How many "Reformed" understandings of the covenant of grace are there?

[PuritanCovenanter]

You have to admit there were some similarities with the anabaptists that caused alarm though. Yes, I understand that the Particular Baptists needed to separate their foundations. But concerning the Covenant of Grace they diverged from the Reformed concerning the Covenant of Grace and Covenant Theology. I believe that is the point of this thread. That is why the association happened. And while the root may be different the truth about the Covenant of Grace and its administration has some similarity. I will bow out now as Rev. Winzer noted that he also will leave it to you guys to work out.

Be Encouraged,
Christ is our hope.

 

[MW]

In a discussion which involves history terms must be defined historically. Today we have "Reformed Baptists." In the period under discussion, the 16th and 17th centuries, when Reformed theology was being standardised, there was no such thing as a "Reformed Baptist." The fact that a certain theological formulation is espoused by "Reformed Baptists" today does not entitle it to be called "Reformed" according to the historical definition of the term.

It should also be borne in mind that the Westminster/Savoy interpretation of the covenant of grace has been espoused by "Reformed Baptists" today, and is likely one of the factors why "Reformed Baptists" have been more widely accepted as "Reformed."

On the question of "development," the Presbyterian community settled on Westminster, not on a later Confession. Hence developments in other confessions are not regarded as developments by Presbyterians. At any rate, as the saying goes, not every development is an improvement.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I also recognize that you want to reserve "covenant theology" and "reformed" for the WCF, and label anything else "dispensational".

Wow, Brandon, Really? Reread. This is such a misrepresentation I had to speak up.

 

[MW]

Just reading back through this whole thread, I had to chuckle here. Apparently when the Mosaic covenant is called a covenant, we have dispensationalism. If that's the definition of dispensational, I'll take it.

The word "covenant" could have a biblical or a dogmatic context. The terms "covenant of works" and "covenant of grace" are dogmatic categories. I was speaking in the context of these dogmatic categories. You have taken my words in a dogmatic context and related them back to a biblical context in order to amuse yourself. Poor form!

 

[Steve Paynter]

In a discussion which involves history terms must be defined historically. Today we have "Reformed Baptists." In the period under discussion, the 16th and 17th centuries, when Reformed theology was being standardised, there was no such thing as a "Reformed Baptist." The fact that a certain theological formulation is espoused by "Reformed Baptists" today does not entitle it to be called "Reformed" according to the historical definition of the term.

It should also be borne in mind that the Westminster/Savoy interpretation of the covenant of grace has been espoused by "Reformed Baptists" today, and is likely one of the factors why "Reformed Baptists" have been more widely accepted as "Reformed."

On the question of "development," the Presbyterian community settled on Westminster, not on a later Confession. Hence developments in other confessions are not regarded as developments by Presbyterians. At any rate, as the saying goes, not every development is an improvement.

I have already indicated earlier in this thread that I have no problem with a technical meaning of the word "Reformed" which limits it in the way you have articulated it, although I am not associated with a Baptist church which has "Reformed" in its title, so perhaps I don't have quite the motivation that other might have to argue differently! "A rose by any other name ..." and all that!

[I always have to do a double-take when thinking about the word in the Jewish context, where "Reformed" doesn't mean "bastion of conservative rectitude" (which is how I implicitly gloss it to myself), but something like "liberal deviation from historic norm". Then I remember that that is what one would expect from the normal everyday meaning of the word "reform". ]

There is, I think, a couple of potential dangers associated with the stance taken here. The first is a historical problem of delineating the "Reformed" camp. There are other Reformed confessions than the WCF, and not all were as explicit about the covenants as the WCF was, and not all who subscribe to them would also subscribe to the WCF. There is a danger of anachronistically forcing the WCF insights onto a wider movement, and perhaps disenfranchising some. The historical situation seems to have been significantly more complex than this strict line would suggest.

A second one, is one that I am only just beginning to glimpse, and I am not sure I know how to articulate it, without being misunderstood and unduly critical. It has something to do with using this confessional debate to close down serious consideration of the issues. Drawing boundaries to exclude others can have the effect of putting them beyond the need to be taken seriously. ... I must hasten to add, that this is only a potential danger, and not one I see happening here. I think that by and large the discussions are exemplary, and everyone is engaging most thoughtfully with each others' position.

On your point that not every development is an improvement, I am reminded of a comment by Peter Toon, that he made in his paper, “The Westminster and Savoy Confessions: A Brief Comparison”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol. 15, No. 3, 1972. Toon writes:

“In conclusion, we may say that it does seem to be the case that the Declaration of Faith contains an unbalanced presentation of the doctrines of the gospel. Perhaps this imbalance may be seen as one root of that hyper-Calvinism which infected both Congregational and Baptist churches in the early eighteenth century. In the hands and minds of less able men than Goodwin and Owen, this great stress on federal theology became the basis of a gospel that had within it no missionary endeavor. At least this thought deserves further investigation!”

Toon goes on to observe:

“In my The Emergence of hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity 1689-1765, London, 1967, I did not look at this possibility.”

Having said that, personally, I am not sure Toon is right. But it does confirm the need to think carefully about such issues, with a hermeneutic of suspicion.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

A second one, is one that I am only just beginning to glimpse, and I am not sure I know how to articulate it, without being misunderstood and unduly critical. It has something to do with using this confessional debate to close down serious consideration of the issues. Drawing boundaries to exclude others can have the effect of putting them beyond the need to be taken seriously. ... I must hasten to add, that this is only a potential danger, and not one I see happening here. I think that by and large the discussions are exemplary, and everyone is engaging most thoughtfully with each others' position.

