What do you think?
Rate this book
Covenant series
Covenant and Salvation: Union with Christ
Following Covenant and Eschatology and Lord and Servant , this concluding volume of a four-part series examines Christian salvation from the perspective of covenant theology. In Covenant and Salvation , Michael Horton surveys law and gospel, union with Christ, and justification and theosis, conversing with both classical and contemporary viewpoints.
- GenresTheology
336 pages, Paperback
First published September 4, 2007
11 people are currently reading
152 people want to read
About the author
Michael Scott Horton
86 books333 followersDr. Horton has taught apologetics and theology at Westminster Seminary California since 1998. In addition to his work at the Seminary, he is the president of White Horse Inn, for which he co-hosts the White Horse Inn, a nationally syndicated, weekly radio talk-show exploring issues of Reformation theology in American Christianity. He is also the editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation magazine. Before coming to WSC, Dr. Horton completed a research fellowship at Yale University Divinity School. Dr. Horton is the author/editor of more than twenty books, including a series of studies in Reformed dogmatics published by Westminster John Knox.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
August 5, 2016
You can't stop Horton: You can only hope to contain him.
Finished the 3rd volume in the Tetralogy. This was my first time reading through it (as opposed to the other 3 which I have already read once), so it took a little more time. Seriously, this Doc is a beast.
Using covenant and eschatology in an analogical mode and with the metaphor of drama, Horton seeks to define justification and participation in Christ. If you didn't understand that last sentence it's because you have been slacking and need to read the first two volumes. In the first part of Covenant & Salvation, Horton takes on NPP and dismantles it brick by reductionistic brick. Homies like N.T. Wright don't deal with the clear historical and scriptural distinction between law-covenants and promise-covenants. Thus, their systems are full of false choices (like soteriology v. ecclesiology, or forensic v. transformative, or legal v. relational) which a biblical, and particularly Reformed, account of covenant theology avoids. Part 2 deals with the mystical union with Christ. Basically Horton takes on some neo-Platonist cats who think that salvation means being absorbed into God's essence. But they haven't read the East (or the Bible, e.g. Rom 1:20), so they fail to distinguish between God's essence and energies; so Horton has to slap them. That's everything I loved about this book.
Some further thoughts: First, don't start with this book. It's like jumping into Order of the Phoenix without reading the first four Potter books: you are just going to be confused. Volume 1 sets the stage and gives you the categories. Volume 2 begins messing with your Western, Platonic ontological and epistemological categories by grounding you in the Creator-creature distinction, and a covenantal ontology and epistemology. Volume 3 gets into the issues of soteriology. Second, since this is my first time through Vol 3, I was a bit lost at times. That's not Horton's fault. It's because I'm a noob. First, I need to re-read it. Second, I need to know more about the arguments of both NPP and Radical Orthodoxy. I was really only hearing half the conversation at times, so following it all was tough.
Finished the 3rd volume in the Tetralogy. This was my first time reading through it (as opposed to the other 3 which I have already read once), so it took a little more time. Seriously, this Doc is a beast.
Using covenant and eschatology in an analogical mode and with the metaphor of drama, Horton seeks to define justification and participation in Christ. If you didn't understand that last sentence it's because you have been slacking and need to read the first two volumes. In the first part of Covenant & Salvation, Horton takes on NPP and dismantles it brick by reductionistic brick. Homies like N.T. Wright don't deal with the clear historical and scriptural distinction between law-covenants and promise-covenants. Thus, their systems are full of false choices (like soteriology v. ecclesiology, or forensic v. transformative, or legal v. relational) which a biblical, and particularly Reformed, account of covenant theology avoids. Part 2 deals with the mystical union with Christ. Basically Horton takes on some neo-Platonist cats who think that salvation means being absorbed into God's essence. But they haven't read the East (or the Bible, e.g. Rom 1:20), so they fail to distinguish between God's essence and energies; so Horton has to slap them. That's everything I loved about this book.
