Thread: Seeking a Review

for Reformed Dogmatics by Herman Hoeksema, is it worth the money? Is Hoeksema a hyper Calvinist?

Thanks,

jm

I like Hoeksema's Dogmatics. I also like Kersten's Dogmatics, and Charles Hodge's Systematics.

I do not always agree with Hoeksema but particulary like him on anthropology, soteriology, and eschatology.

Your question as to weather Hoeksema was hypercalvinist, will likely get some reaction. Some, like Johnson, think any one who denies common grace is hypercalvinist. Some think anyone who does not understand the call of the Gospel to be a 'free well meant offer' to every man, head head, is a hypercalvinist. If that is your definition then Hoeksema is a hypercalvinist.

Hoeksema is not like J. C. Philpot. Hoeksema affirms that the Gospel should be preached promiscously to all men and every man.

To somewhat ressurrect this discussion, could you show me where Philpot denied the Gospel should be preached to all men? It is my understanding that very few outside of the extreme Primitive Baptists ever said that the Gospel shouldn't go to all. A sourced quote would be appreciated, so I could look it up.

Originally Posted by JM

for Reformed Dogmatics by Herman Hoeksema, is it worth the money?

Yes

Originally Posted by JM

Is Hoeksema a hyper Calvinist?

No

AV1611,

You have a private message waiting. Check that.

Originally Posted by JM

for Reformed Dogmatics by Herman Hoeksema, is it worth the money? Is Hoeksema a hyper Calvinist?

Thanks,

jm

Though it is debatable about the hypercalvinism, Hoeksema is in error on another significant area in theology and that is his denial of the covenant of works. Though he doesn't follow through with the implications of this denial, later proponents have, like the Federal Vision, etc. Hoeksema may have some helpful insights but there are systematic theologies which are probably more helpful and give you a broader review of Reformed Theology. If you can only by one, then buy something else. I would recommend Berkhof's ST, Calvin's Institutes, Hodge's ST, or Turretin's Institutes. All these will be more grounded in the historical Reformed faith, both Continental and Scottish. Personally, I prefer Calvin or Berkhof. It will also do you well to simply study the Westminster Confession and the 3 Forms of Unity.

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

...his denial of the covenant of works.

Have you read Prof Murray on the Covenant of Grace? BTW: Hoeksema did not deny the covenant of works (he was bound to believe it by the WCF) but rather he looked at it and reworked it and so engaged in doctrinal development as he explains in his The Covenant: God's Tabernacle with Men.

Originally Posted by C. Matthew McMahon

AV1611,

You have a private message waiting. Check that.

I have taken it on board.

Originally Posted by AV1611

Have you read Prof Murray on the Covenant of Grace? BTW: Hoeksema did not deny the covenant of works (he was bound to believe it by the WCF) but rather he looked at it and reworked it and so engaged in doctrinal development as he explains in his The Covenant: God's Tabernacle with Men.

Yes, I've read Murray and he is wrong to reject theterm "covenant of works." Certainly he holds the subtance with "Adamic administration" but this cute phrase has opened the doors to heresies which he would deplore if he were alive today.

As for Hoeksema, first of all, he was not bound to Westminster. He was not a Presbyterian. He was bound to the 3 Forms of Unity.

And he does most certainly deny the covenant of works in his Reformed Dogmatics pg. 214-226, on The Covenant with Adam. He views it as something that has "creeped in" to the Reformed camp because the 3 Forms do not use the term. He then attacks Hodge's articulation. Hoeksema's "doctrinal development" is actually regression into mono-covenantalism and is a clear departure from the historic Reformed faith. It leads to great confusion because you destroy the distinction between law and gospel. You will logically become an antinomian or a legalist with a monocovenantal scheme.

Rowland Ward has proven irrefutably how the "covenant of works" was articulated in the Reformed Faith very early on, becoming an unquestioned point of doctrine for both the Continental and English/Scottish churches by the early 17th century. I would suggest you read his short work called "God and Adam." It will show you how deviant Hoeksema's view actually is.

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

.As for Hoeksema. He was not a Presbyterian.:

That's interesting to know that Hoeksema would not be a presybterian ? Do you have more information about this ?

Originally Posted by Mayflower

That's interesting to know that Hoeksema would not be a presybterian ? Do you have more information about this ?

