new book on Covenant Theology

[thomas15]

2000 years of Covenant Theology (according to the reformed crowd) and finally this book.

A quote from Kim Riddlebarger... "People often ask me for a basic or introductory book on covenant theology. Now we've got one—Sacred Bond"

Sacred Bond: Covenant Theology Explored. by Michael Brown and Zach Keele. What we have all been waiting for.

Michael Horton...“Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest this wonderful guide. In doing so, you will be much better equipped to know what you believe and why you believe it.”


What a great idea!

 

[MorseOp]

Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ

This is a good book on Covenant Theology from a Baptist perspective.

 

[Iconoclast]

Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ

This is a good book on Covenant Theology from a Baptist perspective.

http://www.monergismbooks.com/Coven...ic-Perspective-on-Gods-Covenants-p-20205.html

both are good
:wavey:

 

[Yeshua1]

Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ

This is a good book on Covenant Theology from a Baptist perspective.

just curious why Covenant theology baptists are OK, good to read, while Dispy ones like myself have others say its "false/junk?"

 

[kyredneck]

just curious why Covenant theology baptists are OK, good to read, while Dispy ones like myself have others say its "false/junk?"

As far as I'm concerned anything related to dispensationalism is 'false junk'.

 

[MorseOp]

just curious why Covenant theology baptists are OK, good to read, while Dispy ones like myself have others say its "false/junk?"

I would not call it "junk." I often refer to dispensational authors for apologetic purposes.

 

[Allan]

Covenant Theology, as a theological construct is about as old as Dispensationalism ... that is, IF one wishes to keep with Church history.. Like Dispensationalism, it is fairly new on the scene, though 'like' Dispensationalism it has it's roots in church history.

 

[Iconoclast]

Covenant Theology, as a theological construct is about as old as Dispensationalism ... that is, IF one wishes to keep with Church history.. Like Dispensationalism, it is fairly new on the scene, though 'like' Dispensationalism it has it's roots in church history.

Hey Allan...good to see you:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Iconoclast]

just curious why Covenant theology baptists are OK, good to read, while Dispy ones like myself have others say its "false/junk?"

Covenant theology ties in all portions of scripture.

Dispensational theology tries to do it also.John m preached last year that how you view Israel seperates where you wind up theologically

 

[reformed_baptist]

Covenant Theology, as a theological construct is about as old as Dispensationalism ... that is, IF one wishes to keep with Church history.. Like Dispensationalism, it is fairly new on the scene, though 'like' Dispensationalism it has it's roots in church history.

I am not convinced that is the case.

Dispensationalism is a very young theological construct, the only way it has ever being dated prior to 1830 is to so modify the definition that it becomes meaningless.

However men like Calvin, and the first generation puritans who really systemised covenant theology went to great lenght and pains to demonstrate that this was no new theology, but rather a return to the theology of the early church.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

However men like Calvin, and the first generation puritans who really systemised covenant theology went to great lenght and pains to demonstrate that this was no new theology, but rather a return to the theology of the early church.

They also went to great length and pains to demonstrate that the Baptism of infants was Scriptural and the theology of the early church....thus, any "appeal to authority" http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html is useless in these discussions unless one is able to justify the particular claims about Soteriology, and yet to refute those particular authorities on the subject of infant Baptism...Thus, ANYONE, on a uniquely BAPTIST forum, must justify their contentions without this. If unable, there are Presbyterian sites and the Puritan Board which suffice just fine.

 

[reformed_baptist]

They also went to great length and pains to demonstrate that the Baptism of infants was Scriptural and the theology of the early church....thus, any "appeal to authority" http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html is useless in these discussions unless one is able to justify the particular claims about Soteriology, and yet to refute those particular authorities on the subject of infant Baptism...Thus, ANYONE, on a uniquely BAPTIST forum, must justify their contentions without this. If unable, there are Presbyterian sites and the Puritan Board which suffice just fine.

Wow, where did all that did come? Don't you want me here or something

Now going back to what was actually said as opposed to what you think I said. I was responding to the claim that covenant theology is only about as old as dispensationalism is, indeed I quoted I even quoted this

Covenant Theology, as a theological construct is about as old as Dispensationalism ... that is, IF one wishes to keep with Church history.. Like Dispensationalism, it is fairly new on the scene, though 'like' Dispensationalism it has it's roots in church history.

