Top Ten Books Which Have Impacted My Life

A friend of mine has passed on a challenge he received to list 10 books that have had the biggest impact on your life (besides the Bible. Too obvious.) In no particular order (because I’d be up all night agonizing over how to rank them):

Gordon H. Clark

A Christian Philosophy of Education, by Gordon Haddon Clark. My first Clark book, this one taught me the impossibility of a “neutral” worldview.

Faith and Saving Faith, by Gordon Haddon Clark. Cuts through centuries of religious tradition and modern psychology to get to the biblical truth about what faith is and how we’re justified through it. A must-read.

God and Evil: The Problem Solved, by Gordon Haddon Clark. Originally published as the fifth chapter of one of Clark’s most significant works, Religion, Reason, and Revelation, you will find no clearer and straightforward presentation of the sovereignty of God in all things. The logical argumentation is beautiful and inescapable. Another must-read.

The Trinity, by Gordon Haddon Clark. While not an exhaustive work by any stretch, Clark’s treatment of the foundational doctrine of the Christian faith (over the course of three back-to-back readings) was very helpful in aiding my understanding of how it is that three Persons can be one God, and vice versa. It also lays the necessary groundwork for the next one on the list:

The Incarnation, by Gordon Haddon Clark. Clark’s controversial, unfinished final book has been rejected by “unfriendly critics” who can’t see past an admittedly unusual definition of the word “person” employed by the author. It has also, sadly, been the occasion for much maligning of Clark’s orthodoxy. Having read this one three times as well, I can quite strongly affirm that Clark was well within biblical, theological, historical, and creedal orthodoxy, in spite of his rejection of certain traditional English terminology and offering well-defined terms of his own. The subject matter of this book tends to return to my mind every winter, providing a truly marvelous subject upon which to meditate.

Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ, by Nehemiah Coxe and John Owen. This volume, published by Reformed Baptist Academic Press, is of inestimable value to those Baptists who find themselves seemingly adrift between the opposite poles of Dispensationalism and paedobaptist covenant theology. The three biggest contributions (in my opinion) of this book are the establishment that the Reformed doctrine of the covenant of works was and is embraced by the Confessional Baptists from the 17th century til today, Coxe’s masterful treatment of Abraham and the covenants made and revealed to him, and Owen’s thorough distinction between the old and new covenants. Along with Clark’s ‘God and Evil’ and ‘Faith and Saving Faith,’ this book ranks in my top three most influential books.

The Lord’s Supper as a Means of Grace: More than a Memory, by Richard Barcellos. This book, in its pre-manuscript, series-of-lectures stage, completely altered my understanding of not just the Lord’s Supper, but God’s means of grace in general. Weekly Lord’s Days, especially those on which the Supper is observed, become exponentially more valuable in one’s worldview when these truths are understood.

Recovering a Covenantal Heritage, Richard Barcellos, ed. A collection of essays that address key subjects, passages, and points of Baptist history, in an attempt to demonstrate the strengths of the historical Baptist view of covenant theology. Dispensationalists, Landmarkists, and Anabaptists will be challenged by its history, while Paedobaptists will be challenged by its exegesis and robust systematic approach to biblical history. The last chapter, by Sam & Micah Renihan, is worth the price of the book, as it provides the clearest and most concise description of what has come to be called “1689 Federalism.”

Each for the Other: Marriage as it’s Meant to Be, by Bryan Chapell. This book was given to me just before my wife and I were married, and we both found it to be a valuable contribution to our understanding and preparation for marriage and family-building. It has become a common wedding gift from me as a result.

The Time is At Hand, by Jay E. Adams. Another far-from-exhaustive work, this book consists of a concise overview of the book of Revelation and the events, both past and future, it foretells. It does not answer every question, and some of the author’s conclusions may be debatable, but the basic structure it outlines of John’s apocolypse has been tremendously helpful in my grasp and embrace of biblical eschatology.

Now for some Honorable Mentions (because it’s my blog, and I say so). Note that some of these would actually rank higher than some in the list above if I were recommending them for reading, but the list was supposed to be those books which have had the biggest impact, which I interpret to mean those books which have been the catalyst for a significant shift, modification, or clarification in my thinking. Many of the following books have been absolutely invaluable to me as well, and while there are some with which I have certain differences, they remain important works in my life as a theological reader:

• The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, by Pascal Denault
• The Law is Not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant, Estelle, Fesko, and VanDrunen, eds.
• The Lord’s Day, by Joseph Pipa
• Celebrating the Sabbath, by Bruce A. Ray
• From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism, by W. Gary Crampton
• Last Things First: Unlocking Genesis with the Christ of Eschatology, by J.V. Fesko
• Joseph and the Gospel of Many Colors, by Voddie Baucham
• Essays on Ethics and Politics, by Gordon H. Clark
• The Atonement, by Gordon H. Clark
• Exposition of the Entire Bible, by John Gill
• Calvin’s Commentaries
• Blame it on the Brain, by Ed Welch
• Knowing God, by J.I. Packer
• Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof
• Principles of Biblical Interpretation, by Louis Berkhof
• Animal Farm, by George Orwell
• God in our Midst: The Tabernacle and our Relationship with God, by Daniel Hyde
• Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, by Zacharias Ursinus
• The Marrow of True Justification, by Benjamin Keach

Advertisement

Are the Republicationist & Coxe/Owen Views of the Mosaic Covenant Related? | The Confessing Baptist

Are the Republicationist & Coxe/Owen Views of the Mosaic Covenant Related? | The Confessing Baptist.