Hoeksema was a minister in the Protestant Reformed Church. It was a splinter group from the Christian Reformed Church which broke away during the early 20th century. The PRC does not hold to the Westminster standards. They hold to the 3 Forms of Unity.

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

Hoeksema was a minister in the Protestant Reformed Church. It was a splinter group from the Christian Reformed Church which broke away during the early 20th century. The PRC does not hold to the Westminster standards. They hold to the 3 Forms of Unity.

But is a presbyterian not someone who hold to the presbyterian view of Chrch goverment ? In which way did he differens regards church goverment ?

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

And he does most certainly deny the covenant of works in his Reformed Dogmatics pg. 214-226, on The Covenant with Adam. He views it as something that has "creeped in" to the Reformed camp because the 3 Forms do not use the term. He then attacks Hodge's articulation.

What he attacks is the idea that the covenant was between equal parties. Hoeksema was at pains to point out that the very essence of covenant is a relation of friendship as Berkof points out in his ST. As HH states "However, that this living relation of friendship on the part of God with man is the real idea and essence of the covenant has not received proper recognition. Usually, the covenant was understood as a pact or agreement between God and men; or its essence was seen in the promise, "I will be your God." It was described as a way of salvation, as a means to an end, rather than as the very heart of all true religion, as the highest self-revelation of the triune God, as the ultimate realization of God's purpose of salvation. To demonstrate that the latter is nevertheless the true idea of God's covenant, as presented to us in Holy Scripture, is the chief purpose of this brief treatise." (The Covenant: God's Tabernacle with Men)

He goes on to say "Grave objections may be raised against this presentation of the idea of God's covenant. The most serious and fundamental of these is that man cannot really be a party, a contracting party, in relation to the living God. For God is God. He is the infinite, the eternal, the self-existent, the perfectly self-sufficient One. He is the Lord, the sovereign Creator, of Whom, and through Whom, and unto Whom are all things. There is none beside Him. And man is a mere creature that owes his whole existence, all that he is and has, his entire being, with body and soul, with mind and will and strength, with all his powers and talents and possessions, in every relationship and every moment of his life, to his Lord and Creator. God is always the overflowing Fount of all good, and man is always the dependent and needy creature, who must drink from that Fountain. God is the self-sufficient I AM, man is constantly and completely dependent on Him. How, then, shall that creature assume the position of a party in relation to his God? What obligation could he possibly assume beside that which is already incumbent upon him, without any special agreement: that he shall love the Lord his God with all his strength? Can the fulfillment of this solemn obligation ever become a condition for higher favors and richer blessings?"

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

Hoeksema's "doctrinal development" is actually regression into mono-covenantalism and is a clear departure from the historic Reformed faith. It leads to great confusion because you destroy the distinction between law and gospel.

Could you explain?

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

You will logically become an antinomian or a legalist with a monocovenantal scheme.

No more than adherence to unconditional election will result in rejecting the need for gospel preaching.

Here is John Gill:

...Moreover, It may be observed, that the law given to Adam is expressly called a covenant, as it should seem in Hosea 6:7 "but they, like men", (or like Adam) "have transgressed the covenant": the sense of which seems to be, that as Adam transgressed the covenant God made with him; so the Israelites had transgressed the covenant God made with them; for as well may Adam’s transgression of the law or covenant be referred to here, as his palliating his sin, after the commission of it, is referred to in Job 31:33. Besides, the terms by which the positive law given to Adam is expressed, manifestly imply a covenant; as that if he eat of the forbidden fruit, he should surely die; which implies, that if he abstained from it, he should surely live; which formally constitute a covenant; even a promise and a threatening. To which may be added, the distinction of two covenants of grace and works, called the law of faith, and the law of works; and a twofold righteousness and obedience yielded to the one, and to the other, the righteousness which is of faith, and the righteousness which is of the law (Gal. 4:24; Rom. 3:27; 10:5,6), for without the law of Adam, as a covenant, two covenants cannot be fairly made out; for though in Hebrews 8:7,13 we read of a first and second, an old and a new covenant; yet these respect one and the same covenant, under different dispensations; and though in the passage referred to, the covenant at Sinai may be intended as one, yet as a repetition, and a new edition of the covenant made with Adam.