Steve,

I first want to affirm that I agree this is a danger where the Confession or Creed not only may go unexamined but also serve to stymie any further insight into the Scriptures because we believe we have learned all there is to know. The Confessions are not meant to be exhaustive in the first place but it must be kept in mind that sound hermeneutics requires a balance of systematics and exegesis where both inform the other.

It's interesting that, on this forum, we tend to warn each other pretty regularly of the danger of allowing the Confessions to shut down discussion but this community of people who actually care about the Confessions is such a tiny, tiny minority that the larger issue the Christian Church has today is recognizing the value of Creeds and Confessions in the least. Summarizing a Carl Trueman quote, we're so accustomed to the autonomy of personal interpretation and a theology of the first glance that we find the idea of being restricted by a Confession in any way to be alien. I can't tell you the number of times that I've heard ministers in the Reformed community say things like: "I know the Confession says X but the Bible says Y" and they expect the debate to end there. Few are interested in the idea that the Church might come to a common confession or that they need to slow down and submit their own views of the Bible to the tempering of the wisdom of many peers or the centuries of systematic and historical development.

I'm a child of the spirit of this age and so I always find myself, in a real sense, having to constantly apologize to others that I'm actually quoting the Confession because, even in these circles, there's the consistently wary eye that you've just played the Pharisee and don't follow the Scriptures.

Thus, returning to your earlier point about the things that sort of hinder modern Confessions we might add another: suspicion of Confessions. Frankly, in one sense, it would be a welcome change if we actually had to worry about a widespread use of the WCF to the point where I might actually bump into a real person in the real world on the floor of Presbytery who was inflexible about the Confession.

 

[PatrickTMcWilliams]

You may reply that you leave it to Baptists to resolve the supposed difficulties, but the difficulties lie in your construal of the debate (i.e. all federal theology other than WCF is dispensational).

My comment -- on leaving it to "Baptists" to sort out the difficulties -- relates to the division which has arisen within "Baptist" circles as to the proper understanding of the "Baptist" confession. I have not construed any difficulty except the one which is already inherent in this division. If the "Baptist" stream ends up interpreting its Confession in another light than the Westminster/Savoy light which one school of thought has generally followed, I think that will be a loss; but that is its prerogative.

Reverend Winzer, why do you always place quotation marks around "Baptist"? You speak of the "Baptist" confession and the "Baptist" catechism, "Baptist" circles inhabited by "Baptists," etc. It would seem you do not believe it is the proper word. What word would you prefer?

 

[Petty France]

My participation in this thread has had one purpose, to clarify historical misrepresentation of Particular Baptists. In light of the various trails that have run to and fro, allow me to sort and and sift what needs to be understood by the confessional baptists on this board.

1. The Baptist catechism does not "adopt the system of Westminster without any reworking of covenant theology." The following logic does not work: "The WCF teaches a covenant of works and covenant of grace. The Baptist catechism teaches a covenant of works and covenant of grace. The Baptist say nothing further abou this. Therefore, the Baptist catechism adopts the Westminster system without any reworking." This syllogism fails because the catechism itself claims to be in line with the LBCF which most surely does not adopt the WCF system (not to mention reading the Particular Baptist writings themselves). I provided the data from the catechism to prove that what is affirmed is the covenant of works and covenant of grace, and that this does not in any way commit the catechism to the substance/administration framework of the WCF federal theology. If the Baptists did not have their own confession, and simply produced their own catechism, in light of the WCF, it would be a very plausible option. But the connection of the catechism to the LBCF eliminates this possibility.

2. A connection was implied between the Particular Baptists and Anabaptists. This connection was defended as follows: "(1) the fact they had to make this effort alerts us to the reality of their estrangement at the time, (2) they made this effort through confessions which agreed with Reformed confessions, such that differences with Reformed confessions must then be taken as representing differences with the "Reformed" position, and (3) how little they succeeded in convincing their Reformed brethren is seen in the fact that Reformed polemicists of the time continued to call these "Baptist" differences by the name "Anabaptist."" In reply, I posted a blog entry which details how Stephen Marshall, Robert Baillie, Daniel Featley, and Thomas Edwards treated the 1644 confession of the Particular Baptists. The "estrangement" and "little success in convincing their brethren" takes on a whole new light when you see how the Particular Baptists were treated. The deck is stacked against you when even Westminster Assembly divines are mudslinging and simply refusing to believe your sincerest attempts at confessing orthodoxy, when your religious convictions are illegal, and when your ministers are being put in jail for those convictions. It wasn't as simple as "they failed to convince their brethren." Go and read the sources, the blog post shows the writings of those men themselves, not a Baptist version.

3. The word dispensational has been attached to our confession's formulation of federal theology. It was explained in the following manner, "When a "dispensation" is reformulated to be a "covenant" we have dispensationalism. Now Westminster teaches one covenant of grace under the dispensations of law and gospel. Revised theories turn one or more of the Old Testament "dispensations" into distinct "covenants." That is dispensationalism from the Westminsterian and Reformed perspective." When challenged on the fact that calling the Mosaic covenant a covenant would be tantamount to dispensationalism, the defense was, "The word "covenant" could have a biblical or a dogmatic context." It sounds nice and tidy till again we read John Ball asserting that “Most divines hold the old and new Covenants to be one in substance and kind, differing in only degrees.” Yet when confronted with the discontinuity of biblical language directed at the old and new covenants he expressed, “How all these differences should stand, if they be not covenants opposite in kind, it is not easy to understand.” Samuel Rutherford, likewise expressed concern at this point when he said, “And it is true, Gal. 4, 22, 23, 24, etc, they seeme to be made contrare Covenants.” (Go read Brown's chapter on the Mosaic covenant in reformed orthodoxy in the Petto volume). Why do we read doubts and diverging views in the 17th century and then pretend that the WCF represents uniformity? We need to understand that the WCF, in England, was not a matter of personal subscription but of public teaching. It was intended to be the standard of public teaching which could not be contradicted. For that reason, we cannot think that the WCF expresses uniform views from all divines involved. It was the agreed public standard of teaching in England, something not to be contradicted, not the peculiar confession of each and every individual on every point. (See Confessional Subscription and the Westminster Assembly | Particular Voices). So, this dragnet term "dispensational" and this uniform presentation of 17th century federal theology via the WCF are an overly narrow presentation via an imposed metanarrative. If taken as presented, and as already noted, the term "dispensational" must be applied to Cameron, Bolton, Petto, Owen, and others. And Rutherford and Ball had "dispensational" questions.

