Covenant theology has a long and varied history, through which it has developed like a pearl, solidified by both time and pressure. It has established itself in Reformation history as a dominant branch of theology. What is known today as covenant theology is also identified historically as federal theology. Recent scholarship has sought to set the two apart, claiming federal theology was a scholastic development of covenant theology, contrary to the early theology of the magisterial reformers that distinguished itself at the Westminster Assembly in the 1640’s. David B. McWilliams states, “Federalism is often thought to be the epitome of a ‘Reformed scholasticism’ [. . . ].” [1] Attempting to form such a dichotomy, David A. Weir offers this definition for covenant theology: “Covenant theology is a theological system in which the covenant forms the basic framework and acts as the controlling idea in that theological system.” [2] He then distinguishes federal theology as
[. . .] a specific type of covenant theology, in that the covenant holds together every detail of the theological system, and is characterized by a prelapsarian and postlapsarian covenant schema centered around the first Adam and the second Adam, who is Jesus Christ. [3]
Noting Weir’s conclusion, Mark W. Karlberg writes, “This interpretation [. . .] rests upon the alleged discontinuity between two kinds of theology, the covenantal and the federal, an opinion all too commonplace in recent historical scholarship.” [4] Mark Karlberg, in his article, disagrees with Weir’s definition, stating, “A sharp demarcation between covenant theology and federal theology, in my judgment, is highly artificial and misleading.” [5] This author, in agreement with Mark Karlberg, draws no demarcation between covenant theology and federal theology, but sets forth the historic maturation of the basic presupposition of a single theology that can be termed either covenant or federal theology.
That designated federal theology is covenant theology. The word federal, coming from the Latin foedus, speaks of a pact or an agreement between parties. Thus the term federal theology speaks to the basic presupposition of federalism, which is that God relates to men by way of a covenant. Federal theology is a most widely used term in scholarship and history, and it is written upon exhaustively. The term covenant theology, until recently, was a lesser-used vernacular for what, historically, has been more widely known as federal theology. Understanding this is essential to a proper use of terms in discussing theology. Consider this as an example: It is common to speak of the federal headship of Adam without knowing that one is teaching a prelapsarian [before the fall] covenant with Adam simply by the use of the word. It is more common for one to simply assume that the term federal is synonymous with representative than to take the time to do a study to determine that its true meaning is “a compact or agreement between parties.” Clearly the history of theology and its terms can help all of us communicate our theological presuppositions much more efficiently.
As stated above, federal theology [the term I will use henceforth] has not developed in a vacuum. It has morphed through the centuries since the Reformation, and what is taught as federal theology today is quite different from what first arose in the early 16th century. Any attempt to define federal theology must take into account its various stages of development and definition. This is where the confusion generally arises regarding supposed disagreements between covenant and federal theology. The tendency to separate the two ignores the logical and necessary development of the covenant idea in history. A 16th century consensus among Reformers regarding the foundational principles of federal theology would not match those of the 17th century, not so much because the two generations disagree fundamentally in their theology, but simply due to development of thought. The fact that federal theology was developing in the process of history and time can account for the apparent antithesis and presumed opposition that recent scholarship would have us believe existed. In order to understand federal theology without drawing an improper antithesis, one must seek to understand it in the context of the Reformation. The Reformation was an historical phenomenon that produced dogma in flux. Philip Schaff wrote, “The designation Reformed is insufficient to cover all the denominations and sects which have sprung directly or indirectly from this family since the Reformation […].” [6] Federal theology is but one of the many dogmas established from Protestantism’s rise.
