An Introduction to Covenant Theology

This will be a great resource!

Here's my endorsement:

"People often ask me for a basic or introductory book on covenant theology. Now we've got one--Sacred Bond. Brown and Keele explain covenant theology in basic and readable terms. Better yet, they do so without succumbing to the tendency to talk down to the reader or make the complicated too simplistic--a common problem with introductory texts. This book does many things well, but perhaps the most important thing it does is that it will help people to better understand their Bibles. That, it seems to me, is what makes this book so valuable. And that is why you should buy it, read it, and digest it. To understand covenant theology is to understand the Bible." ---Dr. Kim Riddlebarger, pastor of Christ Reformed Church (URCNA) in Anaheim, CA, and author of A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times

You can order it here:  Click Here 

Comments

[moxie]

What about your own Michael Horton's "Introducing Covenant Theology?" How so they compare?

[Kim Riddlebarger]

Moxie:

Sacred Bond is much more of a primer--the kind of book you'd give to a person who is new to covenant theology (or who wants a brief summation--like a men's Bible study group).

Horton's book is a substantial contribution to covenant theology in its own right (and to the on-going debates). It assumes/requires more knowledge of the debates and issues under discussion than most "introductions."

[moxie]

Thank you sir. Good explanation. Agree that M. Horton's slim book is somewhat more than an intro, as is typical of most of his works. Ergo, I'll get the Brown & Keele piece and do my own comparison. Thanks.

[Manfred]

As a Baptist, I have found Jeffrey Johnson's book to be an excellent apologetic for Baptist Covenant Theology, rightly comprehending the Sinai Covenant to be part of the covenant of works. http://www.freegracepress.org/?p=15 with discussion from both sides here: http://reformedbaptist.blogspot.com/2010/05/fatal-flaw-of-theology-behind-infant.html

[Jerry Parker]

I have a thoroughly Lutheran abhorrence of "Covenant Theology". I suspect that it is a contorted attempt to diminish the sharp blade and initial pain of the eternal decrees of Predestination. It tries to soften the blow by injecting its concept of some human warmth into it. However, it is totally unnecessary to Protestant Reformation soteriology. Lutheranism affirms Predestination without any need to resort to convoluted digressions on covenant theology. The sharp blade itself is part of what is essential to awaken the Fallen man's conscience to God's eternal decrees. The saved soul accustoms itself to the essential nature of what at first seemed so bleak.

That said, the moderate statements about the Covenant in the Westminster Standards are reasonable and do not go so far into dubious territory as the twisted twine of Reformed Scholasticism. That far, okay, but as a Lutheran, I think that it is best to cast Covenant Theology aside as a mere distraction from more important and less dangerous grounds of Christian thinking..