Bringing this back to the Particular Baptists, were they perfect? Were they the last stop in the development of theological understanding? Of course they weren't. But lest the errors of Marshall, Baillie, Featley, and Edwards be repeated here on this board (as they are to a certain extent) then know that the Particular Baptists did not adopt the WCF system of federal theology without qualification, they were not Anabaptists, and if they were "dispensational," they were in good company.

What's the point? Make sure that claims are substantiated and the full picture is being presented. Tolle lege.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

You may reply that you leave it to Baptists to resolve the supposed difficulties, but the difficulties lie in your construal of the debate (i.e. all federal theology other than WCF is dispensational).

My comment -- on leaving it to "Baptists" to sort out the difficulties -- relates to the division which has arisen within "Baptist" circles as to the proper understanding of the "Baptist" confession. I have not construed any difficulty except the one which is already inherent in this division. If the "Baptist" stream ends up interpreting its Confession in another light than the Westminster/Savoy light which one school of thought has generally followed, I think that will be a loss; but that is its prerogative.

Reverend Winzer, why do you always place quotation marks around "Baptist"? You speak of the "Baptist" confession and the "Baptist" catechism, "Baptist" circles inhabited by "Baptists," etc. It would seem you do not believe it is the proper word. What word would you prefer?

Patrick,

If you go back and read Rev. Winzer's posts he does that for the subject matter in a lot of his sentences. He also does it with the terms covenant, covenant of works, covenant of grace, etc. It is an emphasis on subject matter.

 

[Steve Paynter]

Thank you Rich for your wise words about the spirit of this age with regard to confessions and confessionalism. I find that I am far from free of that same spirit, for although I am happy to subscribe to the 1689 agree with the caveats I express in my signature, I very much only do so because it happens to agree with my reading of Scripture. In Baptist circles there has never been a history (or if there has, it has not been very wide-spread) of requiring subscription to confessions.

In some ways this is healthy, as confessions have to be tested - over and over - against the fresh light that is being shed by the Holy Spirit and succeeding generations of Christians struggling to bring ever new issues into captivity to Christ. The danger, as you point out, is of not being rooted in the historical faith.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

What's the point? Make sure that claims are substantiated and the full picture is being presented. Tolle lege.

I think that, when read carefully, some differentiations between exegetical vs dogmatic uses of terms as well as modern vs historical uses of terms are being used. I think the problem, even in your analysis, is that the "full picture" is not being painted as far as transporting us back to the categories of thinking that came with those terms at the time they were used and so there is a bit of talking past each other. To utilize a term we apply to proper Biblical interpretation, if we apply the same grammatico-historical analysis to some of these issues then I've found that some of my modern understanding of terms leads me to conclude one thing on the surface and then I learn that the terms were used differently in the past. Furthermore, the Reformed had a way of writing one thing in a commentary that seems to contradict or overthrow a dogmatic category but, when we look at the way those disciplines functioned during the time of the Puritans, we find that no such contradiction exists. Your example of Rutherford on the Covenants is one such example. It's a "conclusion of the first glance" where, you have have suggested to all of us, you might want to read more in order to see how exegetical and dogmatic categories differed.

This is a discussion. It may seem that, on the surface, there is mud-slinging going on. Certain terms are pejorative in a modern context that are not so in a historical context. In one sense, the difficulty here is that we would have to agree on whether historical usage of a bygone era controls terminology or modern use of those terms. That clearly has not been settled in this discussion but, if further dialogue is allowed to occur then there may be a way to at least better understand what is being said whether or not agreement can be arrived at.

 

[Steve Paynter]

In the article linked above, there was the following sentence ...

The Baptists did not treat their confession(s) in the same way ...

Can anyone expand on this? I remember reading Spurgeon's comments when he republished the 1689 in the 19th century ... but that is all that I know about it.

 

[Petty France]

I think the problem, even in your analysis, is that the "full picture" is not being painted as far as transporting us back to the categories of thinking that came with those terms at the time they were used and so there is a bit of talking past each other.

I agree, brother. I didn't intend to communicate that my presentation had every piece to it. And I recognize that there are disjunctures in language going on here, especially in point 3 of my post. In light of all of this, my sincere desire is to see more ad fontes among us. Even wikipedia requires citation for the simplest of articles, we should ask for more of the same. Not everyone has the time, resources, or access to get into the vast primary and secondary literature that is at play here. For that reason, it is very easy for one person (that's pointed at all of us) to produce or perpetuate historical falsehoods, and thus those who do not have time and access accept these statements without any evidence upon which to act as Bereans. My desire is to contribute to the discussion via primary resources and to encourage others to do the same. This would go further in preventing any one of us from unintentionally misleading others about our confessional heritage and context. Sadly on the internet there is all too much talking, and all too little reading. We need to educate ourselves and others in a well-rounded fashion, understanding with patience that this is a large and complicated context. The best way to do this is to put our cards on the table, define our terms, quote our sources, and be as transparent as possible.

