04-18-2008, 12:29 PM
|
| Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK
Posts: 2,802
Thanks: 197
Thanked 394 Times in 256 Posts
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by BertMulder  Also, I am still waiting for an answer to my question in post 6 above:
(Richard, why do you think his covenant view is problematic though?) | I answered this earlier when I said: Hoeksema's denial of the covenant of works is very problematic on a number of grounds. Most importantly it ignores the law element of the covenant made with Adam, the law which Christ kept for us and so merited us eternal life.
Also, it was wrong to say that the traditional view ignores the place of the Holy Ghost in the pactum salutis and to say that when Jesus addressed his Father he is speaking to the Triune God as opposed to his Father the first person of the Godhead does not do full justice to the NT texts. Quote:
Originally Posted by BertMulder Furthermore, I still have not seen anyone present Biblical proof of the Covenant of Works idea where man could 'earn or merit' anything (if we do perfect works, we only do what is our duty to do), let alone, earn eternal life in Heavenly Paradise. Thus man would have been able to attain to what Christ could only attain for us by his death on the cross. This, in a certain sense, would make man mighty as God. | I think that Witsius, a Brakel and Bavinck have all done so in their work. Quote:
Originally Posted by BertMulder I am realizing we are here embarking, to a certain extent, on the old supra-infra controversy... | Not really as I am supra. Quote:
Originally Posted by BertMulder support your assertion why Hoeksema's covenant view cannot be a further development from Brakel and Witsius (who, I agree, both held to a Covenant of Works) | It can't be a development because he states (in effect) "This is what they believed...I disagree, this is my position..." That is hardly developing their work but rather the very opposite. He in effect throws their work in to the trash and starts again, hardly a development. Quote:
Originally Posted by BertMulder And why you see it as a fundamental break with classic and traditional covenant theology, realizing that continental European covenant theology did not include a 'covenant of works'. In any case, it is absent in the 3 forms of unity...Correct me if I am wrong, but believe only the Westminster standards make the 'covenant of works' a confessional issue? | May I point you to The Covenant of Works in Dutch Reformed Orthodoxy by Shane Lems; Despite recent criticism of the covenant of works within Dutch churches, it is very clear that the covenant of works is both a Presbyterian and Reformed--indeed Dutch Reformed--doctrine. The main point of this essay is simple: the Dutch Reformed church has taught the covenant of works since the Reformation. While we may owe much to our Presbyterian brothers and sisters, we did not adopt the covenant of works from the Westminster Standards. Rather, the English and Dutch Reformed theologians were influenced by each other, and stood side by side on the covenant of works.
These influential Dutch Reformed theologians [Caspar Olevian, Zacharias Ursinus, Herman Witsius, Wilhelmus a' Brakel, Herman Bavinck, and Louis Berkhof] spanning nearly 400 years vigorously upheld the doctrine of the covenant of works. The covenant of works is not simply a Presbyterian doctrine. No one can call the covenant of works a "new thing" in Dutch Reformed theology, nor can they accuse any who hold to the covenant of works of being out of line with mainstream Reformed orthodoxy. Actually, one might make a solid argument that a denial of the covenant of works is the new and minority position in our tradition.
__________________
Richard
CofE
UK
|