 

Unlocking Abraham, Pt. 1: The Covenant of Redemption

This is the first of a series of posts in which I hope to offer an explanation of my view of God’s covenant dealings with Abraham. This view is virtually the same as that held by Nehemiah Coxe, and presented in the book Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ, by Nehemiah Coxe & John Owen. Some dear paedobaptist brothers and sisters of mine are often confused when I assert that while the Covenant of Grace (I prefer the name Covenant of Redemption) was most certainly revealed to Abraham, the Covenant of Circumcision cannot be equated with this Gospel Covenant. In this, and, Lord willing, future posts, I’ve tried to present my view in the form of succinct statements, followed by Scriptural support. It is my hope that this will serve to edify and clarify my convictions concerning Abraham, circumcision, grace, baptism, and God’s eternal plan of redemption in Christ.

1.) God’s promises to Abraham are based in mercy, not merit.

Micah 7:20

²⁰Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob, and the mercy to Abraham, which thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old.

Luke 1:72-73

⁷²To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;

⁷³The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,

Galatians 3:18

¹⁸For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

Nehemiah Coxe vs. the Federal Vision

Lately I’ve been reading Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ, by Nehemiah Coxe & John Owen. While reading Coxe’s section on “The Covenant of Grace Revealed to Abraham,” I found one portion in particular which struck a chord in my mind due to recent developments in the Federal Vision controversy. It seems that Coxe, writing over 300 years ago, faced heretical views about baptism, union with Christ, and interest in the Covenant of Grace which bear a striking resemblance to current Federal Vision teachings.

From the Joint Federal Vision Profession:

The Sacrament of Baptism

We affirm that God formally unites a person to Christ and to His covenant people through baptism into the triune Name, and that this baptism obligates such a one to lifelong covenant loyalty to the triune God, each baptized person repenting of his sins and trusting in Christ alone for his salvation. Baptism formally engrafts a person into the Church, which means that baptism is into the Regeneration, that time when the Son of Man sits upon His glorious throne (Matt. 19:28).

…

Union with Christ and Imputation

We affirm Christ is all in all for us, and that His perfect sinless life, His suffering on the cross, and His glorious resurrection are all credited to us. Christ is the new Adam, obeying God where the first Adam did not obey God. And Christ as the new Israel was baptized as the old Israel was, was tempted for 40 days as Israel was for 40 years, and as the greater Joshua He conquered the land of Canaan in the course of His ministry. This means that through Jesus, on our behalf, Israel has finally obeyed God and has been accepted by Him. We affirm not only that Christ is our full obedience, but also that through our union with Him we partake of the benefits of His death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and enthronement at the right hand of God the Father.

…

Apostasy

We affirm that apostasy is a terrifying reality for many baptized Christians. All who are baptized into the triune Name are united with Christ in His covenantal life, and so those who fall from that position of grace are indeed falling from grace. The branches that are cut away from Christ are genuinely cut away from someone, cut out of a living covenant body. The connection that an apostate had to Christ was not merely external.

For more quotes, from Federal Visionist Jeffrey Meyers (PCA elder in good standing), see here:

– Jeffrey Meyers – Baptism and the Forgiveness of Sin

– Jeffrey Meyers – Justified by Means of Their Baptism

Nehemiah Coxe rejected the idea of a partial, conditional, or temporary interest in the Covenant of Grace/New Covenant. He correctly understood that Christ’s atoning work was accomplished on behalf of His elect, and the only ones who have any interest in the gracious covenant by which His saving, cleansing, atoning, justifying gifts are communicated are those sheep for whom He shed His blood. And those sheep He will never forsake, or permit to wander off to their eternal doom. Discussing the Covenant of Grace revealed to Abraham, Coxe writes:

The sum of all gospel blessings is comprised in this promise. Therefore it will follow that the proper heirs of this blessing of Abraham have a right (not only in some, but) in all the promises of the new covenant. This is true not in a limited sense, suspended on uncertain conditions, but in a full sense and secured by the infinite grace, wisdom, power, and faithfulness of God. Accordingly, they are in time made good to them all. And this will be more manifest if we consider that all the blessings of this covenant redound on believers by means of their union and communion with the Lord Jesus Christ, who is both the Head and Root of the new covenant, and the Fountain from which all its blessings are derived to us. Since these blessings were entirely purchased by him, so are they entirely applied to all that are in him and to none other.