This is difficult when the data is put forward and ignored, thus repeating history's errors. Therein lies my frustration (see points 1 and 2 in my post above). It would go a long way to see those statements retracted. I'm not really looking for any conclusion to point three. I recognize how our confession fits into Rev. Winzer's explanation of the term "dispensational" and I have no reason to eschew that. My point there was to prevent our confession from looking so utterly detached from reformed theology as the term "dispensational" implies in our minds.

 

[Steve Paynter]

Returning to the opening question of this thread, I have recently been reading Michael Brown's "Christ and the Condition: The Covenant Theology of Samuel Petto (1624-1711)", Reformation Heritage Books (Grand Rapids: Michigan), 2012. On page 85, he writes:

... the views of the Reformed orthodox on this point [the number of covenants and how Sinai should be related to the covenants of works and grace] cannot be reduced to a single paradigm or simplistically delineated into a mere two or three different positions.

In a footnote at that point, Brown observes that this was the mistake that E.F. Kevan made in his book, "The Grace of Law" 1964.

So ... my attempt at articulating three different positions on the covenant of grace is suitably rebuked!

Fortunately, Brown provides two taxonomies from the 17th century that might help to make my understanding a little more sophisticated. The first is by Samuel Bolton (1606-1654) from his 1645 work, "The True Bounds of Christian Freedom", and concerns the relationship of the Mosaic covenant. Brown tells us ...

1. Some would have it a covenant of works, and yet will not have it opposite to the covenant of grace
2. Some would have it a covenant of grace, but more legally dispensed.
3. Some again would have it a mixed covenant, mixed of the covenant of nature and of Grace
4. Some again would have it a subservient covenant, a covenant given to them in way of subservincie to the gospel and grace.
5. And others would have it no covenant, but rather the repetition of the covenant of works made with man in innocency. And that God in giving of the law, did but repeat the covenant under which we did, and do stand, till we come over unto Christ ... And this God did with merciful purposes, to drive us out of ourselves and to bring us over unto Christ.

Brown adds later (page 91) that Bolton had a sixth category:

There is another interpretation, and that is, that Do this and live, though it was spoken to them immediately, yet not terminatively, but through them to Jesus Christ, who hath fulfilled all righteousness for us, and purchased life by his own obedience.

Brown also gives Edmund Calamy's (1600-1666) taxonomy of positions on Sinai in his day, articulated in his "Two Solemn Covenants Made Between God and Man" (1647).

He enumerated five main categories. The first consisted of those who saw four covenants: a prelapsarian covenant of works with Adam, a postlapsarian covenant with Israel, and two covenants of grace - one with Abraham and the other with Christ as his incarnation. ...

In his second category were those who believed there to be three covenants: a prelapsarian covenant of works with Adam, a postlapsarian covenant of works with Israel, and a postlapsarian covenant of grace with Christ.

The third category was made up of those who saw only two covenants: a postlapsarian covenant of works with Israel and a covenant of grace not made until Christ's death. ...

In the fourth category were those who held Sinai to be a covenant of grace different from the covenant of grace mediated by Christ. ...

In the fifth group were those who, like Calamy, claimed that there were only two covenants - namely a prelapsarian covenant of works and a postlapsarian covenant of grace mediated by Christ. For Calamy, the Mosaic covenant was "a perfect copy of the covenant of works, yet being given to another end"; that is, it functioned as a standard for godly living, not as an actual covenant. Sinai was simply "a rule of life for those already in the covenant."

I don't know about any of you ... but I need to pause to think through all this!!

(Again, remember, I am not interested in arbitrating between which of these positions are compliant with which confession. My interest is more that of understanding the options, before coming to the Bible to test them, and only then - later - to judge which, if any, agree with which confession, and hence reassess what I think of the different confessions. There is a time to stand by the confessions, and there is also a time to judge the confessions against Scripture. I, however, am personally a long way off having enough of a grasp of the arguments and positions to form any such judgment at this stage on the subject of covenant theology.)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I don't know about any of you ... but I need to pause to think through all this!!

I think you're equivocating on the issue of the OP. You asked for "Reformed" understanding and then you jump to the fact that there were many views among ministers at the time of the creation of the Confesions that either did or did not ever make their way into a Confession. Are you suggesting that the Reformed Church is not a Confessing Church?

I am not interested in arbitrating between which of these positions are compliant with which confession.

At some point, there needs to be some differentiation in order to make sense of words. Does "Reformed" understanding have any historical meaning at all if it means "...Reverend X attends a Reformed Church and his view is Y, therefore Y is a Reformed understanding." It seems arbitrary, if you accept this definition, to exclude the likes of Charles Finney or Karl Barth from your list.

If I might apply your logic of gathering relevant "opinions", let me pose to you a scenario. Let's suppose you asked me: How many Reformed understandings of the Atonement are there?

Would you want me to include the "opinions" of the Remonstrants (members of a Reformed Church) or would Dordt have anything to say about excluding their view?

 

[MW]

Reverend Winzer, why do you always place quotation marks around "Baptist"? You speak of the "Baptist" confession and the "Baptist" catechism, "Baptist" circles inhabited by "Baptists," etc. It would seem you do not believe it is the proper word. What word would you prefer?

A person who is called a "Baptist" because he immerses or only baptises those who personally profess faith is not a true Baptist according to the way the Bible is interpreted by paedobaptists. To concede the name is to give up the debate. The quotation marks indicate that the term itself requires further clarification.