This covenant is by divines called by various names; sometimes a covenant of "friendship", man being in friendship with God when it was made with him; of which there are many instances; as the placing him in the garden of Eden, putting all the creatures in subjection to him, and providing an help meet for him; appearing often to him, and talking friendly with him, and granting him communion with him; and it was an act of friendship to him to enter into covenant with him; and while Adam observed this he remained in friendship with God; and it was the breach of this covenant that separated chief friends. Sometimes they call it a covenant of "nature", it being made with Adam as a natural man, and a natural head of his posterity; and promised natural blessings to him and his; was coeval with his nature; and was made with all human nature, or with all mankind, in Adam. it is also called a covenant of "innocence"; because made with man in his innocent state; and who, as long as he kept this covenant, continued innocent; but when he brake it, he was no more so. And it is frequently called the "legal" covenant, the covenant of "works", as the Scripture calls it, "the law of works", as before observed; it promised life on the performance of good works; its language was, "Do this and live". And it sometimes has the name of the covenant of life from the promise of life in it; though not in such sense as the covenant with Levi, as a type of Christ, is called, the covenant of life; for it is life of a lower kind that was promised to Adam, than what was promised to Christ, for his people, as will be seen hereafter.

3. Thirdly, As in all covenants there are contracting parties, so in this.

3a. God is one of the parties in this covenant; nor was it unworthy of God to enter into a covenant with Adam; for if it was not unworthy of God to make a covenant of conservation with Noah; a covenant of circumcision with Abraham; and a covenant of royalty with David; a covenant respecting the kingdom, and the continuance of it in his family; men in a fallen state; then it could not be unworthy of God to make one with Adam in his perfect state; yea, even since, on the behalf of his people, he makes a covenant with the beasts of the field, the fowls of heaven, and the creeping things of the ground, #Ho 2:18. Besides, to make a covenant with Adam, was a display of his goodness to him. As he was the work of his hands, he must have a regard to him; as every artificer has for his work; and would not despise him, but be concerned for his good; and therefore in covenant promised good things to him, in case of obedience to his will: this his covenant also flowed from his sovereignty; since all his good things are his own, and he can do with them as he pleases; make promises of them in a covenant way; in like manner he disposed of some of them in such a way to Adam.

3b. The other contracting party was Adam; who gave a full and hearty assent to what was proposed to him. The stipulation on the part of God, was proposing and promising good, on condition of obedience. The stipulation, or restipulation on the part of man, was his free and full consent to yield the obedience proposed, in expectation of the promise fulfilled; and this may be concluded from the law he was to obey being written on his heart; which he had full knowledge of, approved of, and assented to; for which he had the most sincere affection; and the inclination and bias of his will were strongly towards it: and as for the positive law, which forbid him to eat of a certain tree; his will was to observe it; his resolution to keep it; as appears from what Eve said to the serpent, tempting her; "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die" (Gen. 3:3), which shows, that she and her husband believed what God had said; judged it to be reasonable to hearken to it; and were determined to observe it: and man had also power to keep this covenant; being made after the image, and in the likeness of God; pure and upright, possessed of a clear understanding of it, a strong affection for it, and a full resolution to keep it; for it was not till sin took place, that the nature of man was weakened, and he unable to keep the law; "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh", &c. or what man could not do in fulfilling the law, his nature being weakened by sin; for then, and not before, was it in such an incapacity. Though it should be observed, that man was not left to his liberty; it was not at his option, whether he would assent to the proposal in the covenant, and the condition of it; he had not an alternative given him, to agree or not agree, since obedience was due to God, whether he promised him anything or not. Wherefore this covenant differs from any covenants among men; in which the parties not only freely agree to make a covenant, but it is at the option of the one, whether he will accept of and agree to the proposal of the other. So that this covenant made with Adam, is not strictly and properly a covenant, such as is among men; but is rather a covenant on one side, as a covenant of promise is; and a covenant of God with man, rather than a covenant of man with God.