And I simply made the point that whilst dispensationalism goes back no further then 1830, the formers of the reformed creeds and doctrinal statemenst where at pains to demonstrate that their teaching was a return to the etaching of the ECF. hence all I was saying is that the post was wrong and covenant theology has a much longer pedigree!

Notice I was not appealing to church history or historical theology as an authority for any teaching. How could I have been, I have not advocated one position or the other on this thread - no - instead I applied to history to correct an ahistorical assertion made in the post i responding to.

Now if you think I wrong in those assertions address what I said - I would welcome the debate with you

 

[HeirofSalvation]

[snipped entire post with caveat to "grow up"]

 

[thomas15]

....
And I simply made the point that whilst dispensationalism goes back no further then 1830, the formers of the reformed creeds and doctrinal statemenst where at pains to demonstrate that their teaching was a return to the etaching of the ECF. hence all I was saying is that the post was wrong and covenant theology has a much longer pedigree!

Since you are in agreement with the party line, allow me to do the same and note that the agents of the pope made the same point while dealing with Luther.

....
Notice I was not appealing to church history or historical theology as an authority for any teaching. How could I have been, I have not advocated one position or the other on this thread - no - instead I applied to history to correct an ahistorical assertion made in the post i responding to.

You forgot to put a question mark at the end of your sentence. Oh, yes and also you forgot to include a character assassination of C.I. Scofield.

Time to get on the stick my friend.

 

[reformed_baptist]

Since you are in agreement with the party line,

What party line would that be?

allow me to do the same and note that the agents of the pope made the same point while dealing with Luther.

Ah yes, the difference being the reformers proved them wrong at every turn and as yet I haven't seen any evidence presented that shows I am wrong

You forgot to put a question mark at the end of your sentence.

Did I, sorry

Oh, yes and also you forgot to include a character assassination of C.I. Scofield.

Now why would I want to do that. I might disagree with him on some fairly points of doctrine but I fully expect to see him in heaven's glory. Perhaps the pertinent question to ask here is why do assume that I might practise such behaviour? What grounds have I given anyone here in the last 48 to ascribe such things to me?

Time to get on the stick my friend.

That just makes no sense to me, woudl you be kind enough to explain the idiom to a poor simple Englishman

 

[reformed_baptist]

Your very title is an "advocation" of a certain "position" on this, and all other threads...you seriously do not understand how much you insult the intelligence of others...It is fine that you are a sycophant of determinist philosophy like so many others around here...just don't think that you are doing it "on the sly" as though we don't "get it". Your "kind" has existed before...and it will exist again...you fool no one..Yours is not so esoteric a philosophy that no one has ever heard your particular form of nuanced minutiae before...The Word of God stands against such arrogance...

Ecc 1:9 The thing that hath been, it [is that] which shall be; and that which is done [is] that which shall be done: and [there is] no new [thing] under the sun.
Ecc 1:14 I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all [is] vanity and vexation of spirit.



Blah....Blah...Blah....You will..we know you will. Stop lying. Stop pretending you won't....Your ilk has been heard around here...You are too obvious.



Yes, I do, oh...I so wish it...please continue posting.

HoS

Please explain what I have done to wrong you in the past that could possibly call for these childish and obtuse responses from you. If you want to debate with me, please do. However if all you are capable is insults and accusations then you have my pity.

 

[Iconoclast]

HoS

Please explain what I have done to wrong you in the past that could possibly call for these childish and obtuse responses from you. If you want to debate with me, please do. However if all you are capable is insults and accusations then you have my pity.

He does not seem to really want to interact.He seems to just want to spout off. This is of no value

 

[Dr. Bob]

No value is correct. His post was snipped and I ask you to move on.

More trolling and hate speech, and he will disappear.

 

[MorseOp]

The Bible is a book of covenants: Adamic Covenant; Noahic Covenant; Abrahamic Covenant; Mosaic Covenant; Davidic Covenant; and the New Covenant. Adam operated under a covenant of works, inasmuch as his first nature allowed him to stand justified in front of God. Once Adam sinned God instituted the covenant of grace (also called the covenant of redemption). This covenant was rough hewn during the Old Covenant, but came to full maturity under the New Covenant. Covenant Theology attempts to understand these covenants as God's method of interacting with mankind.

 

[thomas15]

What party line would that be?.... and so forth....

Thomas15 humbled by the new guy. Serves me right for being a poor simple Welshmen. [insert big cheesey smile]