For Those Just Tuning In: What is the FV?

R. Scott Clark · #1 (**permalink**) 12-27-2007, 01:06 PM

BobVigneault · #2 (**permalink**) 12-27-2007, 01:15 PM

Thank you so much for that recap. Great idea Dr. Scott. This will make the perfect link to direct folks to. Blessings sir.

Kevin · #3 (**permalink**) 12-27-2007, 01:48 PM

Dr Scott I just read your piece & I have one (tangential) question. You said that
"Today the FV movement (like theonomy before it) has been rejected by all the major denominations in the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council ...".

I was wondering if you have a link to more info re Theonomy being rejected by "...all major denominations in (NAPARC)"?

I have a great deal of interest in both the doctrine & the movement and I was unaware that it had been directly rejected in any official way by any creditable denomination.

Thanks.

py3ak · #4 (**permalink**) 12-27-2007, 02:06 PM

Quote:

At the same time, the FV movement also re-defines covenant theology to say that there is but one covenant. Historic Reformed theology had affirmed three covenants:

1) a pre-temporal covenant between the Father and the Son (and implicitly the Holy Spirit) to accomplish the redemption of and apply it to the elect;

2) a covenant of works before the fall;

3) a covenant of grace after the fall.

Dr. Clark, I was wondering what account you would give of a man like John Brown of Haddington who claims that the divines who would talk of 3 covenants were only distinguishing two aspects of the same covenant? I can look up the exact reference when I get home in his Essay.

R. Scott Clark · #5 (**permalink**) 12-27-2007, 02:54 PM

There are ways in which the covenants of redemption, works, and grace are all related. The covenant of redemption is a covenant of works between the Father and the Son and a covenant of grace with the elect. Thus, they all may be said, in that respect to be one covenant, but in their principles, the covenants of works and grace are utterly distinct. Thus, for pedagogical purposes, it's useful to speak of three covenants and it's particularly useful not to confuse the covenant of works the covenant of grace!

rsc

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

Quote:

At the same time, the FV movement also re-defines covenant theology to say that there is but one covenant. Historic Reformed theology had affirmed three covenants:

1) a pre-temporal covenant between the Father and the Son (and implicitly the Holy Spirit) to accomplish the redemption of and apply it to the elect;

2) a covenant of works before the fall;

3) a covenant of grace after the fall.

Dr. Clark, I was wondering what account you would give of a man like John Brown of Haddington who claims that the divines who would talk of 3 covenants were only distinguishing two aspects of the same covenant? I can look up the exact reference when I get home in his Essay.

R. Scott Clark · #6 (**permalink**) 12-27-2007, 02:56 PM

Hi Kevin,

I was thinking of the PCA report adopted by GA many years ago and the RCUS report of 1985 or so. I should probably be more precise. I don't know that the OPC has ever acted on theonomy and the URC has not.

rsc

ps. I deleted the parenthetical comment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

Dr Scott I just read your piece & I have one (tangential) question. You said that
"Today the FV movement (like theonomy before it) has been rejected by all the major denominations in the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council ...".

I was wondering if you have a link to more info re Theonomy being rejected by "...all major denominations in (NAPARC)"?

I have a great deal of interest in both the doctrine & the movement and I was unaware that it had been directly rejected in any official way by any creditable denomination.

Thanks.

tcalbrecht · #7 (**permalink**) 12-27-2007, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

Hi Kevin,

I was thinking of the PCA report adopted by GA many years ago and the RCUS report of 1985 or so. I should probably be more precise. I don't know that the OPC has ever acted on theonomy and the URC has not.

rsc

ps. I deleted the parenthetical comment.

Dr. Scott,

Is it your understanding of history that that PCA GA rejected theonomy?

R. Scott Clark · #8 (**permalink**) 12-27-2007, 03:27 PM

Here's a permanent link for the post.