Some further thoughts: First, don't start with this book. It's like jumping into Order of the Phoenix without reading the first four Potter books: you are just going to be confused. Volume 1 sets the stage and gives you the categories. Volume 2 begins messing with your Western, Platonic ontological and epistemological categories by grounding you in the Creator-creature distinction, and a covenantal ontology and epistemology. Volume 3 gets into the issues of soteriology. Second, since this is my first time through Vol 3, I was a bit lost at times. That's not Horton's fault. It's because I'm a noob. First, I need to re-read it. Second, I need to know more about the arguments of both NPP and Radical Orthodoxy. I was really only hearing half the conversation at times, so following it all was tough.
June 3, 2017
The purpose of this book is to explicate an explicitly covenantal account of Reformed soteriology.
The first part of the book deals the forensic aspect of salvation, which, in the main, boils down to justification for Horton. The second part deals with the renovative aspect of salvation.
Although this book is written in a relatively engaging manner, it is an advanced, scholarly work. That is to say, there are a variety of concepts and discussions which presuppose at least an intermediate level of understanding, at least in some places. As such, it proves to advance the discussion with regard to Reformed soteriology in numerous places, e.g., the relationship between regeneration and effectual calling; and, the place of theosis in Reformed soteriology.
One of the potential drawbacks of this book is that it is in many places largely polemical, arguing with such interlocutors as the New Perspective, the Finnish School, and Robert Gundry, to name a few. Of course, one would expect such interactions in a scholarly book, but, it can prove to be heavy, cumbersome reading at times, especially if these competing views are not in the purview of the reader. But, it must be stressed on the other hand that some of the issues he addresses in his polemical mode are extremely helpful for navigating the current contexts, especially regarding such issues as a proper reading of Pauline soteriology and the validity of affirming the imputation of Christ's righteousness.
If one wants an introductory text to Reformed soteriology, this is not the book for you; but, if one wants to engage with a book which seeks to explicate the same in the face of competing contemporary voices, this is must read. Moreover, although this text is arguably more polemical than constructive, when it is constructive, it, in this reader's opinion, significantly contributes to and advances Reformed and more broadly evangelical soteriology.
The first part of the book deals the forensic aspect of salvation, which, in the main, boils down to justification for Horton. The second part deals with the renovative aspect of salvation.
Although this book is written in a relatively engaging manner, it is an advanced, scholarly work. That is to say, there are a variety of concepts and discussions which presuppose at least an intermediate level of understanding, at least in some places. As such, it proves to advance the discussion with regard to Reformed soteriology in numerous places, e.g., the relationship between regeneration and effectual calling; and, the place of theosis in Reformed soteriology.
One of the potential drawbacks of this book is that it is in many places largely polemical, arguing with such interlocutors as the New Perspective, the Finnish School, and Robert Gundry, to name a few. Of course, one would expect such interactions in a scholarly book, but, it can prove to be heavy, cumbersome reading at times, especially if these competing views are not in the purview of the reader. But, it must be stressed on the other hand that some of the issues he addresses in his polemical mode are extremely helpful for navigating the current contexts, especially regarding such issues as a proper reading of Pauline soteriology and the validity of affirming the imputation of Christ's righteousness.
If one wants an introductory text to Reformed soteriology, this is not the book for you; but, if one wants to engage with a book which seeks to explicate the same in the face of competing contemporary voices, this is must read. Moreover, although this text is arguably more polemical than constructive, when it is constructive, it, in this reader's opinion, significantly contributes to and advances Reformed and more broadly evangelical soteriology.
August 8, 2018
A very good corrective to the New Perspective on Paul or covenantal nomism/mono-covenantalism. While the author claims that the Mosaic covenant was not a covenant of works simpliciter, it would be hard to read his descriptions of it as a law covenant in contrast to the promise covenants (Abrahamic, Davidic) as anything other than a denial that it was a gracious covenant. I make this observation as one who believes that the covenant of works was republished under Moses (for pedagogical reasons), but that the Mosaic covenant was an administration of the one covenant of grace in all ages. That point aside, it is a great book by possibly the most learned man in modern Reformedom.