 

[Steve Paynter]

I don't know about any of you ... but I need to pause to think through all this!!

I think you're equivocating on the issue of the OP. You asked for "Reformed" understanding and then you jump to the fact that there were many views among ministers at the time of the creation of the Confesions that either did or did not ever make their way into a Confession. Are you suggesting that the Reformed Church is not a Confessing Church?

I am not interested in arbitrating between which of these positions are compliant with which confession.

At some point, there needs to be some differentiation in order to make sense of words. Does "Reformed" understanding have any historical meaning at all if it means is "...Reverend X attends a Reformed Church and his view is Y, therefore Y is a Reformed understanding." It seems arbitrary, if you accept this definition, to exclude the likes of Charles Finney or Karl Barth from your list.

If I might apply your logic of gathering relevant "opinions", let me pose to you a scenario. Let's suppose you asked me: How many Reformed understandings of the Atonement are there?

Would you want me to include the "opinions" of the Remonstrants (members of a Reformed Church) or would Dordt have anything to say about excluding their view?

This is a great set of questions. Maybe I am equivocating at bit ... but the OP had Reformed in quotation marks because I was not trying to use it in a limited technical sense. I am quite happy for "Reformed" to be restricted to positions which comply with particular confessions, for in one sense, I don't care about the label. I want to understand the range of options so that I can come to the Bible with a sophisticated understanding of the interpretive options. I firmly believe that while exegesis should be the basis of our systematic theology, our exegesis will be informed by our systematic theology. We need to keep going around the hermeneutical spiral, and part of helping that task, is approaching the interpretation of Scripture with the most sophisticated understanding of systematics that I can develop at the stage I'm at. Hence, the OP of this thread. However, I don't want to waste my time taking too seriously views which are coming from totally different positions, positions which entail understandings of the Bible that have no credibility to me ... Hence the use of a wide meaning of "Reformed" in my OP.

Clearly the label Reformed can be defined so that it means "confessing church" without remainder. But I think that "Reformed" should mean something along the lines "confessing church that is always open to having its confessions reformed by Scripture". This - as I understand it - is true of the majority of Reformed churches historically.

I liked your challenge of the Remonstrants ... Clearly the Synod of Dort excluded Arminianism from the Reformed church. Prior to Dort, Arminianism was a school of thought in the Reformed churches of Holland (it wasn't Lutheran, Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox). However, even now excluded from Reformed church, it is still important to understand Arminianism, and to reject it ourselves ... not primarily because it was rejected by Dort, but because it is not compatible with the Bible. In other words, we should reject it for the same reasons as Dort rejected it. Confessions are guides; but must not take the place of Scripture.

I am trying to learn to be a New Testament scholar. I want to be one who is sophisticated and informed in matters of systematic and historical theology. I want to operate within broadly defined Reformed orthodoxy, but I dare not slavishly follow Reformed confessions without asking the question as to whether they are the best fit at each point with Scripture (or even more, with the particular portion of Scripture that I am studying at the time.) That would be failing in my job as a New Testament scholar. I need to understand the positions which didn't make it into the confessions.

I don't think I am wrong in thinking I need to do this, but am open and interested in arguments that I am.

 

[MW]

There are other Reformed confessions than the WCF, and not all were as explicit about the covenants as the WCF was, and not all who subscribe to them would also subscribe to the WCF. There is a danger of anachronistically forcing the WCF insights onto a wider movement, and perhaps disenfranchising some. The historical situation seems to have been significantly more complex than this strict line would suggest.

Our brethren who derive their Reformed lineage from the continental tradition agree with us concerning an unified covenant of grace. That should strengthen, not weaken, the Reformed status of Westminster. There are obviously issues related to the "covenant of works" or "covenant of redemption" which are open for discussion, but that is not the subject of this thread.

It has something to do with using this confessional debate to close down serious consideration of the issues.

Given the literature on the subject from within confessionally reformed churches it is obvious that the confessional standards have not closed down discussion. There are numerous intramural discussions which are yet to be finalised.

 

[MW]

3. The word dispensational has been attached to our confession's formulation of federal theology.

Actually, it hasn't. It was a specific understanding of that confession which was under discussion, not the confession itself.

As for Owen, he affirmed an unified covenant of grace. As noted earlier in the thread, even the Kline/Horton understanding seeks to stand within the mainstream of reformed thought. Obviously authors like to explain themselves and express nuances so as to clarify their use of terms; but their clarifications should not be used by readers to move them from their stated position.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

We need to keep going around the hermeneutical spiral, and part of helping that task, is approaching the interpretation of Scripture with the most sophisticated understanding of systematics that I can develop at the stage I'm at. Hence, the OP of this thread. However, I don't want to waste my time taking too seriously views which are coming from totally different positions, positions which entail understandings of the Bible that have no credibility to me ... Hence the use of a wide meaning of "Reformed" in my OP.

I'm conversant with Grant Osbourne's view of the Hermeneutic spiral and it is a good way of looking at the interplay between Systematics, Historical, Biblical, and exegetical theology but you still have a problem in determining how "wide" you want your options to be. Since you don't want any Confessions to be the boundary then why do you start with three options in the OP? Surely there are hundreds once the boundary of what "Reformed" means is taken down altogether. To many Lutherans, Reformed includes not only John Calvin but the theology of Joel Osteen and faith healers. Barth considered himself Reformed as well.