R. Scott Clark · #9 (**permalink**) 12-27-2007, 03:36 PM

Okay, I checked my my own footnotes:

In 1979, the 7th General Assembly of the PCA adopted four points of “definition and recommendations regarding theonomy.” They rejected theonomy as a standard of orthodoxy, but they also refused to rule it unorthodox. In 1987, however, the RCUS adopted two recommendations, the second of which says, “It is the position of the RCUS that the Heidelberg Catechism teaches that the ceremonial and judicial laws instituted by Moses have been entirely abolished and done away with by the coming of Christ, as far as it relates to obligation and obedience on our part. The moral law, however, has not been abolished as it respects obedience, but only as it respects the curse and constraint.” See Reformed Church in the United States, Abstract of the Minutes of the Reformed Church in the United States 1987 Synod (Sutton, NE: Reformed Church in the United States, 1987), 44.

jaybird0827 · #10 (**permalink**) 12-27-2007, 03:51 PM

Very good article, easy to understand, and what's more, the gospel is clear.

Thank you!

py3ak · #11 (**permalink**) 12-27-2007, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

There are ways in which the covenants of redemption, works, and grace are all related. The covenant of redemption is a covenant of works between the Father and the Son and a covenant of grace with the elect. Thus, they all may be said, in that respect to be one covenant, but in their principles, the covenants of works and grace are utterly distinct. Thus, for pedagogical purposes, it's useful to speak of three covenants and it's particularly useful not to confuse the covenant of works the covenant of grace!

rsc

Thanks, Dr. Clark, and hearty agreement on not confusing the covenants of works and grace. I was just wondering what place someone like John Brown of Haddington or Thomas Boston would have within the three-covenant scheme, when John Brown specifically rejects that nuance while not disagreeing with those who accept it.

R. Scott Clark · #12 (**permalink**) 12-27-2007, 05:51 PM

I will re-read Brown, but I'm confident that what I say is an accurate summary of the mainlines of Reformed federalism in the 16th and 17th centuries. There have always been idiosyncratic approaches.

There was a bewildering variety of approaches to covenant theology among the English in the 1640s but how many of them were influential? Not all writers were equally influential or important. If you look at the most important writers in Europe and Britain you'll see a remarkable agreement on the mainlines of Reformed federalism.

I think my explanation above is essentially what Boston did.

rsc

timmopussycat · #13 (**permalink**) 12-27-2007, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

I will re-read Brown, but I'm confident that what I say is an accurate summary of the mainlines of Reformed federalism in the 16th and 17th centuries. There have always been idiosyncratic approaches.

There was a bewildering variety of approaches to covenant theology among the English in the 1640s but how many of them were influential? Not all writers were equally influential or important. If you look at the most important writers in Europe and Britain you'll see a remarkable agreement on the mainlines of Reformed federalism.

I think my explanation above is essentially what Boston did.

rsc

In your opinion, who were the principal covenant theologians between 1630 and 1750?

mvdm · #14 (**permalink**) 12-27-2007, 07:56 PM

It is erroneous to say that the URC has rejected the FV. The URC has not formally made a statement on the FV itself. Rather, the URC's Synod 2007 appointed a committee to STUDY the FV and to present a report to Synod 2010. Given the caliber of membership of that committee, I expect a fair and thorough examination of the FV, the churches of the federation will have an opportunity to study the report, and then Synod will act on it.

Semper Fidelis · #15 (**permalink**) 12-27-2007, 08:21 PM

Great summary Dr. Clark!

py3ak · #16 (**permalink**) 12-27-2007, 08:31 PM

John Brown (of Haddington) in Questions and Answers on the Shorter Catechism under Q.20.

Quote:

Q. Is the covenant of grace, and that of redemption, one and the same covenant?
-A. Yes; the scripture mentions only two covenants that regards man's eternal state, of which the covenant of works is one, and therefore the covenant of grace must be the other: and the blood of Christ is in scripture called the blood of the covenant, but never of the covenants, Gal iv.24.30.
Q. How do you further prove that what some call the covenant of grace made with believers, and distinct from the covenant of redemption, is no proper covenant?
-A. Because it hath no proper condition, faith being as much promised as any other blessing, Psal. cx. 3.
[And skipping a bit...]
Q. Is the making of it the same which some divines call the covenant of redemption?
-A. Yes, Psal. lxxxix. 3.