August 10, 2012
Horton attempts to give a full-orbed defense of Reformed soteriology, utilizing current scholarship, identifying potential weaknesses, and communicating this in a new and cogent manner. And he has largely succeeded.
Similar to other projects, Horton places salvation within a covenantal framework, drawing largely upon the findings of Meredith Kline. In short, Horton posits a "Tale of Two Mothers," referring to Galatians 4. After a brief discussion of Ancient Near Eastern Suzerain Treaties, Horton shows that God's promise to Abraham was unilateral, involving no stipulations nor any potential sanctions on Abraham. This continues through the Davidic covenant and finds its fulfillment in Christ. The Sinaitic covenant, on the other hand, is specifically sanction-oriented. The difference between these two covenants is crucial to Horton's later argument. Horton asserts: “The deepest distinction in Scripture is not between Old and New Testament, but between covenants of law and covenants of promise that run throughout both” (17).
Horton then responds to the New Perspective on Paul. Contrary to the myths about Lutheran re-readings, Horton demonstrates from Sanders' own findings that the 2ndTemple Rabbis (and probably Sanders himself) were semi-Pelagian. If they were semi-Pelagian, as Sanders' own writings attest, then the "Lutheran" critique isn't eisegesis at all. Horton then advances an interesting critique of N. T. Wright. Rather than entering the shrill hysteria that is Reformed polemics on justification, Horton points out that Wright conflates the Sinaitic and Davidic covenants. So when the covenant "climaxes" for God's people, is it the covenant of promise (David) or the covenant of bondage and death (Sinai, Galatians 3-4)?
Horton has a sharp section on justification and imputation. Justification, on Horton's gloss, is not a legal fiction because Christ is the covenant-head, and if the justified are “in Christ,” then they possess his covenant status (105). Horton shows that a lot of Wright's arguments on covenant and salvation, while sometimes shedding helpful light on the issues, really don't make sense outside Palestine. When the Philippian jailer asks what he must do to be saved, is he really talking about the end of national Israel's exile? If works of the law mean ethnic markers, then why is Paul accused of antinomianism?
The second part of the book deals with different ontologies. Contrary to the Radical Orthodoxy group, Horton posits a "Covenantal Ontology" which is focused on "meeting a stranger" rather than "overcoming estrangement." The latter is an application of almost all descendants of Platonic ontologies of anti-bodiement.
Covenantal Ontology: The pactum salutis is the intra-Trinitarian covenant made in eternity. It is realized in the biblical covenants. See also pp. 182-186.
Horton notes that Radical Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Roman Catholicism presuppose something along the following lines: overcoming estrangement. By this he means a paradigm that promises enlightenment and a liberation of nature beyond itself (155).
EXCURSUS: A RESULT OF A PLATONIC SWALLOWING-UP?
Several times throughout this book Horton advances a critique of Platonic Divine Simplicity, but never calls it such. He has a section on John Milbank and offers a full-orbed convincing critique of Milbank. As readers of Milbank know, he is strongly committed to the neo-Platonic doctrine of absolute divine simplicity. To put the matter briefly, such a view of simplicity negates or mutes distinctions. Horton then goes on to say, “As speculative metaphysics (specifically ontological participation) swallows up the horizon, Christology is swallowed by ecclesiology, and redemptive mediation has to do with overcoming metaphysical binaries (finite/infinite, material/spiritual,invisible/visible, corporeal/incorporeal, temporal/eternal, and so forth) rather than ethical and eschatological ones (sin/grace, death/life, condemnation/justification...this age/age to come” (165. /END EXCURSUS
The book ends with placing the traditional Reformed ordo in a communicative context. Horton wants to avoid some of the hang-ups the Reformed scholastics had when they used medieval categories to challenge Rome. Instead, Horton argues we should use communicative categories, which makes sense since Christ is the Word. Horton suggests we should see effectual calling as a speech-act whereby God creates a new reality. This isn't that bad a suggestion, since it mutes the charge that Calvinism forces a God who forces the unbeliever's will. God does no such thing. Rather, he creates a situation, renewing the will (does renewal = violence? I hope not, 223). Throughout Scripture we see the Spirit “bringing things to life, into existence” (Ezekiel 37). Is it so hard to imagine he can do this to the human will?