I liked your challenge of the Remonstrants ... Clearly the Synod of Dort excluded Arminianism from the Reformed church. Prior to Dort, Arminianism was a school of thought in the Reformed churches of Holland (it wasn't Lutheran, Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox). However, even now excluded from Reformed church, it is still important to understand Arminianism, and to reject it ourselves ... not primarily because it was rejected by Dort, but because it is not compatible with the Bible. In other words, we should reject it for the same reasons as Dort rejected it. Confessions are guides; but must not take the place of Scripture.

Everyone believes they are rejecting non-Biblical doctrines. May a person who still affirms all five points of the Remonstrants correctly call themselves "Reformed"? The issue is not whether the Remonstrants were repudiated by Scripture but that Dordt "confessed" as a Church what the Scripture taught. To say that the Remonstrants were repudiated not by a Confession but the Scriptures is to deny that Dordt confessed what the Scriptures taught. Every time you write or say something about the Scriptures you are individually confessing what the Scriptures teach. Is it proper for a person to interrupt your preaching or teaching at every turn and remind you that what you just said about the Scriptures is not the Scriptures themselves and that they can't be expected for your sound exposition to "take the place of Scripture"? Confession is, in the end, inevitable.

Nobody within the Reformed tradition claims that the Confessions replace the Scriptures. They are seen as a standard exposition of the Scriptures - not my standard exposition but our Church's standard exposition. Theology is not an endeavor where the individual stands apart from the Church but the Church confesses together as it is built up by those who are given the gifts and office to handle soundly the Word of Truth (Eph 4). I'll never understand why so many people find the idea strange that the Church could arrive at unanimity about what the Scriptures principally teach and write it down for posterity. The same people often don't find it strange that they can individually interpret the Scriptures. It's when that individual autonomy runs aground of the Church that I find the default response is not the rejection of all confession but the confession that disagrees with my own.

I am trying to learn to be a New Testament scholar. I want to be one who is sophisticated and informed in matters of systematic and historical theology. I want to operate within broadly defined Reformed orthodoxy, but I dare not slavishly follow Reformed confessions without asking the question as to whether they are the best fit at each point with Scripture (or even more, with the particular portion of Scripture that I am studying at the time.) That would be failing in my job as a New Testament scholar. I need to understand the positions which didn't make it into the confessions.

It's interesting to me how you use the term "sophisticated" a number of times. I think my concern may be summed up in something that a minister friend of mine once said about the person who kept saying to him: This is how I interpret the Scriptures. He gently rebuked him to remind him that we confess the Scriptures together. The Reformed Confessions arise out of a couple of convictions that they are not only understandable by the use of regular means but also that the Scriptures themselves teach the notion that gifts are given to men to arrive at the unity of the faith. Taken together, the Church should expect that the Spirit can lead men to come to an understanding of the Scriptures, to agree upon what it teaches, and in turn hold each other accountable and grow together in that understanding. The Reformed Church was obviously protesting against a kind of theology that only starts talking to itself with no reference to the Scriptures but they still maintained the Scriptural idea that we ought to be able to confess truths together. It is the hallmark of the Reformation (and not its detriment) that they've publicly confessed what the Scriptures teach. It is the Radicals, like the Romanists, who don't want to ever define what the Scriptures teach because it doesn't fit their system to be bound by the written Word.

It is not safe to either be one who blindly accepts Church authority above the Scriptures or to think that one is somehow an island of "sophisticated" Biblical scholarship that can function apart from the ongoing life of the Church. The Word creates the Church and it creates a Church that confesses the Word. I would urge you to consider the danger of the position of scholarship that believes it does not need to be anchored in the Church or that the hermeneutical spiral is a continual reinvention of the faith "...once for all delivered to the Saints". It is my experience that those who are most faithful to the work of theology for and in conversation with the Church grounded in the Scriptures are those who are extremely "liberal" in their understanding of modern notions and the spirit of the age and know how to "re-form" that faith once for all delivered to the Saints that a new generation may confess anew that faith.

 

[MW]

Taken together, the Church should expect that the Spirit can lead men to come to an understanding of the Scriptures, to agree upon what it teaches, and in turn hold each other accountable and grow together in that understanding.

Well stated, Rich. In the words of holy writ, "to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height."

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

It has something to do with using this confessional debate to close down serious consideration of the issues. Drawing boundaries to exclude others can have the effect of putting them beyond the need to be taken seriously. ... I must hasten to add, that this is only a potential danger,

Given the literature on the subject from within confessionally reformed churches it is obvious that the confessional standards have not closed down discussion. There are numerous intramural discussions which are yet to be finalised.

My situation tends to rely upon the Divines and there exegesis, historical writings, and how they came to understand what they wrote. From some of my research a lot of the things being hashed out today were hashed out and there is an ignorance concerning what was hashed out already. I am finding some modern writers will not look at what the Divines of the Assembly or other Confessional Standards said concerning the topics we are debating today. It seems to me the phrase nothing new under the sun is very applicable as theological issues have been weighed in the balance. In the forum rules under Confessional Requirements the last sentence reads, "Those who seek to modify, depart from, change or disprove the doctrines found in the Confessions will bear the burden of proof to support their claim."

I am seeing there is a lack of knowledge concerning what these gentlemen wrote and why they wrote the things they did in their writings during the period. When one looks at the minutes or commentaries on subjects that these men wrote we can see they clearly thought through much of what is even being propagated today concerning the various Covenantal views. We just need to read and find the resources maybe. The views that have been mentioned above were considered and noted to be minority views and rejected by my understanding having read the writings of Rutherford and Burgess. Maybe it would be a good thing to read why a two Covenants of Grace doctrine was refuted and not considered to be Reformed instead of just saying or implying was counted among the teachings of that period when it was thoroughly rejected by the Reformed Church. Remember, the Westminster Assembly had members who were Erastian, Congregationalist, and Presbyterian. There were some awesome men from all sides involved in the discussion.

