Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by JOwen
Dear list,
I'm looking for a Looking for a critique of Hoeksema's Covenant Theology, specifically dealing with his mono-covenantalism. Has anyone come across such a work?
JL
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
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
now, that's help I can afford!Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
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
Originally posted by Peter
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.
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.
Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
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.
Not so obvious to the Westminster theologians -
SOSK:
Originally posted by JOwen
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.
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'.
Originally posted by armourbearer
The Scriptures are the supreme standard, and they specifically speak of "the two covenants," not one. 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.
Humanly speaking there are only two covenants, the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. Who would dispute this? When we speak of the Covenant of Redemption we are speaking of the Council of Peace, or the inter-trinitarian covenant in eternity past. This covenant, as the Sum of Saving Knowledge teaches, is a compact between the Father and the Son. Man is no party to this covenant. This is the distinction both Rutherford and Dickson make in their works on the subject. The CoR is distinctly trinitarian, not involving man as a party. Zec 6:13 "œEven he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both."
The Reformed doctrine of imputation can only be reconciled with two covenants.
The CoR does not speak of imputation. The CoG covers this most important detail. The CoR speaks of promise (election) and suretyship, not imputation.
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.
Why shouldn't we my brother? The righteousness of Christ imputed to us is in no way affected by holding to the Council of Peace. This Covenant is distinct and separate from the CoG, and in no way takes away from its merits or terms.
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.
Agreed. But again, believing in a CoR does not take anything away from the terms of the CoG. It's a different covenant.
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.
I don't know how you could not see it quite frankly brother. Complete sections, and in some cases whole chapters are devoted to the distinctness of the CoR in the respective works cited earlier. These two divines treat the subject separately because it is distinct, just as the CoW and the CoG are distinct.
There is everything to gain both exegetically and theologically by understanding it in the terms by which the Larger Catechism explains it.
I believe you are speaking here of the CoG. However we are talking about the reality of the CoR, which Dr. McMahon has pointed out in Westminstarian phrases such as , "God's Eternal Decree", surety, etc. Neither Rutherford nor Manton, nor Dickson were incongruous with the Westminster Standards in this regard. If anything they clarified them.
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?
The CoG was made with Abraham and his seed. The elect were predestined before the foundations of the earth in the Covenant of Redemption.
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.
This is just the point. The Elect were never formal parties in the Everlasting Covenant. The surety of the Covenant of Redemption secured the elect in the Covenant of Grace. This does not mean that they are the same covenant in any way. They are connected in that they both have to do with redemption, but remain distinct one form another. One is inter-trinitarian, the other is entered WITH believers and their seed.
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'.
{quote] 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.
The point here being that Rutherford and Dickson affirm a distinction that Boston does not. This is a fair criticism of Boston In my humble opinion.
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.
I agree. I, nor Silversides, nor Rutherford/Dickson would suggest anything different. Admitting that there is a CoR does not take away anything from your last assertion. Your statement pertains to the CoG not the CoR.
You began by saying that the Scriptures are the supreme standard. I agree. The Bible is quite clear on its teaching of the Covenant of Redemption.
Here are some of the scriptures that both S. Rutherford and D. Dickson use to substantiate the distinction:
"That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none." John 17:12
"As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. John 17:2"
"I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word." John 17:6.
"I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me: for they are thine. John 17:9"
" And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee, Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me that they may be one, as we are. John 17:11."
" Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me; for thou lovest me before the foundation of the world. (John 17:24)"
Luk 22:29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
A clearer translation of this verse would be, "œAnd I covenant upon you a kingdom, just as My Father covenanted one upon Me."
Psalm 2
Zec 6:13 "œEven he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both."
I'd be willing to go through Rutherford and Dickson with you on the subject if you wish.
Every blessing brother.
Originally posted by JOwen
This is the distinction both Rutherford and Dickson make in their works on the subject. The CoR is distinctly trinitarian, not involving man as a party. Zec 6:13 "œEven he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both."
The CoR does not speak of imputation. The CoG covers this most important detail. The CoR speaks of promise (election) and suretyship, not imputation.
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.
Why shouldn't we my brother? The righteousness of Christ imputed to us is in no way affected by holding to the Council of Peace. This Covenant is distinct and separate from the CoG, and in no way takes away from its merits or terms.
Agreed. But again, believing in a CoR does not take anything away from the terms of the CoG. It's a different covenant.
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.
I don't know how you could not see it quite frankly brother. Complete sections, and in some cases whole chapters are devoted to the distinctness of the CoR in the respective works cited earlier. These two divines treat the subject separately because it is distinct, just as the CoW and the CoG are distinct.
I believe you are speaking here of the CoG. However we are talking about the reality of the CoR, which Dr. McMahon has pointed out in Westminstarian phrases such as , "God's Eternal Decree", surety, etc. Neither Rutherford nor Manton, nor Dickson were incongruous with the Westminster Standards in this regard. If anything they clarified them.
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?
The CoG was made with Abraham and his seed. The elect were predestined before the foundations of the earth in the Covenant of Redemption.
This is just the point. The Elect were never formal parties in the Everlasting Covenant. The surety of the Covenant of Redemption secured the elect in the Covenant of Grace. This does not mean that they are the same covenant in any way. They are connected in that they both have to do with redemption, but remain distinct one form another. One is inter-trinitarian, the other is entered WITH believers and their seed.
The point here being that Rutherford and Dickson affirm a distinction that Boston does not. This is a fair criticism of Boston In my humble opinion.
You began by saying that the Scriptures are the supreme standard. I agree. The Bible is quite clear on its teaching of the Covenant of Redemption.
I'd be willing to go through Rutherford and Dickson with you on the subject if you wish.
Respect must be had to the covenant of grace, which is not quite another thing than the covenant of redemption, but the making offer of it, and the benefits contained in it, in the preached gospel, when Christ sends out his ambassadors to woo and invite sinners to Christ, and to bring them to the application of his purchase. And it is by closing with, and receiving of Christ's offer, that the actual cure comes, and that by Christ's stripes our sores are healed.
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.
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.
Originally posted 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.
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.
Originally posted by BertMulder
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.
Dear list,
I'm looking for a Looking for a critique of Hoeksema's Covenant Theology, specifically dealing with his mono-covenantalism. Has anyone come across such a work?
JL
Dear list,
I'm looking for a Looking for a critique of Hoeksema's Covenant Theology, specifically dealing with his mono-covenantalism. Has anyone come across such a work?
JL