The obedience required of man in this covenant, was personal, perfect, and perpetual. It was personal; it was to be performed in his own person, and not by another for him; as is the obedience of Christ, which is not personal to them, who are made righteous by it; or as would have been the obedience of Adam, had he stood, as reckoned to his posterity; which, though personal to him, would not have been so to them; as his disobedience, by which they are made sinners, is not personal to them (Rom. 5:19). It was "perfect" obedience that was required of him, both as to parts and as to degrees; it was to be yielded to all the commandments of God, without exception, and to be performed in the most perfect manner; as to matter, all the commands of God, natural and positive, were to be observed; and as to manner, just as the Lord commanded them. And then this obedience was to be "perpetual"; it was not to be done for a time only, but always; life, and the continuance of it, depended on it; otherwise, if a stop was made in it, the law condemned, and the man became accursed; "Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them" (Gal. 3:10). So that man was bound by it for ever, as a law; but as considered as the condition of a covenant, it was to be yielded to as such, until man was confirmed in his estate, as the angels are; and, as some divines think, until he had children arrived to an age capable of obeying or sinning.

4. Fourthly, The law given to Adam, as it had the nature of a covenant, it contained a promise in it, and had a sanction annexed to it.

4a. It contained a promise; which was a promise of life, of natural life to Adam, and of a continuation of it so long as he should observe the condition of it; just as life was promised to the Israelites, and a continuance in it, in the land of Canaan, so long as they should observe the law of God; for neither the law of Moses, nor the law of nature, made promise of any other than of a natural life. Some divines, and these of great name and figure in the churches of Christ, think, and indeed it is most generally received, that Adam continuing in his obedience, had a promise of eternal life. I cannot be of that mind. There is, indeed, an ambiguity in the phrase "eternal life"; if no more is meant by it than living for ever in his present life, it will not be denied; but if by it is designed such a state of glory and happiness, which saints shall enjoy in heaven to all eternity; that must be denied for the following reasons:

4a1. Adam’s covenant was but a natural covenant; and which was made with a natural man, as Adam is called by the apostle (1 Cor. 15:46,47), and which covenant promised no supernatural blessing, neither grace nor glory; for as for spiritual blessings, these the elect are blessed with only in heavenly places in Christ (Eph. 1:3).

4a2. It was in another covenant more early than that of Adam’s, in which eternal life was promised and secured; God, that cannot lie, promised it before the world began; and this promise was put into Christ’s hands, even from all eternity; and the blessing itself was secured in him for all for whom it was designed (Titus 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:1; 1 John 5:10).

4a3. Eternal life is only through Christ as the Mediator of the covenant of grace; it comes by no other hands but his; it is "through Christ Jesus our Lord"; he came to open the way of it, that "we might have life, and that more abundantly"; a more abundant, durable, and excellent life, than Adam had in innocence: Christ, as Mediator, had a "power to give eternal life" to as many as the Father has given him; and he does give it to all his sheep, that know his voice, hearken to him, and follow him (Rom. 6:23; John 10:10; 17:3; 10:28).

4a4. If eternal life could have been by Adam’s covenant, it would have been by works; for that covenant was a covenant of works; and if by works, then not of grace; it would not have been the gift of God, as it is said to be; "The gift of God is eternal life", carisma, a free grace gift. Eternal life is no other than consummate salvation in the future state; and that is said to be of grace, and denied to be of works; (see Rom. 6:23; Eph. 2:8,9). Should the question of the young man in the gospel, and Christ’s answer to it, be objected (Matthew 19:16-22). "Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may inherit eternal life thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments"; it may be observed, Christ answers him, and deals with him on his own principles; the man was upon the bottom of his own good works, and seeking for eternal life by them; and since he sought for life that way, Christ directs him to keep the commands, there being no good thing better than keeping them; the young man asked him what they were; he tells him; upon which he was very alert, and thought himself in a very good way for heaven: but Christ, further to try him, and to convince him that eternal life was not to be enjoyed by any good thing done by him, bids him, if he would be perfect, sell all that he had, and give to the poor; on which he went away sorrowful, unwilling to part with his possessions; and so found that eternal life was not to be had by doing.

4a5. Life and immortality, or an immortal, eternal life, and the way to it, are only brought to light by the Gospel (2 Tim. 1:10), not by the light of nature, nor by the law of Moses; only by the Gospel of Christ.

4a6. There is no proportion between the best works of man, even sinless obedience and eternal life; wherefore, though the threatening of death to Adam contains in it eternal death, it does not follow that the promise of life includes eternal life; since, though eternal death is the just wages and demerit of sin; yet eternal life is not the wages and merit of the works of men; it is the free gift of God (Rom. 6:23).

4b. The sanction of the law and covenant made with Adam, was death; "In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen. 2:17), which includes death corporal, spiritual, or moral, and eternal.