I would heartily recommend "A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life" by Beeke and Jones chapters 16-18 concerning the Covenant of Grace, the Mosaic Covenant, and John Owen's view on the matter. At the same time I would recommend Rutherford, Burgess, and others who expressed their views strongly on the matter. Then the matter can be known a bit more. Having been a Baptist for many years I am familiar with much of their thought and discussion. There is also a lot of new light coming to the front to help understand their positions. But the new stuff isn't really revealing anything new in my understanding. Sometimes it seems to muddy the waters because the whole of what someone wrote is not considered. Owen for instance. Some of them hold to the view that John Owen held to concerning the Covenant of Grace.

It is true, the administration of the covenant of grace which they lived under was dark, legal, and low, in comparison of that which we now are admitted unto since the coming of Christ in the flesh; but the covenant wherein they walked with God and that wherein we find acceptance is the same, and the justification of Abraham their father the pattern of ours, Romans 4:4, 5.
Vindiciae Evangelicae Volume 12, p. 369, Banner of Truth edition. Circa 1654 when Owen was 38.

The first are of three sorts:— First, Of life temporal, as it was an instrument of their government; and eternal with God, as the promise or covenant of grace was exemplified or represented therein, Leviticus 18:5; Ezekiel 20:11; Romans 10:5; Galatians 3:12. Secondly, Of a spiritual Redeemer, Savior, Deliverer, really to effect what the ordinances of institution did represent, so to save them eternally, to be exhibited in the fullness of time, as we have at large already proved. Thirdly, There are given out with the law various promises of intervenient and mixed mercies, to be enjoyed in earthly things in this world, that had their immediate respect unto the mercy of the land of Canaan, representing spiritual grace,annexed to the then present administration of the covenant of grace. Some of these concerned the collation of good things, others the preventing of or delivery from evil; both expressed in great variety.

p. 657 (Volume 17)

There is some peculiarity in Owen but He does not deny the One Covenant of Grace. I hope I am not muddying up the waters here.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

There is some peculiarity in Owen but He does not deny the One Covenant of Grace

Neither does the 1689 Baptist confession

 

[Steve Paynter]

As for Owen, he affirmed an unified covenant of grace. As noted earlier in the thread, even the Kline/Horton understanding seeks to stand within the mainstream of reformed thought. Obviously authors like to explain themselves and express nuances so as to clarify their use of terms; but their clarifications should not be used by readers to move them from their stated position.

I think you are affirming that Owen held the Mosaic covenant to be an administration of the covenant of grace. What you actually said, is that he held "an unified covenant of grace".
This is weaker than the first, for the Particular Baptists (even on Denault's reading of the 1689) would also affirmed a "unified covenant of grace" - God's salvation purposes were coherent and single across salvation-history.

The 1689 BCF in chapter 7 reads:

This covenant is revealed in the Gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of Salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that Eternal Covenant transaction, that was between the Father and the Son, about the Redemption of the Elect; and it is alone by the Grace of this Covenant, that all of the posterity of fallen Adam, that ever were saved, did obtain life and a blessed immortality; Man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms, on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.

Owen - even if his understanding is understood as being identical with the 1689 confession - as Nehemiah Coxe did back in the day, and as Denault does today - would still be able to affirm "an unified covenant of grace".

I can respect the position that restricts "Reformed" to the WCF teaching about the covenant of grace being one covenant with two administrations. However, one of the consequences of that is that some will have to be counted as outside the Reformed camp, who otherwise have close affinity with the Reformed camp, and who may self-identify as being Reformed. Owen in his commentary on Hebrews distinguishes the Mosaic covenant from the covenant of grace. Horton calls the Mosaic covenant a law-covenant, and distinguishes it from "royal grant" covenants, like the Abrahamic. Yes, they both have a unified covenant of grace ... uniting the New with the Abrahamic, but distinguishing this from the Mosaic covenant. Their positions are a long way from dispensationalism, where God is understood to save in different ways at different times. These minority views were held by those within the broadly defined "Reformed" community prior to the WCF, but if the WCF is to be used to draw the boundaries of what is Reformed proper, then their positions must be called non-Reformed (as Randy was prepared to do with regards to Owen earlier in this thread). Of course, labelling a position as non-Reformed leaves open the question as to whether or not it is biblical.

 

[MW]

One can make too much of an author's qualifications and extend them to a point where they become a position in and of themselves. Owen still has an administration of the covenant of grace in the OT, and this administration extends outwardly to non-elect people. According to the newer understanding of the "Baptist" confession, there is no administration of the covenant of grace until the full manifestation of it in the New Testament, and it extends only to the elect. It is evident that these are two entirely different systems of thought.

 

[Steve Paynter]

Hi Randy, thank you for your post.

It is true, the administration of the covenant of grace which they lived under was dark, legal, and low, in comparison of that which we now are admitted unto since the coming of Christ in the flesh; but the covenant wherein they walked with God and that wherein we find acceptance is the same, and the justification of Abraham their father the pattern of ours, Romans 4:4, 5.Vindiciae Evangelicae Volume 12, p. 369, Banner of Truth edition. Circa 1654 when Owen was 38.

I agree that this does seem to cohere with the WCF. When I read it first, I thought it was open to more than one reading. However, the word "legal" probably rules out the idea that it was the Abrahamic administration of the covenant of grace, rather than the Mosaic, that Owen had in mind. Does the wider context make this even more clear?