Interestingly, at the end of the book Horton employs the essence/energies distinction to critique a number of non-Reformed position. Even more, he draws upon Reformed scholastics who evidently employed something like it.
Horton has done heroic work. Milbank had offered a very challenging critique of Reformed ontology. Horton meets it head-on and and redirects it. He gives the most convincing (and charitable) critique of N.T. Wright.
Similar to other projects, Horton places salvation within a covenantal framework, drawing largely upon the findings of Meredith Kline. In short, Horton posits a "Tale of Two Mothers," referring to Galatians 4. After a brief discussion of Ancient Near Eastern Suzerain Treaties, Horton shows that God's promise to Abraham was unilateral, involving no stipulations nor any potential sanctions on Abraham. This continues through the Davidic covenant and finds its fulfillment in Christ. The Sinaitic covenant, on the other hand, is specifically sanction-oriented. The difference between these two covenants is crucial to Horton's later argument. Horton asserts: “The deepest distinction in Scripture is not between Old and New Testament, but between covenants of law and covenants of promise that run throughout both” (17).
Horton then responds to the New Perspective on Paul. Contrary to the myths about Lutheran re-readings, Horton demonstrates from Sanders' own findings that the 2ndTemple Rabbis (and probably Sanders himself) were semi-Pelagian. If they were semi-Pelagian, as Sanders' own writings attest, then the "Lutheran" critique isn't eisegesis at all. Horton then advances an interesting critique of N. T. Wright. Rather than entering the shrill hysteria that is Reformed polemics on justification, Horton points out that Wright conflates the Sinaitic and Davidic covenants. So when the covenant "climaxes" for God's people, is it the covenant of promise (David) or the covenant of bondage and death (Sinai, Galatians 3-4)?
Horton has a sharp section on justification and imputation. Justification, on Horton's gloss, is not a legal fiction because Christ is the covenant-head, and if the justified are “in Christ,” then they possess his covenant status (105). Horton shows that a lot of Wright's arguments on covenant and salvation, while sometimes shedding helpful light on the issues, really don't make sense outside Palestine. When the Philippian jailer asks what he must do to be saved, is he really talking about the end of national Israel's exile? If works of the law mean ethnic markers, then why is Paul accused of antinomianism?
The second part of the book deals with different ontologies. Contrary to the Radical Orthodoxy group, Horton posits a "Covenantal Ontology" which is focused on "meeting a stranger" rather than "overcoming estrangement." The latter is an application of almost all descendants of Platonic ontologies of anti-bodiement.
Covenantal Ontology: The pactum salutis is the intra-Trinitarian covenant made in eternity. It is realized in the biblical covenants. See also pp. 182-186.
Horton notes that Radical Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Roman Catholicism presuppose something along the following lines: overcoming estrangement. By this he means a paradigm that promises enlightenment and a liberation of nature beyond itself (155).
EXCURSUS: A RESULT OF A PLATONIC SWALLOWING-UP?