4b1. A corporal death; which lies in a separation of soul and body; as this was threatened, so the sentence of it was pronounced on the day man eat of the tree; "Dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return" (Gen. 3:19). Adam was at once stripped of the immortality of his body, that gift was at once withdrawn from him, and he became a mortal man; the seeds of death took place in him; and he was immediately subject to diseases, disorders, and miseries, which issue in death.

4b2. A spiritual, or rather moral death seized upon him; which lies in a separation of the soul from God, and communion with him; in an alienation from the life of God; in a deformation of the image of God; in a corruption and defilement of the several powers and faculties of the soul; in an impotency and disinclination to that which is good; he became dead in trespasses and sins, as all his posterity are.

4b3. An eternal death, which lies in a separation of soul and body from God; in a loss of the divine presence, and in a sense of divine wrath; both which are contained in these words, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire"; a symbol of which was the ejection of Adam out of paradise; as eternal life is the gift of God, so eternal death is the wages of sin (Matthew 25:41; Rom. 6:23).

5. Fifthly, In this covenant Adam acted not as a private person for himself only, but as a federal head[1] and representative of his whole posterity; and in this he was alone; Eve was not a federal head with him, he was alone, before an help meet was found for him; yet she was included in it, being formed out of him; and all his posterity, who spring from him; but the man Christ Jesus is to be excepted, since he descended not from him by ordinary generation, and was a Mediator, the Head of another and better covenant. But as to his natural posterity, it may be observed, there were many things which were common to him and them; and in which they had an equal concern; as in dominion over the creatures, the increase and propagation of their species, the food granted them, and the law of marriage (Gen. 1:28,29; 2:24). However, that in the covenant with him he was the federal head of them, appears,

5a. From Adam being a figure or type of him that was to come; that is, of Christ (Rom. 5:14). Now in what was Adam a type of Christ, but in his being the federal head of his posterity? Not as a man; so all his sons might be: nor on account of his extraordinary production; for though that of both was in an uncommon way, yet in a different way; the one was created out of the earth; the other, though not begotten of man, was born of a woman, as other men be; but they were both covenant heads to their respective offspring; and the parallel between them as such, is formed by the apostle in the context of the place referred to; that as the one, Adam, as an head, conveyed sin and death to all his natural seed; so the other, Christ, as an head, conveyed grace, righteousness, and life to all his spiritual offspring.

5b. From Adam being called the first man, and the first Adam, and described as natural and earthly, in distinction from whom, Christ is called the second man, and the last Adam, and described as spiritual, and the Lord from heaven; and these are represented as if the only two men in the world, because the two heads of their respective offspring.

5c. From the threatening taking place upon the sin of Adam, not on himself only, but on all his succeeding offspring; as they were in him, they sinned in him; and death, the sentence of death, passed on them in him. In him they all died; through his offence death reigned over them, and judgment came upon them all to condemnation, and by his disobedience they were made, accounted, and charged as sinners (Rom. 5:12,15-19; 1 Cor. 15:22).

5d. It was no unusual thing with God to make covenants with men, and their posterity, unborn; thus God made a covenant with Noah, and all that should descend from him, that he would no more destroy the earth with a flood; and with Abraham, and his natural seed, a covenant of circumcision, which should continue till the Messiah came; and the covenant at Horeb, with the children of Israel, was not only with them that were then present, and on the spot, but with those that should be hereafter descendants of them (Gen. 9:9; 17:4; Deut. 29:14,15). And so the covenant of grace was made with Christ, as the Head of his chosen ones, who were considered in him, and had grace and all spiritual blessings given them in him before the world was.

5e. Nor have any of Adam’s posterity reason to complain of such a procedure; since if Adam had stood in his integrity, they would have partook of all the blessed consequences of his standing, and enjoyed all the happiness that he did; and therefore should not murmur, nor esteem it any injustice in God, in putting their affairs in his hand, that they share in the miseries of his fall; for if they would have received good things through him, had he stood, why should they complain of receiving evil things through his fall? And if this does not satisfy,

5f. Let it be considered, that since God in his infinite wisdom, thought proper that men should have an head and representative of them, in whose hands their good and happiness should be placed; who so fit for it as the first man, the common parent of mankind, made after the image of God, so wise, so holy, just, and good? and could it have been possible for all men to have been upon the spot at once, and it had been proposed to them to choose an head and representative for themselves; who would they, who could they have chose, but the first man, that was their natural parent, of whose blood they were made; and who, they might reasonably think, had the most tender affection for them, and would take the greatest care of them, and of their good, put into his hands? so that it is reasonable to conclude, they would all to a man have united in the choice of him. But,

5g. To silence all complaints and murmurings, let it be observed, that what God gave to Adam, as a federal head, relating to himself and his posterity, he gave it in a way of sovereignty; that is, he might, and might not have given it; he was not obliged to it; it was his own that he gave, and therefore might choose whom he pleased in whose hands to deposit it; and who can say to him, What dost thou?