What point were you making quoting Owen's age? That it was a relatively early work of his? Or a relatively late, mature work?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

The issue is that the Particular Baptists do not affirm the unity of the covenant of grace in substance with the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants. But that is not a uniquely Particular Baptist move (e.g. Petto and Owen on the Mosaic covenant).

And it is hard to find their view propagated by their contemporaries and not rejected by many who would recognize their view to look more like the Lutheran view. The Mosaic is necessarily a dispensation that is superadded. Thus the reality of the term dispensational.

One more thing. I didn't necessarily agree with the above quote. I was just speaking about Petto's and Owen's view of the Mosaic. Their views concerning the Abrahamic, and Davidic were of Grace. They held to the view also concerning the sign and seal of the Covenants to include children of families that were considered to be in the Covenant of Grace. By necessity the Promise extends from the Abrahamic through the Mosaic as Promise.

There is something here that I picked up on that I hadn't noticed so much in the past when it was discussed. I noticed some categorical terms earlier concerning Owen's view on the Covenants. I believe they were speaking about context. I believe Exegetica, Dogmatic, and Biblical were the terms. Rev. Winzer or Rich can you help us to learn what it means to think in these categories and why that is important?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

What point were you making quoting Owen's age? That it was a relatively early work of his? Or a relatively late, mature work?

Steve my understanding comes from a discussion I was having some time back with a Reformed Baptist Elder. Owen is a Genius when it comes to Theology and matters of the Gospel and sanctification. But he confuses me on other issues and seems to be inconsistent. That is why the Reformed Baptist love him so much. They believe if he was consistent he would have been a Reformed Baptist or at least an anti-padobaptist such at John Tombe. The quote you read was from my inquirie with this Elder and I was wondering when the work was done. Was it during the time he wrote Hebrews or after? As it really doesn't seem to matter since after reading the intro to the Hebrews Commentary some pertinant quotes seem to show a side of Owen that many don't see. Reading Owen in context or in the scope of his broader thought is difficult. You have to read a lot. LOL I will leave you with a portion from that Reformed Baptist Elder's discussion and reference to me.

The thing that boggles my mind reading these discussions nowadays is how little people understand what Owen is saying. If you want to understand what he says on Hebrews Chapter 8, you need to go to Vol. 17 and read his Preface, Introductory materials, exercitations, etc.

Early on here he describes the project: how the Apostle was showing the harmony of law and gospel:

The work of the apostle, in these chapters, is to show the harmony between the law and the gospel, their different ends and uses; to take off all seeming repugnancy and contradiction between them; to declare the same grace, truth, and faithfulness of God in them both, notwithstanding their inconsistent institutions of divine worship: nay, he makes it evident not only that there is a harmony between them, but also an utter impossibility that either of them should be true or proceed from God without the other.

p. 43-44, Vol 17, Goold Ages Software edition

Speaking of the deficiencies of the Law, he uses the word "administration":

They are carnal things, and could by no means effect the great, spiritual, glorious, and eternal ends which God had designed, proposed, and promised, in that covenant unto whose administration they were annexed until “the time of reformation” should come.

Id. p. 653

And on p. 654-655 Owen gives several ways of looking at the law, including what he calls the "repetition of the law of nature" (note, not "natural law"--a distinction moderns don't understand) or covenant of works:

To represent this distinctly, we may observe that the law falls under a threefold consideration; — first, As it was a repetition and expression of the law of nature, and the covenant of works established thereon; secondly, As it had a new end and design put upon the administration of it, to direct the church unto the use and benefit of the promise given of old to Adam, and renewed unto Abraham four hundred and thirty years before; thirdly, As it was the instrument of the rule and government of the church and people of Israel with respect unto the covenant made with them in and about the land of Canaan.

The point is, Owen has a very broad and nuanced view of intertwining of the Law and Gospel, and anybody who only reads his commentary on Chapter 8 (or whatever) without keeping all these things in mind, cannot possibly speak for Owen's view.

I hope this helps some.

 

[Steve Paynter]

One can make too much of an author's qualifications and extend them to a point where they become a position in and of themselves. Owen still has an administration of the covenant of grace in the OT, and this administration extends outwardly to non-elect people. According to the newer understanding of the "Baptist" confession, there is no administration of the covenant of grace until the full manifestation of it in the New Testament, and it extends only to the elect. It is evident that these are two entirely different systems of thought.

Yes, I agree 100% with this. There seems** to be clear blue-water between Owen and the Baptists, although (probably) both agreed about the Mosaic covenant not being an administration of the covenant of grace. Similarly, there is clear blue-water between the 1689 Baptists and the later dispensationalism that understands God to save differently in different epochs. It is by no means inaccurate to say that the 1689 Baptists held to a single covenant of grace that captured the unity of God's saving purposes across salvation history. The fact that the WCF also says this (as well as more) means that there are important shared familial characteristics between Particular Baptists and the WCF, in spite of
the well understood differences - which when it comes to the nature of the church, and who is a member of the covenant of grace, can run quite deep, and it can be said, as you have above: "It is evident that these are two entirely different systems of thought."

** I say "seems" as I have not studied Owen as carefully on his views of the Abrahamic covenant as I plan to, and if these discussions on PB teach us anything, it is that we need to keep on going back to the sources for ourselves, and not rely on the interpretations of others. However, for the present, and given that Owen never became a Baptist, this seems a reasonable conclusion.

 

[Steve Paynter]

Reading Owen in context or in the scope of his broader thought is difficult. You have to read a lot. LOL

And on that the whole PB was agreed!!!

Thanks for your quotes ... I will have to start reading a lot; so far I have read very little Owen ... just his Glory of Christ, and his "Death of Death", and bits of his
Hebrews commentary.