Several times throughout this book Horton advances a critique of Platonic Divine Simplicity, but never calls it such. He has a section on John Milbank and offers a full-orbed convincing critique of Milbank. As readers of Milbank know, he is strongly committed to the neo-Platonic doctrine of absolute divine simplicity. To put the matter briefly, such a view of simplicity negates or mutes distinctions. Horton then goes on to say, “As speculative metaphysics (specifically ontological participation) swallows up the horizon, Christology is swallowed by ecclesiology, and redemptive mediation has to do with overcoming metaphysical binaries (finite/infinite, material/spiritual,invisible/visible, corporeal/incorporeal, temporal/eternal, and so forth) rather than ethical and eschatological ones (sin/grace, death/life, condemnation/justification...this age/age to come” (165. /END EXCURSUS
The book ends with placing the traditional Reformed ordo in a communicative context. Horton wants to avoid some of the hang-ups the Reformed scholastics had when they used medieval categories to challenge Rome. Instead, Horton argues we should use communicative categories, which makes sense since Christ is the Word. Horton suggests we should see effectual calling as a speech-act whereby God creates a new reality. This isn't that bad a suggestion, since it mutes the charge that Calvinism forces a God who forces the unbeliever's will. God does no such thing. Rather, he creates a situation, renewing the will (does renewal = violence? I hope not, 223). Throughout Scripture we see the Spirit “bringing things to life, into existence” (Ezekiel 37). Is it so hard to imagine he can do this to the human will?
Interestingly, at the end of the book Horton employs the essence/energies distinction to critique a number of non-Reformed position. Even more, he draws upon Reformed scholastics who evidently employed something like it.
Horton has done heroic work. Milbank had offered a very challenging critique of Reformed ontology. Horton meets it head-on and and redirects it. He gives the most convincing (and charitable) critique of N.T. Wright.
July 7, 2018
Book review on Horton
This is my second reading of this book, and the first one wherein I understood, mostly, what Horton was saying. On the first reading (maybe 2008), I had insufficient general knowledge of covenant theology and other theological issues to contextualize Horton's views. The main strength of Horton is his ability to examine a position from an ostensibly detached viewpoint while at the same time exposing flaws in the other position simply by virtue of the examination process.
In the first half of the book Horton reviews both the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) and the views of Radical Orthodoxy. Horton interviews a fair presentation of the NPP and Radical Orthodoxy positions, while contrasting them with covenant theology, and finally to the Word itself. As NPP and Radical Orthodoxy deal with issues that are recurrent in Church history, Horton does not flinch in acknowledging where the NPP and Radical Orthodoxy make valid points. But, without stridency, Horton makes his case that the NPP and Radical Orthodoxy as a whole run afoul of traditional orthodox views of law, grace, salvation and perservernce of the saints, even if orthodoxy if filtered through a Reformed lense. In short, no one is called a heretic, but the NPP and Radical Orthodoxy are shown to conflict with more traditional views of dogma.
Horton also does a superb job of setting forth the nature and extent of the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants, all based on grace, and contrasting them with the Sinaitic covenant, based on performance. In fact, this meta-narrative of covenants was the most persuasive argument I have encountered showing that salvation was and is always based on grace, understood as unmerited favor, appropriated by faith alone. While the economy of salvation may be historically contextualized, the act of God forgiving the wicked because he wants to (at least from our limited perspective) remains invariant, if the pattern of the grace covenants is understood. The blood of bulls cannot take away sins, Hebrews 10.4, but the blood of Christ can, Hebrews 9.12-14.
Horton does break down for a few pages in the middle of the book when he digresses on infant baptism. Had I come from a Church background where infant baptism is practiced, I might not even have noticed the matter. But Baptist roots sometimes run deep and so my attention was peaked. However, Horton, as well reasoned and articulate as he is, could not carry the day for me that putting drop or two of water in an infant counts for anything in the grand scheme of spiritual things. Others reading the same pages would be persuaded otherwise.
The last half of the book shifts gears and more directly advocates a covenant theology view of the Bible and doctrine. I found this approach weaker than the arguments made in the first half of the book, where contending positions were measured side by side, with Horton of course ultimately giving weight to the Reformed position. When the system (covenant theology) becomes the focus, or basis from which analysis is made, then what is debated is the system, not what the Word says or means. A system may provide a framework within which to read scripture, but logically should be after the what the Word says, or appears to say.
This is my second reading of this book, and the first one wherein I understood, mostly, what Horton was saying. On the first reading (maybe 2008), I had insufficient general knowledge of covenant theology and other theological issues to contextualize Horton's views. The main strength of Horton is his ability to examine a position from an ostensibly detached viewpoint while at the same time exposing flaws in the other position simply by virtue of the examination process.