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gi...3/book3_07.htm

Originally Posted by AV1611

What he attacks is the idea that the covenant was between equal parties. Hoeksema was at pains to point out that the very essence of covenant is a relation of friendship as Berkof points out in his ST. As HH states "However, that this living relation of friendship on the part of God with man is the real idea and essence of the covenant has not received proper recognition. Usually, the covenant was understood as a pact or agreement between God and men; or its essence was seen in the promise, "I will be your God." It was described as a way of salvation, as a means to an end, rather than as the very heart of all true religion, as the highest self-revelation of the triune God, as the ultimate realization of God's purpose of salvation. To demonstrate that the latter is nevertheless the true idea of God's covenant, as presented to us in Holy Scripture, is the chief purpose of this brief treatise." (The Covenant: God's Tabernacle with Men)

On this topic it is useful to check out the writings of Hoeksema's collaborator Henry Danhof.

http://www.prca.org/prtj/apr97.html
http://www.prca.org/prtj/nov97.html#IdeaCovenantGrace
http://www.prca.org/prtj/apr98.html#CovenantOfGrace

The redefinition of covenant comes out very similar to the Federal Vision's version, as expressed by Ralph Smith in his books (always recalling that the Federal Vision has two covenant concepts used for different purposes).

Dropping the Covenant of Works will force a redefinition of the concept of covenant.

Originally Posted by tewilder

On this topic it is useful to check out the writings of Hoeksema's collaborator Henry Danhof.

http://www.prca.org/prtj/apr97.html
http://www.prca.org/prtj/nov97.html#IdeaCovenantGrace
http://www.prca.org/prtj/apr98.html#CovenantOfGrace.

Thank you for these...some bed time reading

Originally Posted by tewilder

The redefinition of covenant comes out very similar to the Federal Vision's version

How so? Berkof defends the covenant as a relation of friendship views and Gill points out that divines taught as much pre-1700s.

Hoeksema's views should stand on their on two exegetical and dogmatic feet.

There is some source material for the covenant of works here.

Hoeksema's idiosyncratic re-construction of covenant theology was one of several in the 20th century. Ironically, formally anyway, his covenant theology not a little like Barth's.

rsc

Originally Posted by AV1611

Thank you for these...some bed time reading



How so? Berkof defends the covenant as a relation of friendship views and Gill points out that divines taught as much pre-1700s.

Originally Posted by AV1611

What he attacks is the idea that the covenant was between equal parties. Hoeksema was at pains to point out that the very essence of covenant is a relation of friendship as Berkof points out in his ST. As HH states "However, that this living relation of friendship on the part of God with man is the real idea and essence of the covenant has not received proper recognition. Usually, the covenant was understood as a pact or agreement between God and men; or its essence was seen in the promise, "I will be your God." It was described as a way of salvation, as a means to an end, rather than as the very heart of all true religion, as the highest self-revelation of the triune God, as the ultimate realization of God's purpose of salvation. To demonstrate that the latter is nevertheless the true idea of God's covenant, as presented to us in Holy Scripture, is the chief purpose of this brief treatise." (The Covenant: God's Tabernacle with Men)

He goes on to say "Grave objections may be raised against this presentation of the idea of God's covenant. The most serious and fundamental of these is that man cannot really be a party, a contracting party, in relation to the living God. For God is God. He is the infinite, the eternal, the self-existent, the perfectly self-sufficient One. He is the Lord, the sovereign Creator, of Whom, and through Whom, and unto Whom are all things. There is none beside Him. And man is a mere creature that owes his whole existence, all that he is and has, his entire being, with body and soul, with mind and will and strength, with all his powers and talents and possessions, in every relationship and every moment of his life, to his Lord and Creator. God is always the overflowing Fount of all good, and man is always the dependent and needy creature, who must drink from that Fountain. God is the self-sufficient I AM, man is constantly and completely dependent on Him. How, then, shall that creature assume the position of a party in relation to his God? What obligation could he possibly assume beside that which is already incumbent upon him, without any special agreement: that he shall love the Lord his God with all his strength? Can the fulfillment of this solemn obligation ever become a condition for higher favors and richer blessings?"