So John Brown is defining the covenant of grace in the making as being what some call the covenant of redemption, and the administration of it what some call the covenant of grace made with believers (the next question).

Is this an idiosyncratic approach?

R. Scott Clark · #17 (**permalink**) 12-27-2007, 09:21 PM

No, this isn't problematic at all.

I addressed this in the first response. From the POV of Christ, the pactum salutis was a covenant of works. From the pov of the elect, for whom Christ would obey and die, the same covenant can be called a covenant of grace (as the shorter catechism does). That's why the PS is the "covenants before the covenants." See the chapter David VanDrunen and I wrote in CJPM.

rsc

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

John Brown (of Haddington) in Questions and Answers on the Shorter Catechism under Q.20.

Quote:

Q. Is the covenant of grace, and that of redemption, one and the same covenant?
-A. Yes; the scripture mentions only two covenants that regards man's eternal state, of which the covenant of works is one, and therefore the covenant of grace must be the other: and the blood of Christ is in scripture called the blood of the covenant, but never of the covenants, Gal iv.24.30.
Q. How do you further prove that what some call the covenant of grace made with believers, and distinct from the covenant of redemption, is no proper covenant?
-A. Because it hath no proper condition, faith being as much promised as any other blessing, Psal. cx. 3.
[And skipping a bit...]
Q. Is the making of it the same which some divines call the covenant of redemption?
-A. Yes, Psal. lxxxix. 3.

So John Brown is definind the covenant of grace in the making as being what some call the covenant of redemption, and the administration of it what some call the covenant of grace made with believers (the next question).

Is this an idiosyncratic approach?

R. Scott Clark · #18 (**permalink**) 12-27-2007, 09:23 PM

Hi Tim,

See my Brief History of Covenant Theology.

rsc

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Quote:

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

I will re-read Brown, but I'm confident that what I say is an accurate summary of the mainlines of Reformed federalism in the 16th and 17th centuries. There have always been idiosyncratic approaches.

There was a bewildering variety of approaches to covenant theology among the English in the 1640s but how many of them were influential? Not all writers were equally influential or important. If you look at the most important writers in Europe and Britain you'll see a remarkable agreement on the mainlines of Reformed federalism.

I think my explanation above is essentially what Boston did.

rsc

In your opinion, who were the principal covenant theologians between 1630 and 1750?

fredtgreco · #19 (**permalink**) 12-27-2007, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

John Brown (of Haddington) in Questions and Answers on the Shorter Catechism under Q.20.

Quote:

Q. Is the covenant of grace, and that of redemption, one and the same covenant?
-A. Yes; the scripture mentions only two covenants that regards man's eternal state, of which the covenant of works is one, and therefore the covenant of grace must be the other: and the blood of Christ is in scripture called the blood of the covenant, but never of the covenants, Gal iv.24.30.
Q. How do you further prove that what some call the covenant of grace made with believers, and distinct from the covenant of redemption, is no proper covenant?
-A. Because it hath no proper condition, faith being as much promised as any other blessing, Psal. cx. 3.
[And skipping a bit...]
Q. Is the making of it the same which some divines call the covenant of redemption?
-A. Yes, Psal. lxxxix. 3.

So John Brown is definind the covenant of grace in the making as being what some call the covenant of redemption, and the administration of it what some call the covenant of grace made with believers (the next question).

Is this an idiosyncratic approach?

Ruben,

It is standard to either have a two-covenant schema (Works/Grace) or a three schema (Works/Redemption/Grace). Thomas Boston held to the former (for example) and Rutherford to the latter. If the former, usually one simply describes the CoG as having both an eternal and an "in time" aspect.

Essentially, they are the same.