Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Covenant itself is not a magic term, the notion beneath the idea of covenant is that our God is a God who keeps his word and publicly reveals himself. Covenant is the medium by which he chooses to do it.I am of the opinion that while the language of Covenant is probably the best way to understand God's redemptive plan, it certainly isn't the only way of talking about it. I get very annoyed by the way many reformed people feel the need to throw the word "covenant" around to make something sound more Calvinistic (see covenant apolegetics, covenant baptism, covenant christology, covenant worship, covenant sacramentalism, etc.). All the forementioned examples are things I have seen and heard- some more prominant than others. There comes a point where it gets annoying.
Covenant theology is not the driving assumption of reformed theology---solus Christus is.
I don't think that dichotomy should be made. First, and obviously, the larger part of the Bible is the Old Testament, and Christ is clearly seen in the Old Testament through the lens of covenant theology. Secondly, the Book of Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke, is fundamental to our overall understanding of Christ in relation to the Old Testament and of the superiority of the age and administration which He has inaugurated. Thirdly, the "solus" in "solus Christus" is dependent on a specific understanding of soteriology which derives from covenant theology. There is one Mediator between God and man and He is the Mediator of the covenant.
Ah read you wrong like Rev. Winzer as if you wanted to discard it. My mistake.I don't think that dichotomy should be made. First, and obviously, the larger part of the Bible is the Old Testament, and Christ is clearly seen in the Old Testament through the lens of covenant theology. Secondly, the Book of Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke, is fundamental to our overall understanding of Christ in relation to the Old Testament and of the superiority of the age and administration which He has inaugurated. Thirdly, the "solus" in "solus Christus" is dependent on a specific understanding of soteriology which derives from covenant theology. There is one Mediator between God and man and He is the Mediator of the covenant.
Rev. Winzer, I don't dispute any of this. I merely maintain that covenant theology is a means to the end of a better understanding of the supremacy of Christ. As reformed, we didn't start doing covenant theology and come to realize that Christ alone was savior and mediator. Instead we realized that Christ alone was savior and mediator and started to look for him in the Old Testament, and developed a covenant theology to organize the covenant principle that we found. I don't mean to suggest that covenant theology does not significantly contribute to our understanding of the supremacy of Christ---of course it does! That's the whole point! My point is simply that Solus Christus is the reformation principle that precedes covenant theology (and really all of reformed theology) and that if there are places in our covenant theology that are not helpful in bringing forth the supremacy of Christ, we should reject them.
Our soteriology (the five solas) were, I believe, developed before our covenant theology.
Why is it that I find the actual positions of Clark and Evans (such as I understand them) to not actually be in conflict, and the only real difference to be vocabulary?
That is the danger of rising above the human condition in order to take a transcendental view of the various perspectives
That is the danger of rising above the human condition in order to take a transcendental view of the various perspectives
Not sure how I've done this, exactly. I do, admittedly, attempt to incorporate a couple of perspectives into my theology, but I am merely doing as I have been taught, attempting not (for example) to confuse covenant with election, as some (such as the federal visionists) have been wont to do. The various vocabularies of mystical union with Christ, covenant, and the ordo salutis complement one another and it is, I think, a mistake to say that one is to be given a place of privilege above the others. The thing that is to be given privilege (and must always be given privilege) is the pre-eminence of Christ.
but we will have to come back to earth and live as human beings, which requires the acceptance of limitation and the choice of one limitation over another.
Reformed theology, like all theology, is historically conditioned. It cannot be two things at once.
Fair enough. Not sure what this has to do with the conversation, though. The fact is that the reformed tradition does contain both emphases that Clark and Evans are disputing. One may prefer one to the other in certain contexts, but that does not make them mutually exclusive, necessarily, any more than Christus Victor and penal substitution are mutually exclusive.
...Likewise, here, there are two competing theories for a structural system of reformed soteriology -- covenant and union with Christ. One cannot accept both. In the Confession and Catechisms union with Christ is related to redemption applied and subordinated to the broader structural theme of the covenant of grace. The covenant of grace systematises redemption purposed, accomplished, and applied. The competing system of union with Christ will create a fundamental change in these doctrines. Reformed theology cannot be two different things at once.
Christus Victor is a competing theory for the nature of atonement. If it is subordinated to substitutionary atonement some use can be made of it; but as it is regularly argued as a better alternative it must be rejected because it fails to provide for numerous elements of biblical teaching.
Likewise, here, there are two competing theories for a structural system of reformed soteriology -- covenant and union with Christ.
The competing system of union with Christ will create a fundamental change in these doctrines.
Similarly, Warfield is right, I believe, that covenant is architectonic for Reformed theology: union with Christ is to be understood, and fully mined, within that framework, but this is the framework.
But I have always come from a place of understanding things starting with Covenant in relationship to God and Adam. Union with Christ makes no sense outside of that context. Am I missing something?
But I have always come from a place of understanding things starting with Covenant in relationship to God and Adam. Union with Christ makes no sense outside of that context. Am I missing something?
In terms of justification, that is correct. But Calvin also links it to sanctification, a theme which gets taken up by Dabney, who claims that the Holy Spirit is the principle of union with Christ, stopping just short of the language of theosis. Calvin's theology of the Lord's Supper (the real presence) presupposes that union with Christ is more than just federal headship (certainly not less, but more).
See, when I studied Covenant theology at RTS last January, it was made very clear that covenant theology is primarily concerned with the historia salutis and as background for the ordo salutis, such that if one did not have the second right, the first would be confusing (certainly this seems to be the case historically, given that the first seems to become clearer before the second).