The traditional view has never been that the the covenant is a contract between two equals. Unfortunately, Hodge does not articulate this clearly. But Westminster and other theologians than Hodge do make it clear, which Hoeksema ignores (why is that?). It has always been the Reformed position that God imposes the contract upon Adam. It is a voluntary condescension on God's part. He chose to make a covenant with Adam along with all the stipulations, rewards, and curses.

And Hoeksema's argument about relationship is simply ignoring the historical Reformed tradition. The covenant secured the relationship. Without the pact, there is no relationship. Berkhof does a wonderful job articulating that. In the covenant of works, God set the terms for how man would fellowship with Him and be His freind. It is a false dilemma to put relationship vs. pact. It must be both. It is the same regarding means vs. end. In the traditional reformed view, the covenant secures both the means and the end. It's not either/or.

Could you explain?

Yes. The traditional articulation of the the cov. of works and the cov. of grace, sets forth two different ways for man to relate to God. The covenant of works with Adam garanteed life with God based upon the perfect obedience of Adam and his posterity. Since Adam failed, his sin is imputed his his posterity, and they are born in alienation from God and corrupt, incurring more wrath for themselves by their personal sin. That relationship can only be restored for God's people based upon the work of Christ as federal head. In the covenant of works, life is gained by man's work. In the covenant of grace, life is gained by Christ's work on their behalf. Hence, the traditional articulation of law vs. grace.

The problem with monocovenantalism, is that by combining the two covenants, your covenant of grace becomes a covenant of works (therefore legalism). Or your covenant of works becomes a covenant of grace (therefore antinomian). Hoeksema's overemphasis on election and sovereignty kept him from the legalistic implications of his covenant scheme. But there is nothing gaurding the antinomian elements. Plus, you confuse the role of Adam's federal headship if you make the covenant of works simple a dispensation of the covenant of grace. How can sin be imputed to Adam's posterity as an act of grace? Thankfully, Hoeksema didn't follow through with this, but the logical tendency is still there.

Originally Posted by AV1611

Thank you for these...some bed time reading



How so? Berkof defends the covenant as a relation of friendship views and Gill points out that divines taught as much pre-1700s.

See the section:
"The Dutch Reformed Connection" in

http://www.contra-mundum.org/vision/vision.html

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

The traditional view has never been that the the covenant is a contract between two equals. Unfortunately, Hodge does not articulate this clearly. But Westminster and other theologians than Hodge do make it clear, which Hoeksema ignores (why is that?). It has always been the Reformed position that God imposes the contract upon Adam. It is a voluntary condescension on God's part. He chose to make a covenant with Adam along with all the stipulations, rewards, and curses.

And Hoeksema's argument about relationship is simply ignoring the historical Reformed tradition. The covenant secured the relationship. Without the pact, there is no relationship. Berkhof does a wonderful job articulating that. In the covenant of works, God set the terms for how man would fellowship with Him and be His freind. It is a false dilemma to put relationship vs. pact. It must be both. It is the same regarding means vs. end. In the traditional reformed view, the covenant secures both the means and the end. It's not either/or

But Hoeksema did not deny stipulations, rewards, and curses but wanted to emphasise the relation aspect. So the essence of the covenant are not the stipulations, rewards, and curses but rather the most intimate fellowship with the triune God.

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

Yes. The traditional articulation of the the cov. of works and the cov. of grace, sets forth two different ways for man to relate to God. The covenant of works with Adam garanteed life with God based upon the perfect obedience of Adam and his posterity. Since Adam failed, his sin is imputed his his posterity, and they are born in alienation from God and corrupt, incurring more wrath for themselves by their personal sin. That relationship can only be restored for God's people based upon the work of Christ as federal head. In the covenant of works, life is gained by man's work. In the covenant of grace, life is gained by Christ's work on their behalf. Hence, the traditional articulation of law vs. grace.

