concern is that the taxonomy is written from his distinct perspective, a perspective I don't believe the authors whom he charts would have genuinely shared. I don't believe these authors were driven by a sharp law-gospel antithesis. It is that antithesis which creates specific categories in the cartographer's mind. The language he reads in the authors is filtered through his own theological categories to arrive at a distinct Mosaic law-works covenant, but the authors themselves did not necessarily use the language with that end in mind.

 

[Historic Premillennialist]

Galatians (a difficult book for anyone with an absolutely strict Covenant of Grace paradigm for the Mosaic economy)

When I preached through Galatians I found no difficulty in setting forth a single covenant of grace. No person alleges that the gospel is anything other than a covenant of grace; yet Paul did not hesitate to apply the curses of the law to those who fell away from the gospel. Clearly, then, the curses of the law belong to the administration of the covenant of grace under the Gospel. If so, there is no reason why the same may not be applied to the administration under the Law. Galatians itself teaches the key element for understanding the gracious nature of the law in chapter 4 -- Israel's minority.

- Absolutely. In fact, it was the book of Galatians that made me "flee" from dispensationalism, and embrace the Covenant Theology. The Covenant of Works is NOT "in work", in the sense that, after Adam's fall, Christ is the fulfillment (how precious that sounds!) of the Covenant of Works for us, the elect. But in another sense, those who want to depend on the law (which was NOT what the true Mosaic Covenant stated, for it was an administration of the True Covenant of Grace; plus, there's nothing different asked from the Israelites, than what was originally asked to Abraham. It had a sort of a "reminder" of the nature of the covenant of works in some places, but that was to work as a "school master" that would take them to Christ. But the ESENCE of this covenant, again, was exactly the same as the Abrahamic one- in fact, both covenants are used interchangeably in Lev.26:42-46), are held accountable based on the covenant of works.

So, in the other hand, the covenant of works is still in "function", in that, all of those who want to DEPEND on their obedience to the law, are hold accountable the same way Adam was. That is the point, I think, of the apostle in Galatians 3. That is the reason, why we are to preach with the law; because, if the sinner is not standind in Christ Alone, they ought to obey the law, perfectly- otherwise, the condemnation of the covenant of works.

I'm sorry it took me so many words to get to my point! Hope this was a blessing!

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Galatians (a difficult book for anyone with an absolutely strict Covenant of Grace paradigm for the Mosaic economy)

When I preached through Galatians I found no difficulty in setting forth a single covenant of grace. No person alleges that the gospel is anything other than a covenant of grace; yet Paul did not hesitate to apply the curses of the law to those who fell away from the gospel. Clearly, then, the curses of the law belong to the administration of the covenant of grace under the Gospel.

Clearly we have discussed this years behind. You should know by now we do not agree on the last statement. I know Presbyterian's who would not agree with you on this. And yes, you might accuse of them of being Lutheran but I believe you are being unbiblical here. The covenant of Grace is with the Elect and for the Elect.

 

[MW]

Clearly we have discussed this years behind. You should know by now we do not agree on the last statement. I know Presbyterian's who would not agree with you on this. And yes, you might accuse of them of being Lutheran but I believe you are being unbiblical here. The covenant of Grace is with the Elect and for the Elect.

As unbiblical as it might seem to you, a person who knows of no visible and historical administration of the covenant of grace, who only thinks of a covenant as an idea in the mind of God, quite contrary to the biblical concept of revelation as binding promise, I think it is a stretch to claim that presbyterians disagree with me on this, when all presbyterians maintain a visible and historical administration of the covenant of grace to all who are members of the visible church, elect or otherwise, and who see the covenant of grace being administered in relation to the Mosaic economy in some way, shape, or form, albeit the specific form might be an area of disagreement.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I will prove it later. I am tired right now. I have read a few Presbyterian's who claim the Covenant of Grace is only made with the elect. I think you will find it also. I actually hold to something that looks like the Covenant of Redemption. That is foundational. The CofW kills. The CofG which saves his elect in all generations in the second seed (or Second Adam or seed of Eve is our hope) following behind the CofW which bound everyone in the first Adam. It was proclaimed in Adam, Abraham, Moses, and beyond. The preceding Covenants which are revelatory of the preceding Covenants are revelatory and the consummation is found in Christ. Those who are outside of Christ have never been found in a gracious position. They have always been set in death. That is not grace. Just my humble opinion. Is death and eternal destruction grace? I think not. Let's not get into covenant children. I know many who aren't in the Covenant of Grace by baptism as you seem to think. Wanna disuss RCC baptism here?. We can go to Thornwell.

 

[DMcFadden]

I FOUND IT!!!

WTJ
"In Defense of Moses: A Confessional Critique of Kline and Karlberg" - D. Patrick Ramsey. WTJ 66:2 (Fall 2004) pp. 373-400.
"Cross-Examing Moses' Defense: An Answer to Ramsey's Critique of Kline and Karlberg" - Brenton C. Ferry. WTJ 67:1 (Spring 2005) pp. 163-168.

Why didn't I think of looking in WTJ in the first place? This was exactly the kind of "inside baseball" stuff on the recent views of covenant theology I was looking for in my research.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

The Happy T.R.: Republication


Tell me what you think of this Dennis. Please. I am working on this also.

 

[mvdm]

Here is a site that marshals a good number of Reformed theologians' view on the Mosaic administration of COG. It also directly addresses the Klinean view of the covenant:

The Mosaic Covenant in Reformed Theology (The Mosaic Covenant)

 

[alhembd]

GREAT chart! Thanks.

Now if some of you Presbyterian brethren can chime in with something to differentiate the various views extant among the Reformed today . . .

Mr McFadden,

The following is an excellent exposition for young people online about the covenant of grace and the covenant of works.

Page 325 - Bible Doctrine for Teens & Young Adults

It is from James Beeke's book Bible Doctrine for Young People and Adults. It begins on p 325, and goes for about thirty pages. It is replete with many charts showing the difference between the Scriptural view of the covenant of grace and the Arminian view. It argues for a two covenant view, with the Westminster Confession of Faith - the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. It explains, however, how some eminent Reformed divines believed in a three covenant view - the covenant of works, the covenant of redemption, and the covenant of grace. The orthodox of these believed that the covenant of redemption was between the Father and the Son, and the covenant of grace is between God and the believer.

There is a three covenant view which is not sound. This view sees the covenant of grace as made with all the covenant seed of the church, the elect and the non-elect. This view sees the covenant of grace as breakable, though it argues that the secret covenant of redemption is unbreakable with the elect.

But Jim Beeke argues, with Herman Witius and the Westminster Confession of Faith, for the traditional two-covenant view.

This is a good website to show newcomers to the Reformed faith. The books are great for kids. The Netherlands Reformed and the Heritage Reformed denominations use these books for Bible doctrine in their Christian high schools.

---------- Post added at 03:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 AM ----------

I add something to this post.

"There is a three covenant view which is not sound. This view sees the covenant of grace as made with all the covenant seed of the church, the elect and the non-elect. This view sees the covenant of grace as breakable, though it argues that the secret covenant of redemption is unbreakable with the elect."

The orthodox view with respect to the administration of the Covenant of Grace I would see as follows: all the covenant children are under the Covenant of Grace, but not all are in the covenant of grace. Thus, the Covenant of Grace is unbreakable for those who are in the covenant. The same would apply to all adult professors. Those who are truly born-again, and ingrafted into Christ, are in the covenant, but those who are mere professors, but not truly ingrafted into Christ, are merely under the covenant.

I might add that all who are under the covenant, but not in it, are yet in the Covenant of Works.