A little quiz

Status
Not open for further replies.

tewilder

Puritan Board Freshman
I wonder if anyone can guess who said this, and if it implies some particular covenant view:

"Christ is the Justified One <i>par excellence.</i> And his justification is the justification of all the elect, of all that believe on His name."...

"Hence, it is also evident that the resurrection of Christ is God's own Word concering our justification. For that resurrection from the dead of the Son of God in the flesh is God's sentence that His Servant is justified and that we are therefore justified in Him."

...

"But God by raising Him from the dead gave Him testimony that as the Head of His people He was righteous. Hence, we are righteous in Him. And therefore the resurrection of Christ is the Word of God concering our justification."
 

tewilder

Puritan Board Freshman
It reminded me of statements that Gaffin had been attacked for by the Robbins cohort.

But actually it was said by one of Robbins heros, namely Herman Hoeksema, in the <i>Reformed Dogmatics</i> around pages 500, 501.

But Hoeksema is also one of the monocovenantal guys.

I am trying to get a feel for the range of who objects to this language.
 

bradofshaw

Puritan Board Freshman
These quotes are pretty isolated. I feel like this is one of those trick questions in a sunday school class. OK, I'll bite. To my uneducated mind, I have no immediate objection. It sounds a lot like Romans.

Romans 1:3-4

3 concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord

Romans 4:22-25

22 That is why his faith was counted to him as righteousness. 23 But the words it was counted to him were not written for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

Does it have to do with the idea of Christ being justified? (Honest novice question)
 

Civbert

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by tewilder
It reminded me of statements that Gaffin had been attacked for by the Robbins cohort.

Sound much more like Robins himself than Gaffin. Gaffin would have spoken of "existential union" with Christ, not "in Christ". Also, Robins has pretty much said the same thing - that the resurrection demonstrates that the sacrifice of Christ for our sins was accepted by God.

Originally posted by tewilder

But actually it was said by one of Robbins heros, namely Herman Hoeksema, in the <i>Reformed Dogmatics</i> around pages 500, 501.

That would not surprise me since it is a concept Robins agrees with. But Robins would not use the word "hence".
 

tewilder

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by bradofshaw

Does it have to do with the idea of Christ being justified? (Honest novice question)

I have found examples of people scandalized by that. I believe that they always thought of the word "justified" as a change of status that sinners need to get.
 

johnny_redeemed

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by tewilderBut Hoeksema is also one of the monocovenantal guys.


What is meant by monocovenantal? Who are others that hold that view? What is the view on the other side called? Who holds it?

:detective:
 

tewilder

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by johnny_redeemed


What is meant by monocovenantal? Who are others that hold that view? What is the view on the other side called? Who holds it?

:detective:

Monocovenatalism is some covenant view that results from the denial of bicovenantalism, so is better to start with that.

The two covenant view is that there is a Covenant of Works made with Adam and his seed prior to the Fall. After the Fall, the Covenant of Grace comes into effect which has to do with dealing with the consequences of the breaking of the Covenant of Works. Christ comes as a mediator (necessary since the Covenant of Works is broken and man is now God's covenant enemy), as a subsititute for man in paying the penalty of the breaking of the Covenant of Works (passive obedience) and as a new covenant head, the second Adam, who keeping of the covenant (active obedience) is imputed to those in him as Adam's would have been had he kept the Covenant of Works.

So there are these two covenants, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace, which comes along because the Covenant of Works was broken, and thus has reference to the Covenant of Works in both the active and passive obedience and in the imputation of covenant status.

So what happens when someone says there never was a Covenant of Works? Some other covenant view has to be built up, and to the extent that this view says that there is only one covenant it is monocovenantalism. For example, some Federal Vision people have taught that there is only one covenant, a Covenant of Grace from the beginning (Adam having been created inferior to the demands God made on him, so he had to be "saved" even before the Fall--so, for example, Sandlin says that Reformed theology is Pelagian for denying that Adam had to be save by grace before the Fall), and that everytime the covenant is broken it is reinstated through covenant renewal. So in this particular monocovenantalism, there is only passive obedience, where that covenant breaking is atoned for on our behalf, and then it is back to our faithfulness being the condition we have to fullfil.

But monocovenantalism is a sufficiently generic term that it could be played out in many ways.

There are forms of monocovenantalism other than the Federal Vision's. R.J. Rushdoony was monocovenantal. So have been some 20th century Dutch theologians (not Schilder, by the way).
 

turmeric

Megerator
Originally posted by tewilder
So in this particular monocovenantalism, there is only passive obedience, where that covenant breaking is atoned for on our behalf, and then it is back to our faithfulness being the condition we have to fullfil.

I think that's what I believed in my heart of hearts while being a dispensationalist, hence the "rededication" thing.
 

tewilder

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by turmeric
Originally posted by tewilder
So in this particular monocovenantalism, there is only passive obedience, where that covenant breaking is atoned for on our behalf, and then it is back to our faithfulness being the condition we have to fullfil.

I think that's what I believed in my heart of hearts while being a dispensationalist, hence the "rededication" thing.

It is probably worth mentioning that there is a similarity and a contrast to Arminiansism here.

The Federal Vision, at least in some exponents, is a covenant start and stop scheme. You break it, you renew it, you break it, you renew it....

Arminianism is a start stop scheme on top of a covenant replacement scheme. First there is a covenant replacment where Christ purchases for us an easier covenant. (And again I need to digress to point out that there are various covenant replacement schemes. The 17th century English moralists held to a replacment scheme where the replacement covenant required a lot of holy living but was still doable.) For the Arminians the replacement covenant comes down to there being only one condition, namely faith. That is all that is asked of you in the easier covenant Christ secured. But you do have to have the faith, and you can lose your faith and lose your salvation.

So for the Arminian the replacement covenant has to be reinitiated if you lose your faith, and then believe again. So the replacment covenant is start-stop.

This to an extent accounts for why the FV can sound like Arminians, as they are both start stoppers, but it is not the same covenant. For the Arminians the old covenant is gone and we are under the New Testament one. For the FV it is the same old covenant that is still going.

There are a lot of practical and psychological difficulties for start-stop schemes. How far do you have to go to break it? The English moralists held that only overt sins counted, not what was only some impulse of the heart. The Federal Visionaries distinguish between high-handed sins and ordinary sins. The RCs distinguish moral and venal sins. All these devices to deal with the problems of start-stop tend to diminish the actual, real nature of indwelling sin that keeps asserting itself.

But if the distinction in types of sin were not made, they could never get the covenant keeping phase going. A recognition of the reality of sin precludes start-stop schemes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top