The problem with monocovenantalism, is that by combining the two covenants, your covenant of grace becomes a covenant of works (therefore legalism). Or your covenant of works becomes a covenant of grace (therefore antinomian). Hoeksema's overemphasis on election and sovereignty kept him from the legalistic implications of his covenant scheme. But there is nothing gaurding the antinomian elements. Plus, you confuse the role of Adam's federal headship if you make the covenant of works simple a dispensation of the covenant of grace. How can sin be imputed to Adam's posterity as an act of grace? Thankfully, Hoeksema didn't follow through with this, but the logical tendency is still there. .

So you would deny that the covenant of Grace is from everlasting to everlasting? How does that sit with WLC Q31 "The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed."?

Originally Posted by AV1611

But Hoeksema did not deny stipulations, rewards, and curses but wanted to emphasise the relation aspect. So the essence of the covenant are not the stipulations, rewards, and curses but rather the most intimate fellowship with the triune God.

He denied the covenant with Adam was a different covenant than the covenant of grace. He argued the covenant with Adam was a dispensation of the one covenant of grace. Hence, he confuses what the stipulations, rewards, curses, and even the relational aspect really are in the one covenant.

How is the relation of God with man in Adam different than the relation of God to man in Christ? If Adam stands as a federal head for men (which I gather you would agree with) and yet the covenant with him is part of the one covenant of grace (made in Christ), then that totally confuses the terms of the whole relationship, especially regarding reprobation and election.

You would have to conclude universalism logically, for even those fallen in Adam would still be in Christ in the one covenant of grace. Remember, Adam's covenant was part of the covenant of grace right? There are no other covenants in progress, only the one covenant of grace. If there is only one covenant in operation, and all men fall in Adam and inherit eternal wrath and death, then they have fallen under the curses of the covenant of grace, since there is only one covenant right? All men deserve eternal wrath for their sin as well as Adams and lie under the curse of the covenant.

Oh but wait! Then there is Christ, who takes upon himself the curse of the covenant. YES! Praise God, amazing grace how sweet the sound! All in Christ shall live because Christ has done His work. All those in the covenant of grace will be saved.

Oh, but wait, we have a dilemma now. For God made a covenant of grace with Christ to save the elect. But we have these reprobates now who are under the curse of the one covenant of grace. Remember, the covenant with Adam, was part of the one covenant of grace right? So how can these reprobates experience the wrath of the one covenant of grace? Don't they have to be in covenant with God in order for them to experience the curse of the covenant? And if they are in the covenant of grace, then they have a Mediator in Christ right? For Christ is the only mediator of the covenant of grace. The elect of course have no problem since Christ paid all for them. But, for God to punish these reprobates under the one covenant of grace, He has to ignore the work of Christ as the mediator of this one covenant and spurn the sacrifice of His Son. And if he will do that, then the mediation of Christ is no garantee of covenant blessing and fellowship for the elect, and so faith in Christ alone is no garantee of salvation for even the elect.

So we are left with some options. We can concede Barth was right and we become universalists because all are elect and reprobate in Christ (also the antinomian solution to monocovenantalism). Or we can add some works so that the elect can add to the unsure mediation of Christ and distinguish themselves from the reprobate (the Fed Vision option). How many works? Who knows!? Or we can say all are reprobate and the whole work of Christ was just a great big divine joke on all sinners in covenant with Him, just to pacifiy them for the true wrath to come upon all.

Which mode of monocovenantalism would you prefer?

I'm not trying to be facetious here, but hopefully you can see this isn't just about word games and semantics. The gospel is at stake here when you discard the covenant of works.

There's no need to choose between an identity of the pactum salutis with the covenant of grace (AA Hodge) or a distinct covenant of grace and pactum salutis (C Hodge).

From the perspective of the office of the Mediator, the covenant of redemption was entirely legal, a covenant of works. The Mediator was obligated to fulfill the terms of the covenants of redemption and works in order to merit justification and salvation for the elect.

From the pov of the elect, however, the same pactum salutis can be said to be entirely gracious since the covenant of redemption secures for them the benefits of the Mediator's obedience to and fulfillment of the covenants of redemption and works. In short: It's works for the Son and grace for us.

rsc

Originally Posted by AV1611

So you would deny that the covenant of Grace is from everlasting to everlasting? How does that sit with WLC Q31 "The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed."?