Many factors contributed to the rise of federal theology in Reformation history, but perhaps the most determinant was the Reformation itself. The Protestant church sought to define itself doctrinally as it broke from Roman Catholicism. The growing disputes with Rome gave rise to the Protestant confessional practice, the Protestant method of dogmatic definition up until the late 17th century, which helped solidify the beliefs of the Reformed church as they sought their own identity. Philip Schaff notes:
The Evangelical Confessions of faith date mostly from the sixteenth century (1530 to 1577), the productive period of Protestantism […]. They are the work of an intensely theological and polemical age, when religious controversy absorbed the attention of all classes of society. [7]
During this time of confessional practice, the reformers strove for definition and refinement of their theology. Usually such refinement and definition occurs, in history, by way of polemic, that is, in defense against a certain teaching or sect, or through the inherent need for self-definition. Theology must ever strive to account for itself and to answer questions raised in objection to it. Striving for dominance in the Reformed church, federal theology sought to exert itself and to gain prominence as a respectful branch of the church.
From the start of the Reformation until the late 17th century, federal theology sought to establish itself as a viable expression of the Christian faith. As it sought to define itself over and against Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, much as a person, grew from its embryonic stage to adulthood. From its first cries as an infant in Luther’s emergence, to its eloquent speech as an adult at the Westminster Assembly, federal theology grew, developed, and matured through the years. In the human maturation process, the infant, while at one moment distinctly different from the man, is still the same person. The same can be found in the maturation of federal theology. It is therefore artificial and invalid to separate federalism into the antithetical divisions of covenant and federal theology.
One may claim to disagree with a particular expression of federalism, but, as long as the presupposition is uniform, there remains no separation between the two. Any study of federal theology must follow its stages of development with the understanding that any dogma has its beginning and maturational stages. An early study of Protestantism will reveal an underdeveloped theology, but a later examination of it will reveal ideas contained only as a seed in the early days of federalism’s growth. In its vitality a theological idea is often intensely groping for direction, and its strength is often better demonstrated in its maturation. In theological debate, men often caricature a dogma, failing to understand and explain it fully by isolating its definition to a particular figure or time. An understanding of the16th century federal theology can only be understood in light of its mature development in the 17th century. One cannot debate federal theologians today on the grounds of what the 16th century federalists believed. Federal theology must be examined as though one were examining a man’s life, from pre-infancy to adulthood to old age, if he is to truly assess the value of federalism as a dogma.
The Heredity of Federal Theology
As men are born in time, so is theological dogma. As a man is brought forth from the womb having a father and mother and traceable lineage, so theology also possesses a heritage. Efforts are often put forth to prove the validity of federal theology by demonstrating its historicity in the early church. This is, to some degree, how scholastics have sought to show continuity against the supposed discontinuity in federal theology. Some have sought the witness of early church fathers as proof of the ancestry of federal theology, quoting Augustine as one of the first to speak of the relationship between God and Adam before the fall as a covenant. Such efforts, however, have done nothing more than affirm and identify that the traits of federalism existed in days preceding the birth of federal theology. The word covenant is no new term; the consideration of the relationship between Adam and God is no new question; the distinctions between law and grace are not new to theology; and the question of continuity and discontinuity is not novel. These theological tensions are at the core of the impetus behind the rise of federalism, and they have existed from the beginnings of the Christian era. Evidence from history can be gleaned in the writings of the first fifteen hundred years of the church, showing that seed ideas of federal theology are evident in pre-Reformation writings. Prior to the Reformation there were traits evidential of what became known as federal theology in medieval theology; this cannot be denied. However, the dogma of federal theology traces its own existence from the days of Martin Luther to the current day. Although federal theology was not born until the days of the Reformation, it also was not born apart from a heritage. In the history of doctrine, we can find similarities and dissimilarities to federalism throughout the life of the church. However closely we scrutinize ancient writings, we will not find the true distinctive of federal theology before we encounter the Reformation. Since the foremost identifying mark of federal theology is the central feature of the covenant, we shall not find a theology that measures up to that mark before the Reformation. Richard A. Muller notes, “the various terms for covenant (pactum and foedus) did not appear in these forms before the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries [. . .].” [8]
We might identify the various stages in the development of federal theology in three ways; historically, geographically, and in confession practice. First, historically, the parentage of federalism can be traced to Martin Luther [1483-1546] and the Reformation in Germany, Ulrich Zwingli [1484-1531] and the Swiss Reformation, and John Calvin [1509-1564] in Geneva. The parentage would also include the successors of the following men: Philip Melanchthan [1497-1560] who followed Luther, Heinrich Bullinger [1504-1575] who raised the gauntlet of the Reformation in Switzerland following the premature death of Zwingli, and Theodore Beza [1519-1605], the successor of Calvin. These six men might be called the fathers of federal theology, not because they consciously set about to birth such a child, but because their ideas and influence upon their successors would pave the way for such a heritage.
Following the birth of federalism would be the stage of infancy and childhood, with development influenced by men like Caspar Olevianus [1536-1587] and Zacharius Ursinus [1534-1583], Germans and co-authors of the Heidelberg Catechism, along with the Dutch theologian Johannes Cocceius [1603-1669]. Each of these men took federal theology past its first birth pangs to its early pre-pubescent life.
From that stage comes the young adulthood of the dogma, seen in the works of Thomas Cartwright [1535-1603] and William Perkins [1558-1602], both early Puritans. This is not to exclude Robert Rollock in Edinburgh and those of the Netherlands. A plethora of thought can be found in the works of these men, from Ursinus and Olevianus at the close of the 16th century to the Westminster Assembly in the 1640s.
This leads to the adulthood of federal theology, when it was at its most virulent stage. Its concise formulation is found in the work of the Westminster divines, the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith, a compilation of the Long Parliament [1643-1649] during the English Civil War. The strength of federal theology would prevail as Puritanism flourished in the colonies and England until its decline in the latter half of the 17th century, in the days of John Owen and Richard Baxter.
From there we trace its middle age to the works of men of the 19th century like Charles and A. A. Hodge, Abraham Kuyper, and Robert Dabny; its seasoned years through 20th century men like J. G. Machen and John Murray; and, leading up to its old-age, we look at the development of federal theology through the Reformers who carried it forth.
It would be prudent to ask at this time, which of these historical figures might be called covenant or federal theologians? Were Martin Luther, John Calvin, or Ulrich Zwingli federal theologians? Noting the historical development of federal theology, they would be excluded by time. The presupposition most clearly identifying federal theology would give pause to the consideration of these men within the framework of what we might theologically define as federal theology. None of the magisterial Reformers possessed a theology with a central dominant idea of covenant. They held much in common with the later federal theology and even helped to establish much of the foundation for the dogma, but they clearly were separate from the “formed-in-the-womb” idea; they provided that seed necessary to birth the child, but that was all. The earliest Reformers to truly bear the title federal theologian would have been those of the childhood stage of covenant theology, yet even they did not have the developed features of the adult federal theologian. An adult federal theologian possessed the features of various covenant formulations and relationships that the early proponents had not known. It is like the difference between the frame of a child and a man: structure, stature, and strength increase with age. While the federal thought might be found in an underdeveloped form in the early Reformed writings, it is not clearly distinguished. It is incorrect, therefore, to call the magisterial reformers federal theologians, or to say the early federal theologians were antithetical to their predecessors who held to the fully developed ideas of federalism. At the same time, it is incorrect to make a case for antithesis between those of its early and latter stages simply because the pre-pubescent covenant thought had not blossomed into a full frame. Any attempt to identify federal theology must be placed in its proper period of history and not faulted for its failure of agreement throughout its life.
A second way to look at the development of federal theology would be to follow it geographically through its westward expansion. Beginning in the heart of Germany and Switzerland, it branched westward into France and the Netherlands, eventually finding its deepest roots in England and Scotland, where it made its way across the Atlantic to New England. It settled in its colonial establishment in the New World with the Puritans and Separatists of Congregationalism and in the mid-Atlantic with the Presbyterians. From Rome to the colonies of the New World, federal theology made its conquest in the Reformation church as it made its way westward. Thus, whether looking at the men or the locale, federal theology was an historic dogma that grew up out of the Reformation and has found its greatest maturation among the English and the Scottish churches. Federal theology became nearly synonymous with English Puritanism and Scottish Presbyterianism. Leaving behind its parentage, it grew up to an entity of its own.
A final way to consider the growth and development of federal theology would be to follow it through the stages of confessional development. The earliest Reformed confessions are found in the Lutheran branch of the Reformation, of which the Augsburg Confession of 1530 is first. In it is found a very terse statement regarding Adam and the fall, encapsulating the event in the words: “after the common course of nature [. . .].” [9] This early confessional idea is thought to be antithetical to later federalism, as Geerhardus Vos notes:
[…] if the relationship in which Adam came to stand with God is entirely natural and if there was nothing positive in it, then the covenant theory as an expression of that purely natural relationship must indeed appear rather artificial. [10]
Such antithesis does not nullify the influence of Augsburg upon federal theology. For within the Augsburg Confession there are several polemical articles against the early Anabaptists [those that baptize by immersion] and Antinomians [those said to be against the law]. This would become a distinctive trait of federalism. Throughout its lifetime federal theology has exuded its disdain for its brothers, the Baptists and so-called Libertines of the radical Reformation. Already, in this early confession, the tension between law and grace, works and faith, and the issue of the responsibility of man is evident. These early tensions would prove instrumental in the development of the confessional federal theology.
Confessional practice followed the geographical course of the Reformation. That which remained in Germany took on a form unlike that of the later Presbyterian and reformed branches of the Reformation, not taking up the cloak of covenant. However, much like reformed theology, later Lutheranism showed a remarkable congruity with its federal brother. The final Lutheran creed of note, the Formula of Concord [1580], shows a remarkable development for Luther and Melanchthon. Luther’s early and emphatic statements on sola fide would prove problematic to him later in life, as Schaff notes, “Luther, in opposition to Romish legalism, put the gospel and the law as wide apart as ‘heaven and earth,’ and said, ‘Moses is dead.’” [11] Many of his strong sentiments would later be rescinded in his disputes with the Antinomians. Schaff notes:
The "Form of Concord" teaches a threefold use of the law: (a) A political or civil use in maintaining outward discipline and order; (b) An elenchtic or pedagogic use in leading men to a knowledge of sin and the need of redemption; (c) A didactic or normative use in regulating the life of the regenerate. [12]
Here a threefold division of the law shows similarity to those developments in the other branches of the continental creeds. What is most striking about this development is that it exudes a congruity of development between federal theology and Lutheranism, as both grew up in dispute with the Anabaptists and Antinomians.
Anglicanism, that branch of the Reformation growing up from the Augsburg Confession to its Forty-Two Articles and its final agreed-upon form of the Thirty-Nine Articles [1563], was not absent of continental influence. It grew up under the influence of Cranmer and Geneva, as well as Bullinger, and it shows no great dispute with sectarianism; rather, it shows a developed theology of predestination and election. The covenant idea is absent in the Anglican tradition, but the issue of good works is raised. The Thirty-Nine Articles presented good works as evidential of true faith. Anglicanism, the brother of Puritanism in England, maintained its own reformed identity aside federal theology of Westminster. The Marian exiles [those early Puritans and Anglicans driven from England to the continent during the Catholic reign of bloody Mary] of both Puritanism and Anglicanism surely had equal interaction with the continental reformers, but there is a distinctly different course of development for both groups. The Marian exiles spent years with Bullinger and Calvin, and correspondence between those who returned during the Elizabethan age demonstrates a great respect and dependence upon the continental reformers.
A great dependence can be traced from Geneva [Calvin and Beza] and Zurich [Zwingli and Bullinger] to the rise of federal theology. Vos notes:
The theologians of Zurich [. . .] are to be regarded as the forerunners of federal theology in the narrower sense insofar as the covenant for them becomes the dominant idea for the practice of the Christian life. [13]
Such an influence cannot be traced through the confessions, however, as the Swiss confessional influence had no significant impact upon the Westminster divines. With the great time spent on the continent during Mary’s reign in England, along with the influence of the exiles in the Netherlands, an incubation period of thought follows outside of the confessional practice. David Weir notes, “from about 1585 onward many of the younger English Puritans believed in a covenant of works and a covenant of grace.” [14] The absence of the Heidelberg influence in both Anglicanism and Lutheranism may, however, account for the general absence of federal thought in those branches of the Reformation. Clearly the developments by Ursinus and Olevianus, though more so through their writings than their confession, were directly related to the summations of the Westminster divines. David Wai-Sing Wong notes:
After the forerunners Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, and the covenant theologian Bullinger, covenant theology developed by Ursinus and Olevianus in Germany is probably most significant in the development of covenant theology. [15]
It does appear, though, that no one man, no one confession, and no one event is responsible for the rise of federal theology. Federalism grew up in the face of persecution, under the influence of a growing body of theological thought, under the influence of countless reformers, and in light of two predominantly antithetical parallel movements. When the grand summation of federal theology was set forth in the 1640s in England at the Westminster Assembly, it would be an amalgamation of federal theology embraced by Scottish Presbyterianism and English Puritanism. The schooling of English federalism came from time abroad on the continent, at the feet of the reformers.
Clearly the greatest confessional statement of federal theology is found in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Weir writes:
[. . .] the Westminster Assembly put the stamp of orthodox approval on the federal theology and fully included it in the Confession and the Catechisms, all three of which are fundamental documents for Reformed orthodoxy and served as the foundation for Puritan and Presbyterian thinking in the Old World as the New World. [16]
If we seek to identify federal theology with any one person or group, we can best do so by setting forth the Westminster Confession of Faith and the catechisms created by the Assembly as the consummate presentation of the mature federal theology. Everything following the Westminster Assembly would refer back to it. If one desires to understand federal theology one must do so in light of the Westminster formulation. It was the capstone upon a century of thought, dispute, and subscription in the westward expansion of the Reformation.
Factors Contributing to the Maturation of Federalism
Additional factors should be considered in the rise of federal thought. Theological interrogation was a principal factor in the rise of federal theology. The reformers in every generation have had to provide an apologetic for what they believed on two fronts: the balance between divine sovereignty and the responsibility of man. They had to defend their separation from Rome early on, and did so until the Council of Trent terminated the pressing need for such answers. David B. McWilliams concurs, stating, “federalism helps to add balance to theological thinking in part because of its ground in decretalism. [. . .] covenant theology is based on the highest view of God’s decree [. . .].” [17] Federalists have always had to defend their theology against sects and various groups that have arisen to question their assumptions. Questions abounded for the defendants of federal theology and, like a child, federal theology had to grow up to defend and assert an identity all his own. Federalism needed to shake off the sins of Rome and rise up, independent and distinct from its other siblings of the Reformation.
Through the maturation of federal thought, it sought to assert its own pioneering spirit. It needed to find an identity all its own; it needed to answer the pressing questions of theology through the ages, regarding the doctrines of election, the freedom of the will, divine sovereignty, law and grace, continuity and discontinuity, and works and faith. As it developed, it found an identity peculiar to itself through the adoption of the covenant motif. The presupposition of federal theology developed and slowly isolated itself from other branches of the Reformation. Its first breach was with Lutheranism as the presupposition of federal theology developed and slowly isolated itself from other branches of the Reformation. Noting this break, it was essential for federal theology to explain the tension between law and grace, works and grace, and the Christian life, in a way distinct from Lutheran thought. Its answer to these difficult questions was found in what it conceived as a biblically logical and defensible motif--it employed the overarching covenantal scheme as its answer. If federalism were personified we could say the child grew into a man and he was peculiar unto himself as a man that was clad in the vesture of federalism. The covenant motif fit; it gave federalism an identity all it’s own and it served to validate itself in a world of ecclesiastical vesture. Federalism could claim unity with those early fathers that Rome laid claim to and could set itself apart, being able to show its own historicity and depth of maturation. Federal theology developed as an answer to its Roman counterpart and those of prevailingly different thought from the Reformation. Federalism offered an answer and a distinct identity of its own in the idea of covenant.
It must be noted that theological dispute was also a principal factor in the rise of federal theology. From the beginnings, in Luther’s day, the branch known as the Radical Reformation was a primary factor in the solidification of federal beliefs. Luther's early theology drew a strong distinction between law and grace and was a champion of discontinuity, yet later debates with those he named antinomians led him to embrace a softer stance. Luther was soon seen embracing the place of the law again and its abiding use to the Christian. From Luther onward, Antinomianism grew up alongside federal theology, much like a brother with his sibling. Federalism’s disputes with Antinomianism would continue to aid in the distinctive identity of federal theology. Coupled with the zeal of both Zwingli and Calvin against those called Anabaptists, the idea of continuity grew to support the views of paedobaptism among those of the early Reformation.
Federalism would also have to contend against both Amyraldianism and Arminianism. It would find itself seeking a middle-ground definition in the disputes between high Calvinism in the midst of the infralapsarian and supralapsarian debates. Eventually it would have to pit itself against Lockeanism, Deism, and Modernism. Throughout its history it sought to guard its own identity and integrity against every form of theological thought that would seek to rob it of its vesture. Federalism developed simultaneously with all other forms of Protestantism. As we look at the Reformation we might say it bore many children, of which one was called federal theology. Like a child, federalism grew up to possess an identity all its own, setting itself apart from its siblings, its parents, and its grandparents, until, like a man, it stood up on its own two feet. What we know as covenant theology and what was first deemed federal theology has had a long and illustrative history.
Current Trends in Federalism
Current trends in Reformation historiography are seeking to unravel the multifaceted and interwoven history of the phenomenon of the Reformation. One such mystery is the development of federal theology. Historians have sought answers for the development of dogma in social, theological, ecclesiastical, historical, political, and economical causes. It is no different from trying to understand a man in his environment: Why does he think the way he thinks, behave the way he does, speak as he does, and act as he does? To answer the questions, many variables would have to be examined: Who were his parents? What was his heritage? What of his physical make-up, his culture, society, government, schooling, experiences, and life in general? All of these questions would have to be examined to understand the man. Equally, to understand federal theology we need to understand its time, its trends, its stages, and its proponents. There are many reasons why federal theology was born and grew up a child of the Reformation, but when all consideration is duly made, we must conclude that, when federalism grew up, it was new, identifiable, and unique. Whether its theology is right is not the issue here discussed. At this point, it is necessary to simply understand federal theology and assess its viability and place in dogmatism. Federalism cannot be dismissed out of hand as an heir of the Reformation, but must be examined in light of those dogmas that grew up beside him.
The final question posed might be, “Where is federal theology today?” By way of analogy to the perceived course of Reformation confessional practice, we might trace the life of federal theology by way of purpose. Peter A. Lillback defines confessional practice as “eleven distinct purposes.” They are listed as:
1) Confessional Purpose – to express one’s faith; 2) Apologetic Purpose – to defend one’s faith; 3) Fraternal Purpose – to establish common ground and unity; 4) Pedagogical Purpose – to teach the youth, new converts and future leaders; 5) Uniformity Purpose – to standardize doctrine and practice in an ecclesiastical context; 6) Testing For Orthodoxy/Heterodoxy Purpose – to require one to candidly reveal his faith to determine if it is sound or erroneous; 7) Qualifying Purpose – to enable one to enter into the leadership offices of the Church; 8) Defining Purpose – to distinguish one religious viewpoint against another; 9) Polemical Purpose – to attack a divergent theological viewpoint; 10) Restrictive Purpose – to prevent the advance of a divergent theological viewpoint; 11) Coercive Purpose – to compel another into submission in regard to doctrine or practice. [18]
Dr. Lillback lists the first four as early in the stage of confessional conception, the middle four as the middle stage of confessional consolidation, and the last three as the mature stage of confessional confrontation. [19] An analogy can be found between confessional practice and the development of federalism. The early stage of conception for federal theology was confessional, apologetic, fraternal, and pedagogical. The early reformers and those that followed, up until the Westminster Assembly, were seeking to define their theology and faith, often in a polemical fashion. It was their desire to instruct subsequent generations in their beliefs. At the time of the Westminster assembly, federal theology entered a period of uniformity, leading to a century of examination for orthodoxy or heterodoxy. The 19th and early 20th century saw a period of polemic, where deism, modernism, dispensationalism, and Unitarianism sought to undermine the very foundation of federalism. Federalism’s assaults against these perceived errors may have resulted in a restrictive and isolated tendency. Federalism sought to reassert itself and do everything within its sphere of influence to prevent the advance of liberalism and dispensational theology.
Today the current stage of federal theology is in flux. Its stagnancy in the mid-twentieth century is giving way to a new interest in creeds and theological thought as well as an abatement of polemics. There are attempts at dialogue between dispensationalists and federal theologians. A new day of apologetic has perhaps quieted the polemics of those engaged in battle several decades ago. While mainline Presbyterianism appears to be following this path, there does remain a coercive undercurrent in American federalism. Some who bear the name Reformed Baptist, along with more restrictive branches of Presbyterianism, have moved into the phase of coercion. They seek to compel all others into submission and will hear nothing of dialogue. If federal theology is to prevail in this day, it must continue upon a course of revitalization and not succumb to aberrant coercive displays. There is a danger that federal theology may find itself in its latter days. Most laymen within mainline Presbyterianism know little of federal theology. Confessional subscription is no longer in vogue, and doctrine has become a buzzword for discriminatory practice. If federalism is to survive this day, it must find a way to be reborn. Its vitality is long since spent, and, like an aged man, its hoary head is grayed. The question that remains is whether federalism will, in the next few decades, be relegated to a by-gone day or whether it will find the vitality to reassert itself in a culture that has little tolerance for such dogmatism. Time will tell.
[1] David B. McWilliams, The Covenant Theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Recent Criticism, WTJ, 53, 1, Spring 1991,109.
[2] David A. Weir, The Origins of the Federal Theology in Sixteenth-Century Reformation Thought, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 3.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Mark W. Karlberg, Covenant Theology and the Westminster Tradition, WTJ, 54, 1, Spring 1992, 135-152.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, I, 6 ed., (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 211, 212.
[7] Ibid., 209.
[8] Richard A. Muller, The Study of Theology: From biblical interpretation to contemporary formulation, 7, ed. Moises Silva, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 86.
[9] Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, III, 8.
[10] Geerhardus Vos, The Covenant in Reformed Theology, (Philadelphia: K. M. Campbell, 1971), 10.
[11] Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, I, 277-78.
[12] Ibid., 279.
[13] Vos, 2.
[14] David A. Weir, The Origins of Federal Theology in Sixteenth-Century Reformation Thought, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 1.
[15] David Wai-Sing Wong, The Covenant Theology of John Owen, Ph. D. dissertation WTS, 1998, 72.
[16] Weir, 157.
[17] McWilliams, 125 -143.
[18] Peter A. Lillback, “The Practice of Confessional Subscription.” David W. Hall ed.
(Lanham: University Press of America), 1995, 58.
[19] Ibid., 59.