Therefore, I conceive the limiting of a new covenant interest to the grant of an external and temporary privilege only, to be utterly inconsistent with the promises of the covenant itself (such as these: Isaiah 54:13; 59:21; Jeremiah 31:33, 34; Ezekiel 36:26, 27 with Hebrews 8 and many others of like import). Neither will these texts admit of another notion lately insisted on for the commendation of paedobaptism, namely:

“That the infant seed of believers, during their infancy, have all of them a certain and definite interest in the covenant of grace by virtue of which they are completely justified before God from the guilt of original sin, both originans and originatum [Footnote from CT:FATC editors: Originating and originated. Original sin has two aspects: peccatum originale originans, originating original sin, which is Adam’s act of disobedience itself; and peccatum originale originatum, originated original sin, which is the stain or defect in the individual’s nature which is transmitted to him at his conception.]. And yet when they come to years of discretion they may, (yea must) by their actual closing with or refusing the terms of the covenant, either obtain the continuation and confirmation of their covenant interest, or be utterly and finally cut off from it and so perish eternally in their ignorance of God and rebellion against him” [Footnore from CT:FATC editors: This is an unknown reference but is probably from Whiston’s Infant Baptism Plainly Proved.]

As the promises of the covenant will not admit of any such partial interest, neither can this opinion co-exist with the analogy of faith in other respects. For either the stain of original sin in these infants is purged and the dominion of concupiscence in them is destroyed when their guilt is pardoned, or it is not. If it is, then the case of these infants in point of perseverance is the same with that of adult persons who are under grace by their actual faith. Then a final apostasy from the grace of the new covenant must be allowed possible to befall the one as well as the other, notwithstanding all the provisions of the covenant and engagement of God in it to make the promise sure to all the seed. But this the author will not admit. He may say that their guilt is pardoned by their natures are not renewed, nor the power of original corruption destroyed so that sin will not have dominion over them. It will then be replied that despite their supposed pardon, they remain an unclean thing, and so are incapable of admission into the kingdom of glory. But the truth is that none are at any time justified before God except those whom Christ has loved and washed from their sins in his own blood (Revelation 1:5). None are washed by him but those that are in him as the second Adam. It is by union to him as the root of the new covenant that the free gift comes on them to the justification of life [Footnote: Romans 5:14 and following.]. And none can have union to him but by the indwelling of his Holy Spirit. Wherever the Spirit of God applies the blood of Christ for the remission of sins he does it also for the purging of the conscience from dead works to serve the living God. As certainly as any derive a new covenant right from Christ for pardon, they also receive a vital influence from him for the renovation of their natures and conforming their souls to his own image. And therefore to assert that the grace of Christ is applied to some for the remission of sins only, or that the guilt of any sin can be pardoned to any person and yet that sin retain its dominion over him, is (so far as I can discern) both unscriptural and incoherent with the doctrine that is according to godliness (pp. 81-82).

A Worthy Aim

Nehemiah Coxe, concluding his introduction to “A Discourse of the Covenants,” writes,

“I will only add this: that on the whole, my aim has been to speak the truth in love and to take my notions from the Scriptures, not grafting any preconceived opinions of my own onto them. Where the evidence of truth appears, let it not be refused because it is offered in a mean dress and presented under the disadvantage of a rude and unpolished style. But consider instead the reason of what is said and with the noble Bereans search the Scriptures to see whether these things be so or not. And the Lord give you understanding in all things.”

N.C. (Covenant Theology, p.31)

In this paragraph Coxe recognizes that in order to speak the truth, one must take his notions from the Scriptures alone, without adding any opinions conceived by men. Scripture alone is the Word of God; the Bible does not share authority with popes, councils, creeds, confessions, commentaries, religious experiences, bodily sensations, emotions, “common sense”, philosophers, science, tradition, blogs, superstition, governments, populations, opinions, or anything else.

Coxe also recognizes his own limitations and asks his reader for patience with his sometimes “rude and unpolished style.” In Christian interaction, all should practice patience with each other, in anticipation of that time in which we ourselves will need the patience of others. Coxe pleads that his readers not be distracted by any faults of his literary presentation, but rather focus their attention on the pursuit of truth.

Once again, openly before his readers, Coxe submits himself to the authority of the Scriptures. He appeals to his readers to examine his writings in the light of Scripture to determine their worth. He concludes with an acknowledgement that understanding comes only from the Lord, and not from within. Otherwise, he might have pleaded that his readers use their own “common sense,” or to search their inner feelings to find the truth. Instead, Coxe wishes the Lord’s blessing upon his readers, that they might comprehend the majestic importance of God’s covenants with man. Christians would do well to follow Coxe’s example of humility before God and His Revealed Word.