In the first half of the book Horton reviews both the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) and the views of Radical Orthodoxy. Horton interviews a fair presentation of the NPP and Radical Orthodoxy positions, while contrasting them with covenant theology, and finally to the Word itself. As NPP and Radical Orthodoxy deal with issues that are recurrent in Church history, Horton does not flinch in acknowledging where the NPP and Radical Orthodoxy make valid points. But, without stridency, Horton makes his case that the NPP and Radical Orthodoxy as a whole run afoul of traditional orthodox views of law, grace, salvation and perservernce of the saints, even if orthodoxy if filtered through a Reformed lense. In short, no one is called a heretic, but the NPP and Radical Orthodoxy are shown to conflict with more traditional views of dogma.
Horton also does a superb job of setting forth the nature and extent of the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants, all based on grace, and contrasting them with the Sinaitic covenant, based on performance. In fact, this meta-narrative of covenants was the most persuasive argument I have encountered showing that salvation was and is always based on grace, understood as unmerited favor, appropriated by faith alone. While the economy of salvation may be historically contextualized, the act of God forgiving the wicked because he wants to (at least from our limited perspective) remains invariant, if the pattern of the grace covenants is understood. The blood of bulls cannot take away sins, Hebrews 10.4, but the blood of Christ can, Hebrews 9.12-14.
Horton does break down for a few pages in the middle of the book when he digresses on infant baptism. Had I come from a Church background where infant baptism is practiced, I might not even have noticed the matter. But Baptist roots sometimes run deep and so my attention was peaked. However, Horton, as well reasoned and articulate as he is, could not carry the day for me that putting drop or two of water in an infant counts for anything in the grand scheme of spiritual things. Others reading the same pages would be persuaded otherwise.
The last half of the book shifts gears and more directly advocates a covenant theology view of the Bible and doctrine. I found this approach weaker than the arguments made in the first half of the book, where contending positions were measured side by side, with Horton of course ultimately giving weight to the Reformed position. When the system (covenant theology) becomes the focus, or basis from which analysis is made, then what is debated is the system, not what the Word says or means. A system may provide a framework within which to read scripture, but logically should be after the what the Word says, or appears to say.
September 27, 2018
This book was really helpful for me on accenting the importance of justification as a foundation of our union with Christ. I was familiar with the New Perspective, but some of the chapters on the New Finnish School and Radical Orthodoxy were a bit beyond my comprehension. The last 2-3 chapters are excellent though.
January 16, 2018
Demandingly dense. This is an incisively sharp piece of academic work, crucial for current debates around mystical union or participation, covenantal nomism, and the new perspectives on Paul
February 2, 2023
This book was amazing. It kills the New Perspective on Paul with Horton’s exegesis of the Gospels. This work was dedicated to his brother Larry who introduced him to the book of Romans. This is one of the best books I read on justification, it is also a page turner. Horton stated that the publisher changed the title, it should actually be titled Covenant and Justification. Further, R. Scott Clark said in class that this book was the best defense against the New Perspective on Paul that he has read.
January 28, 2011
A helpful and insightful look at the doctrines grouped under Union with Christ (Election, Effectual Calling, Justification, Sanctification, Glorification). Horton is good at stating Reformed theology in dialogue with contemporary theological movements. The book includes a powerful critique of the New Perspective on Paul.
August 30, 2011
Great counter to that Richard Gaffin and his radical Union with Christ that collapses Justification and Sanctification in one mush. Horton defends the historic, normal, reformed view of union with Christ.
May 1, 2014
Helpful in both defending Reformed orthodoxy amidst various critics, explaining what the Reformed tradition *actually held*, and articulating a traditional Reformed theology that is in constructive communication with modern movements.
Want to read
July 19, 2008I want to read this as Mike is part of the dispute between WSC and WTS concerning the relationship of union and justification.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews