Looking for a Critique of Hoeksema's Covenant Theology
- Thread starter JOwen
- Start date
- Status
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
There is some comment on it in the forthcoming WSC faculty book but otherwise I haven't seen much attention paid to HH's covenant theology since the focus of the split with the CRC was reprobation/common grace.
There hasn't been very much attention paid (in English anyway) to Schilder's covenant theology and only one Afrikaans PhD diss (part of which Nels Kloosterman has recently translated; more work is available in Dutch) and that episode was more or less about covenant theology.
There was a PhD diss on Hoeksema a few years ago by David McWilliams (PCA pastor and sometime prof at WTS Dallas) "Herman Hoeksema's theological method " (Lampeter: University of Wales, 2000). Covenant theology is listed as one of the topics in the diss. That's it in English. David published an essay in the WTJ a few years back ostensibly defending the WCF against critics but his account of the covenant of works left a lot to be desired.
All this is to say that there doesn't seem to be much on this topic.
Hoeksemsa's reaction to Berkhof et al pushed him (as Schilder's reaction to the Kuyperians pushed him), ironically, in a quasi-Barthian direction relative to covenant theology. Like Barth, grace overwhelms everything else before the fall.
Obviously, there are significant ways HH was NOT like Barth: HH believed in history, in a real Adam and Eve, a real fall and he most definitely was NOT a universalist; he held on to the doctrine of justification, unlike Barth; he believed in the inerrancy of Scripture, unlike Barth.
Both HH and Barth, however, were skeptical about "nature." That's the part of the ground of Hoeksema's rejection of common grace. As I recall, (I could be wrong) HH didn't think much of the language "light of nature" etc. This is quite similar to Barth who rejected natural revelation/law in toto.
Both Barth and HH, start with the decree and build a theology around it. They go in quite different directions, but both are idiosyncratic when judged by the standard of the Reformed orthodox. We've been criticized for hundreds of years for having a "decree-centered" theology. Rarely has it actually been true, however. In these two cases (see Berkouwer on Barth, The Triumph of Grace....) it seems to have been true. The caricature was fulfilled.
rsc
There hasn't been very much attention paid (in English anyway) to Schilder's covenant theology and only one Afrikaans PhD diss (part of which Nels Kloosterman has recently translated; more work is available in Dutch) and that episode was more or less about covenant theology.
There was a PhD diss on Hoeksema a few years ago by David McWilliams (PCA pastor and sometime prof at WTS Dallas) "Herman Hoeksema's theological method " (Lampeter: University of Wales, 2000). Covenant theology is listed as one of the topics in the diss. That's it in English. David published an essay in the WTJ a few years back ostensibly defending the WCF against critics but his account of the covenant of works left a lot to be desired.
All this is to say that there doesn't seem to be much on this topic.
Hoeksemsa's reaction to Berkhof et al pushed him (as Schilder's reaction to the Kuyperians pushed him), ironically, in a quasi-Barthian direction relative to covenant theology. Like Barth, grace overwhelms everything else before the fall.
Obviously, there are significant ways HH was NOT like Barth: HH believed in history, in a real Adam and Eve, a real fall and he most definitely was NOT a universalist; he held on to the doctrine of justification, unlike Barth; he believed in the inerrancy of Scripture, unlike Barth.
Both HH and Barth, however, were skeptical about "nature." That's the part of the ground of Hoeksema's rejection of common grace. As I recall, (I could be wrong) HH didn't think much of the language "light of nature" etc. This is quite similar to Barth who rejected natural revelation/law in toto.
Both Barth and HH, start with the decree and build a theology around it. They go in quite different directions, but both are idiosyncratic when judged by the standard of the Reformed orthodox. We've been criticized for hundreds of years for having a "decree-centered" theology. Rarely has it actually been true, however. In these two cases (see Berkouwer on Barth, The Triumph of Grace....) it seems to have been true. The caricature was fulfilled.
rsc
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
I'm not sure I would dignify what I know with the noun "knowledge," as I'm sure my critics will point out.
Sure, but you get what you pay for!
rsc
Sure, but you get what you pay for!
rsc
Hoeksema believed in justification by the imputation of Christ's merit to us. But he did not believe in the Covenant of Works, so he based Christ's merit on obedience to the Covenant of Redemption.
This can be found in his <i>Reformed Dogmatics</i>. Hoeksema argued that this obedience was proportional to the reward earned, whereas obedience to a Covenant of Works would not have been.
But it seems to me that it makes Christ the covenant head of the new humanity as God, and not as Second Adam, because it was God who agreed to the humiliation of the incarnation, which is what Hoeksema sees a meritorious.
This can be found in his <i>Reformed Dogmatics</i>. Hoeksema argued that this obedience was proportional to the reward earned, whereas obedience to a Covenant of Works would not have been.
But it seems to me that it makes Christ the covenant head of the new humanity as God, and not as Second Adam, because it was God who agreed to the humiliation of the incarnation, which is what Hoeksema sees a meritorious.
You might want to try this sermon by David Silversides. I vaguely recall him mentioning it. I know he explains Thomas Boston's apparent mono-covenant theology as a difference in semantics only.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonsspeaker&sermonID=122605124549
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonsspeaker&sermonID=122605124549
Boston held to two covenants, works and grace, following the Westminster Larger Catechism. His view should not be equated with Hoeksema's. The covenant of works was made with Adam, and in him with all his seed. The covenant of grace was made with Christ, and in him with all the elect. Stated in this clear Pauline manner (who specifically speaks of "the two covenants"), it is obvious that there is no separate covenant of redemption.
Yes. Sorry, I didn't want to imply there was ever any question Boston believed in both the CoW and the CoG. Silversides tries to explain in this lecture that Boston's view, following the WLC, is not different then Durham's & Dickson's as presented in the sum of saving knowledge. The only difference is verbal (use of the term "Covenant of Redemption", primarily). I don't remember exactly Silversides explanation though, sorry.
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
Not so obvious to the Westminster theologians -
CoR = Chapter 3. Of God's Eternal Decree.
CoW/CoG = Chapter 7. Of God's Covenant with Man.
SOSK:
HEAD II.
The remedy provided in Jesus Christ for the elect by the covenant of grace. Hos. xiii. 9. O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help.
I. Albeit man, having brought himself into this woeful condition, be neither able to help himself, nor willing to be helped by God out of it, but rather inclined to lie still, insensible of it, till he perish; yet God, for the glory of his rich grace, hath revealed in his word a way to save sinners, to wit, by faith in Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, by virtue of, and according to the tenor of the covenant of redemption, made and agreed upon, between God the Father and God the Son, in the counsel of the Trinity, before the world began.
II. The sum of the covenant of redemption, is this: God having freely chosen unto life, a certain number of lost mankind, for the glory of his rich grace, did give them, before the world began, unto God the Son, appointed Redeemer, that, upon condition he would humble himself so far as to assume the human nature of a soul and a body, unto personal union with his divine nature, and submit himself to the law, as surety for them, and satisfy justice for them, by giving obedience in their name, even unto the suffering of the cursed death of the cross, he should ransom and redeem them all from sin and death, and purchase unto them righteousness and eternal life, with all saving graces leading thereunto, to be effectually, by means of his own appointment, applied in due time to every one of them. This condition the Son of God (who is Jesus Christ our Lord) did accept before the world began, and in the fulness of time came into the world, was born of the Virgin Mary, subjected himself to t he law, and completely paid the ransom on the cross : But by virtue of the foresaid bargain, made before the world began, he is in all ages, since the fall of Adam, still upon the work of applying actually the purchased benefits unto the elect : and that he doth by way of entertaining a covenant of free grace and reconciliation with them, through faith in himself; by which covenant, he makes over to every believer a right and interest to himself, and to all his blessings.
III. For the accomplishment of this covenant of redemption, and making the elect partakers of the benefits thereof in the covenant of grace, Christ Jesus was clad with the threefold office of Prophet, Priest, and King: Made a Prophet, to reveal all saving knowledge to his people, and to persuade them to believe and obey the same; Made a Priest, to offer up himself a sacrifice once for them all, and to interceed continually with the Father, for making their persons and services acceptable to him; And made a King, to subdue them to himself, to feed and rule them by his own appointed ordinances, and to defend them from their enemies.
The SOSK was penned by Dickson and Durham, not the Westminster theologians.
I should also add, that what the SOSK calls the covenant of redemption, Boston and the Marrowmen call the covenant of grace as made with Christ. The difference is not in the substance of what they taught, but on whether the covenant as made with Christ is a distinct covenant to that which is made with the elect.
[Edited on 9-14-2006 by armourbearer]
JOwen
Puritan Board Junior
It should be noted that Rutherford and Dickson have lengthy treatises on the subject of the Covenant of Redemption as distinct from the Covenant of Grace. The CoR is truly a Reformed doctrine held by the vast majority of consistent covenantalists from Ursinus, Olvainus, a Brakel, Wittsus, Rutherford, Dickson, Owen, Flavel etc. Boston, and the Marrow Men fussed the two together, and in doing so, departed from the standard. I would highly recommend Rev. Silversides lecture on my blog on the topic of Children of the Covenant: What Does it Mean. In it he fleshes out the following:
The distinction between the 'Covenant of Redemption' and the 'Covenant of Grace'. Terms explained and biblical basis.
1.Erroneous tendencies to merge the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace by some within historic Calvinism.- Boston, Kuyper, Kersten, Hoeksema and Calvinistic Baptists. The view that only the elect are ever in the covenant. Effect of this view, as the identity of the elect infants unknowable. A look at Heb.8:7-12. Practical effects of 'presumptive regeneration', and 'presumptive unregeneration'.
2.The biblical view and its implications in practice. Covenant made effectual with the elect, but made conditionally with all the children of believers. Not Arminianism. Calvin on Gen.17:7. Practical effects: - No presumptions; God's Word stands; assurance concerning covenant children dying in infancy; children to be treated according to their God-given status in the church, charitably (Eph.6:1-2) but without assumptions. The church on earth mixed in adult and child membership and preaching to reflect this fact. Paedo-communionrejected and reason. Covenant family a unity.
Listen to it here:
http://kerugma.solideogloria.com/archive/2006_07_01_kerugma_archive.html
I would highly recommend Samuel Rutherford's Covenant of Life Opened, chapters 34 (The Covenant of Redemption Proved), 35 (The Covenant of Redemption Further Opened), and 36 (The Covenant With Christ and sinners). This later chapter is in contrast to the RoR made in eternity past between the Father and the Son.
I would also recommend David Dickson's THERAPEUTICA SACRA, especially Chapter IV, "Of divine Covenants about the eternal Salvation of Men; and in special, of the Covenant of Redemption, shewing that there is such a Covenant, and what are the Articles thereof."
The CoR is a forgotten doctrine in our day. In a day of covenant confusion, this doctrine needs to be rediscovered.
The distinction between the 'Covenant of Redemption' and the 'Covenant of Grace'. Terms explained and biblical basis.
1.Erroneous tendencies to merge the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace by some within historic Calvinism.- Boston, Kuyper, Kersten, Hoeksema and Calvinistic Baptists. The view that only the elect are ever in the covenant. Effect of this view, as the identity of the elect infants unknowable. A look at Heb.8:7-12. Practical effects of 'presumptive regeneration', and 'presumptive unregeneration'.
2.The biblical view and its implications in practice. Covenant made effectual with the elect, but made conditionally with all the children of believers. Not Arminianism. Calvin on Gen.17:7. Practical effects: - No presumptions; God's Word stands; assurance concerning covenant children dying in infancy; children to be treated according to their God-given status in the church, charitably (Eph.6:1-2) but without assumptions. The church on earth mixed in adult and child membership and preaching to reflect this fact. Paedo-communionrejected and reason. Covenant family a unity.
Listen to it here:
http://kerugma.solideogloria.com/archive/2006_07_01_kerugma_archive.html
I would highly recommend Samuel Rutherford's Covenant of Life Opened, chapters 34 (The Covenant of Redemption Proved), 35 (The Covenant of Redemption Further Opened), and 36 (The Covenant With Christ and sinners). This later chapter is in contrast to the RoR made in eternity past between the Father and the Son.
I would also recommend David Dickson's THERAPEUTICA SACRA, especially Chapter IV, "Of divine Covenants about the eternal Salvation of Men; and in special, of the Covenant of Redemption, shewing that there is such a Covenant, and what are the Articles thereof."
The CoR is a forgotten doctrine in our day. In a day of covenant confusion, this doctrine needs to be rediscovered.
The Scriptures are the supreme standard, and they specifically speak of "the two covenants," not one, nor three. The Pauline two Adam construction, upon which covenant theology is so firmly founded, only speaks of two heads, and thus only allows for two covenants. "En Xristw" means being in covenant and a partaker of all the benefits of the covenant.
The Reformed doctrine of imputation can only be reconciled with two covenants. We do not speak of a covenant made with Adam and a separate covenant made with his seed. It is the transgression of Adam which is imputed to the seed. Likewise we should not speak of a covenant made with Christ and a separate covenant made with the elect. It is the righteousness of Christ which is imputed to the elect. See Heb. 13:20, 21; by the terms of the one everlasting covenant Christ was raised from the dead and believers are made perfect in every good work.
The Westminster Standards are the subordinate standard, and they speak of the covenant of grace being made with Christ, and in Him with all the elect. I don't find anything in Rutherford or Dickson which requires the covenant of redemption to be regarded as a separate covenant. They treat it separately, but their treatment loses nothing when the covenant of grace is understood to be one. There is everything to gain both exegetically and theologically by understanding it in the terms by which the Larger Catechism explains it.
Here is the fundamental problem which Boston so clearly identified with maintaining a separate covenant of redemption -- when was the covenant of grace made with the elect, and how do they enter into it? If you say it was made with the elect in Christ from all eternity, and that the elect enter into the covenant formally upon believing in Christ, thenyou have essentially declared they are the same covenant. Christ is the covenant for the elect.
It is simply irresponsible, and no way worthy of a man of Rev. Silversides ability, to place Boston in the same category as these other men. There is nothing which Rutherford and Dickson affirm of the covenant of redemption that Boston does not affirm of the covenant of grace as made with Christ.
And it is simply erroneous to suggest that anyone other than the elect are ever in the covenant of grace. Rutherford and Dickson would be the first to maintain that the non-elect, by being partakers of Word and sacraments, are only in the covenant externally, not internally.
[Edited on 9-15-2006 by armourbearer]
And this is the point Boston makes about the covenant of grace as made with Christ. So quite clearly there is nothing in this "covenant of redemption" that requires it to be understood as separate from the covenant of grace, nor is there any detriment done to it by so doing.
What exactly is imputed to believers for their justification, Jerrold, if it is not the righteousness of Christ as provided for under the covenant of grace? You would have a righteousness provided for under one covenant, and the imputation of that righteousness provided under a completely different covenant. But everybody knows the favourite Scottish use of the cautioner/surety arrangement requires a single agreement. Just as Adam's sin and the imputation of his guilt can only be properly understood under the single arrangement of the covenant of works.
I had written:
Jerrold:
Who denies the counsel of peace? Boston denies it is to be separated from the covenant of grace as made with the elect. Please read the portion I quoted from Boston's View of the Covenant of Grace in a separate thread. The state of the question here is not, Is there a covenant of redemption/peace/grace made with Christ? The state of the question is this, Is there a separate covenant made with Christ distinct from the covenant made with the elect?
The Westminster Standards, which you just agreed are the subordinate standard, teach that the covenant of grace is made with Christ, and IN HIM, with the elect. You make two covenants where the standards speak of one.
I had written:
Jerrold:
You are misunderstanding what I said. There is nothing in their treatment of this subject which requires the covenant of redemption and covenant of grace to be understood as different covenants. They no doubt understood them as different, but they do not gain anything by making them different, nor is anything lost by denying it. If you think there is something to be gained and lost here, you are more than welcome to point out what it is.
And do you suppose Boston denied or undermined these Westminsterian phrases?
I had written:
Jerrold:
And here we start to see the kinds of slips which take place on the separate covenant scheme. Please explain, Jerrold, how Adam, Noah, and the other elect were saved prior to Abraham. When was the "covenant of grace" formally made with them.
The point is, Jerrold, that the elect were never formal parties, period. To the elect the covenant is a disposition, or testament, and the benefits of Christ flow freely and unconditionally to them. In the words of the apostle to the Gentiles: "En Xristw" we are blessed with all spiritual blessings. The elect are never treated as a party to the covenant outside of Christ.
It is a distinction without a difference. The criticism shows a complete ignorance of Boston's position.
No, the Bible nowhere separates the covenant made with Christ as different from the covenant made with the elect. All of the Scriptures you proceed to quote only substantiates a covenant made with Christ. They nowhere provide for a different covenant, and they make perfect sense under Boston's scheme.
Having been through Rutherford and Dickson thorougly, I am certain there is nothing there which is contradictory to Boston, except for the mere idea that the covenant of redemption is a distinct covenant to that which is made with the elect. But their mere saying so does not make it so. If you know of one element of their teaching which is jeopardised by the Westminster/Boston formulation, I am more than willing to hear it and weigh it up.
Blessings!
James Durham (Christ Crucified, Naphtali edition, p. 250):
It is also worth noting Dickson's fourth head in chapter 4 of Therapeutica Sacra, which speaks of the means of receiving the benefits of the covenant of redemption; and then note chapter 6, where he writes that he has already spoken of the means of the making of this covenant [i.e., the covenant of grace] under the covenant of redemption. So he effectively regarded them as one covenant.
It is also worth noting Dickson's fourth head in chapter 4 of Therapeutica Sacra, which speaks of the means of receiving the benefits of the covenant of redemption; and then note chapter 6, where he writes that he has already spoken of the means of the making of this covenant [i.e., the covenant of grace] under the covenant of redemption. So he effectively regarded them as one covenant.
JOwen
Puritan Board Junior
I think we might be talking past each other at some points brother. Let me see if I can clarify a few things.
1.I'm not arguing that Thomas Boston was unsound on the Covenant of Grace. On this he was orthodox and experimentally sound. He does however fuse the CoR and the CoG into one CoG, importing the implications and terms of on into the other. This, no matter how easily it can be done, ought not be done if the Scriptures make a separation. The clear Biblical separation comes in when we look at the Scriptures I quoted at the end of my last post. It is between the Father ans the Son, where the elect become the reward of the Covenant. This is different than Gen 17:7 which states, "œAnd I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." Here the CoG is formally established with man as a PARTY. I say formally because in a very real way, Adam, Noah, and Moses were also saved by the same Covenant. The fruition came formally to Abraham, but was in seed form in the Garden. Just as the law was in seed form, but came to full light at Sinai. But in the CoR man is not included as a party. As Zec 6:13 "œand the counsel of peace shall be between them both." This is the CoR that does not involve man as a PARTY. It is between the Father and the Son. To fuse them together into one covenant you have man a PARTY in the Everlasting Covenant. In actual fact, the Father made a compact with the Son, and the Son, in turn made a different compact with man. If you have not already, I would encourage you to read Patrick Gillespie's work titled, "œThe Ark of the Covenant Opened: Or, A TREATISE Of the COVENANT Of Redemption BETWEEN God and Christ, as the Foundation of the Covenant of Grace". Especially chapter 3 which elaborates on the exclusion of man as a party, leaving on the Father and the Son as the Covenanting parties. Gillespie is another Scottish example of the historic 3 covenant view.
2.
Who is arguing anything different Matthew? See, this is where I think we are talking past each other brother. I never said that righteousness was provided for under one covenant and imputation another. I clearly said that the CoR has everything to do with Election and Surety, which are the terms of the FOUNDATION of the covenant made with Abraham. As Rutherford states, the CoG was a condescension of God, the CoR was not.
I will leave you with Rutherford's words on this point because I can't say it any better than he.
Covenant of Life Opened, Chapter 36,"The Covenants With Christ and with Sinners" (p.437 of Puritan Publications).
"It is not the same covenant that is made with Christ and that which is made with sinners. They differ in the subject or the parties contracting. In this of suretyship, the parties are Jehovah God as common to all the three on the one part, and on the other the only Son of God the second person undertaking the work of redemption. In the covenant of reconciliation, the parties are God the Father, Son and Spirit, out of free love pitying us, and lost sinners who had broken the covenant of works. Hence the covenant of suretyship is the cause of the stability and firmness of the covenant of grace."
He goes on to state how the two covenants have idifferent commands, promises, and conditions. You said at the end of your post,
First, I disaree that Boston and Westminster were unified in this regard. It is more likely that Dickson and Rutherford had the better light on both the subject and untiy of the Divines on this matter. Are you saying that Boston, a generation later, had a better grasp of the WCF on this matter than the men who helped formulate it? I'd suggest this is the best place to begin.
Every blessing brother!
JL
[Edited on 9-15-2006 by JOwen]
1.I'm not arguing that Thomas Boston was unsound on the Covenant of Grace. On this he was orthodox and experimentally sound. He does however fuse the CoR and the CoG into one CoG, importing the implications and terms of on into the other. This, no matter how easily it can be done, ought not be done if the Scriptures make a separation. The clear Biblical separation comes in when we look at the Scriptures I quoted at the end of my last post. It is between the Father ans the Son, where the elect become the reward of the Covenant. This is different than Gen 17:7 which states, "œAnd I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." Here the CoG is formally established with man as a PARTY. I say formally because in a very real way, Adam, Noah, and Moses were also saved by the same Covenant. The fruition came formally to Abraham, but was in seed form in the Garden. Just as the law was in seed form, but came to full light at Sinai. But in the CoR man is not included as a party. As Zec 6:13 "œand the counsel of peace shall be between them both." This is the CoR that does not involve man as a PARTY. It is between the Father and the Son. To fuse them together into one covenant you have man a PARTY in the Everlasting Covenant. In actual fact, the Father made a compact with the Son, and the Son, in turn made a different compact with man. If you have not already, I would encourage you to read Patrick Gillespie's work titled, "œThe Ark of the Covenant Opened: Or, A TREATISE Of the COVENANT Of Redemption BETWEEN God and Christ, as the Foundation of the Covenant of Grace". Especially chapter 3 which elaborates on the exclusion of man as a party, leaving on the Father and the Son as the Covenanting parties. Gillespie is another Scottish example of the historic 3 covenant view.
2.
Who is arguing anything different Matthew? See, this is where I think we are talking past each other brother. I never said that righteousness was provided for under one covenant and imputation another. I clearly said that the CoR has everything to do with Election and Surety, which are the terms of the FOUNDATION of the covenant made with Abraham. As Rutherford states, the CoG was a condescension of God, the CoR was not.
I will leave you with Rutherford's words on this point because I can't say it any better than he.
Covenant of Life Opened, Chapter 36,"The Covenants With Christ and with Sinners" (p.437 of Puritan Publications).
"It is not the same covenant that is made with Christ and that which is made with sinners. They differ in the subject or the parties contracting. In this of suretyship, the parties are Jehovah God as common to all the three on the one part, and on the other the only Son of God the second person undertaking the work of redemption. In the covenant of reconciliation, the parties are God the Father, Son and Spirit, out of free love pitying us, and lost sinners who had broken the covenant of works. Hence the covenant of suretyship is the cause of the stability and firmness of the covenant of grace."
He goes on to state how the two covenants have idifferent commands, promises, and conditions. You said at the end of your post,
First, I disaree that Boston and Westminster were unified in this regard. It is more likely that Dickson and Rutherford had the better light on both the subject and untiy of the Divines on this matter. Are you saying that Boston, a generation later, had a better grasp of the WCF on this matter than the men who helped formulate it? I'd suggest this is the best place to begin.
Every blessing brother!
JL
[Edited on 9-15-2006 by JOwen]
Jerrold, the Scriptures do not make this separation, but speak only of two heads. In order of time Christ is the second Adam, in order of decree Adam is a figure of Christ to come. By the arrangement of the one covenant Adam and his posterity are condemned; by arrangement of the other covenant Christ and His elect are justified. There is no covenant made with the elect except in Christ. To be in Christ is to be in the covenant. When Christ is preached the covenant is preached. When a man believes in Christ he is instated in the covenant.
The everlasting covenant made with Christ was a neglected truth in the mid 17th century. Rutherford, Dickson, Gillespie et al. were zealous to see the truth restored; but they were also bound by the traditional language which spoke of a covenant made with the elect. They subsequently taught two covenants, where the Scriptures only speak of one. And yet even they from time to time could not escape the inevitability of treating them as if they were one covenant, especially when it came to the application of redemption.
This is typical of the confusion that ensues on making two covenants, one with Christ and one with the elect. The apostle explicitly says that Christ is the seed contemplated in the covenant made with Abraham, Gal. 3:16. He is likewise the seed of the promise made to David. In all the promises of the OT Christ is preached as coming Redeemer. As the fathers trust in the promises they were engrafted into Christ, and hence into the covenant of grace.
It is quite clear, when stated in its biblical character, that the elect were "contracted for" not "contracted with" in the covenant of grace. Christ is their Mediator and Surety. Those terms indicate that man is not a party to this covenant, but merely a recipient of Christ's undertaking for them. Hence the NT uses the word diatheke instead of suntheke.
What light Christ Himself could shed on the OT Scriptures!
Jerrold, I don't know what I can say to help you see the evil effects of your formulation. Perhaps you could enlarge on what the terms are that man must fulfil in the compact Christ has made with them. I would suggest, though, whatever they are, that these "terms" would only serve to make the promise *unsure* to the elect.
The words of inspiration are far more reassuring: "Hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David," Isa. 55:3, that is, the sure mercies of Christ, David's promised seed. Here we see quite clearly that there is one everlasting covenant of grace, conditional indeed to Christ, but unconditional to the elect.
After reading the Ark of the Covenant, I read the Ark of the Testament, where Gillespie effectively teaches they are one and the same. On pp. 20, 21 he writes that the covenant made with us in time was made with Christ before all time. The reason why he pitches on the word "testament" is because he wanted to stress the dispositionary nature of the covenant with the elect. All which is more effectively harmonised when the Westmonasterian formula is adopted, that the covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as His seed."
Jerrold, I maintain that Boston followed Westminster's formulation to the letter. The English divines provide profitable material here too -- Edmund Calamy, Anthony Burgess, George Walker, etc. John Ball is regarded as providing the basic framework for Westminster's formulation.
[Edited on 9-16-2006 by armourbearer]
JOwen
Puritan Board Junior
I don't know what else to say Matthew. When we start calling the effects of each other's formulations "evil", especially when we are representing a particular vein of Reformed thinking, I believe the discussion has sadly come to an end.
May the Lord continue to teach us all.
Every blessing,
May the Lord continue to teach us all.
Every blessing,
I think that this debate is fruitful, and a necessary one for us reformed to keep in mind.
I inquired about Q.31 of the WLC on this thread.
From my perspective, it seems that even the definition of "covenant" is crucial to the understanding of either the tri- or bi- view of the biblical covenant formulation. Do you both agree on the definition of covenant? Is it "a pact or agreement"? Or is it "a bond in blood sovereignly administered"? Or some other formulation?
The reason I bring this up, is that I have found that many who reject the "formal" CoR often readily admit of an agreement between the Father and Son to redeem a people (the substance of the CoR, yet not the terminology). They reject the terminology because of the definition of "covenant."
I inquired about Q.31 of the WLC on this thread.
From my perspective, it seems that even the definition of "covenant" is crucial to the understanding of either the tri- or bi- view of the biblical covenant formulation. Do you both agree on the definition of covenant? Is it "a pact or agreement"? Or is it "a bond in blood sovereignly administered"? Or some other formulation?
The reason I bring this up, is that I have found that many who reject the "formal" CoR often readily admit of an agreement between the Father and Son to redeem a people (the substance of the CoR, yet not the terminology). They reject the terminology because of the definition of "covenant."
Jerrold,
I said "evil effects," not that your formulation was evil. This is no different to your statement summarising David Silversides, who spoke of "erroneous tendencies to merge the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace by some within historic Calvinism." I was more than willing to show that my position was not erroneous without taking offence. If you can show that your position does not leave the elect with terms to accomplish, then you will do your position a service. At any rate, the last thing I had in mind was to cause offence. Blessings, as always, dear brother!
[Edited on 9-16-2006 by armourbearer]
I said "evil effects," not that your formulation was evil. This is no different to your statement summarising David Silversides, who spoke of "erroneous tendencies to merge the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace by some within historic Calvinism." I was more than willing to show that my position was not erroneous without taking offence. If you can show that your position does not leave the elect with terms to accomplish, then you will do your position a service. At any rate, the last thing I had in mind was to cause offence. Blessings, as always, dear brother!
[Edited on 9-16-2006 by armourbearer]
Jeff,
We are both speaking of a compact or agreement. My position is not a denial of the covenant of redemption, but a denial that the covenant of redemption is a different covenant to the covenant of grace made with the elect. It is made with Christ, and with the elect in Him. Blessings!
We are both speaking of a compact or agreement. My position is not a denial of the covenant of redemption, but a denial that the covenant of redemption is a different covenant to the covenant of grace made with the elect. It is made with Christ, and with the elect in Him. Blessings!
BertMulder
Puritan Board Junior
Rev. Lewis, am familiar with a Dutch book by Drs. P.L. Rouwendal "Het Aanbod van Genade. Even though this book is mostly:
"Een onderzoek naar de aard, de bronnen en context van de bezwaren van C. Steenblok tegen het algemeen, welmenend en onvoorwaardelijk aanbod van genade"
(An investigation to the ground and context of the objections of C. Steenblok against the universal, welmeaning en unconditional offer of grace)
It also contrasts Rev. Hoeksema and the Protestant Reformed covenant view and the Dr. Schilder and Canadian Reformed view with Dr. Steenblok's view.
"Een onderzoek naar de aard, de bronnen en context van de bezwaren van C. Steenblok tegen het algemeen, welmenend en onvoorwaardelijk aanbod van genade"
(An investigation to the ground and context of the objections of C. Steenblok against the universal, welmeaning en unconditional offer of grace)
It also contrasts Rev. Hoeksema and the Protestant Reformed covenant view and the Dr. Schilder and Canadian Reformed view with Dr. Steenblok's view.
JOwen
Puritan Board Junior
Very interesting. It is at points like this that I wish I read Dutch! I just took a course at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary on the Nader Reformatie and the Secession of 1834. Steenblok was a name that often came up in the context of mysticism. I think you should translate the work for us brother
Blessings!
I agree with Hoeksema however you requested critiques:
A. http://members.aol.com/RSISBELL/preach1.html, http://members.aol.com/RSISBELL/preach2.html, http://members.aol.com/RSISBELL/preach3.html, http://members.aol.com/RSISBELL/preach4.html.
B. http://spindleworks.com/library/geertsema/covenant.htm
C. http://www.spindleworks.com/library/CR/schouls.htm
Have you found anything useful?
- Status
Similar threads
