As important as history is to understanding a system of theological dogma, equally important is properly defining and explicating that doctrine. The where of federal theology has been answered, now the what has to be established. As indicated in the last chapter, any attempt to define federal theology runs into the problem raised by its historical morphology. When one attempts to establish an identifiable definition for federalism by its form in a particular time or confession, he runs the problem of arriving at too narrow or too restrictive a definition to adequately account for all the stages and forms federalism has taken through the last three centuries. For example, one might try to define federal theology in relationship to its terms, such as equating federalism with the term covenant of grace, the earliest expression of federalism. Doing so, however, would be to neglect the latter expressions of theological formulation found in the covenant of works at the close of the 16th century and its subsequent expression in the covenant of redemption in the next century. At the same time, a 17th century definition of federal theology may not adequately cover an earlier nuance or expression of federalism, giving way to an overemphasis on the covenant of works that is supposed to have dominated 17th century federalism. Thus, a perplexing dilemma arises for the historian or theologian trying to encapsulate federal theology in an accurate, concise, and yet exhaustive statement. No single elucidation or expression of federal theology from the past five centuries will suffice to adequately encompass the vast expressions of federalism. Therefore another approach becomes necessary if federalism is to be properly identified.
A single unifying theme or expression of federal theology, regardless of terms and intricacies, must arise to account for that theological phenomenon of the Reformed faith entitled federal theology. Historically, federal theology has been identified as “a distinguishing feature of the Reformed tradition,” where “the idea of a covenant came to be an organizing principle in terms of which the relations of God to men were construed.” [1] Federal theologians have uniformly sought such a distinctive for their dogma. The Westminster divines began the seventh chapter of their confession noting:
The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him, as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescencion on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant. [2]
Such expressions, where the idea of covenant as an organizing principle becomes the single most important identifiable feature of federal theology, abound throughout the centuries. The actual terms chosen to express that relationship are not as important as an understanding of the relationship itself. That is to say, by way of an example, that the 16th century failure to accentuate or identify the Edenic relationship as covenantal, either in the expression covenant of works, covenant of life, or natural covenant [three terms used in federal theology to describe Adam’s pre-fall relationship with God], is not the heart of what makes federalism a distinct dogma.
The question arises as to the propriety of this approach in distinguishing federal theology. Is there a better way to identify federal theology? It is this author's opinion that another, and perhaps more precise, definition can be found. The rise of federalism in history is the key to a proper definition. The fundamental question behind the rise of federal theology was not so much with what term should be used to best identify God’s relationship with men through the ages, but rather with how to simply define that relationship. That is, the consummate achievement of federal theology is not so much its choice of terms used to identify the relationship between God and men, but what those terms involve. A covenant speaks of a relationship (the relationship between God and men), and that relationship is variously expressed at different junctions in biblical history.
Federal theology is a dogma that seeks to answer the pending question of how God relates to men. Federalism put forth the “idea of covenant [. . .] to be an organizing principle in terms of which the relations of god to men were construed.” [3] While perhaps this is not its specified purpose at all times in history, still its presence can be attributed to the desire to answer pressing theological questions of how God has chosen to relate to men. Theology, in general, is just that--a study of God’s relationship with men. Any explanation of that relationship must take into account the various stages in biblical theology. Federal theology addresses the relationship between God and men in the form of a covenant. Such an organizing system has the flexibility to account for the biblical expressions of that relationship between God and men at the various stages in biblical history.
A covenant may be defined simply as “the bonding of parties in shared commitment [. . .].” [4] Or in its fuller expression, as John Murray quotes Zachary Ursinus:
God’s covenant is ‘a mutual promise and agreement, between God and men, in which God gives assurance to men that he will be merciful to them […]. And, on the other side, men bind themselves to God in this covenant that they will exercise repentance and faith […] and render such obedience as will be acceptable to him’ (Eng. Tr., G. W. Williard, The Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Grand Rapids, 1954, 97). [5]
Notice there is, in this definition, the expression and explanation of the relationship between God and men. At the heart of the discussion of the relationship between God and men is the tension raised by the doctrine of the Reformation, regarding the sovereign grace of God. The tension arose through the application of decretalism in piety, or, to say it quite simply, the attempt to reconcile the doctrine of the sovereignty of God with the responsibility of man was the fundamental tension behind the definition of the relationship between God and men. This is, after all, the most pressing issue of Christianity; it speaks to every branch of theology. The covenant thought allowed the reformers to reconcile the tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Federalism adopted the covenant as its scheme to describe the relationship between God and men. A covenant was sufficient to account for matters of continuity and to settle the matter of discontinuity that arose from the biblical text.
Thus, to equate federalism simply with the word covenant is perhaps misleading and fails to adequately identify the true heart of federalism. Federal theology is not simply a theology that chose to term every age in biblical history a covenant. Nor is defining federal theology as simple as saying that God interacts with men through a covenant. Its complex definition involves the aspect of relationship. Just as dispensationalism is not defined as a system of theology that breaks down the ages into various dispensations, neither is covenant theology a system that simply identifies covenants through the ages. Both dispensationalists and covenant theologians can agree there are covenants and dispensations, even if they might disagree on their distinctive. A glance at the section entitled "Covenant of Grace" in Charles Hodges’ Sytematic Theology proves this point where he speaks of both covenants and dispensations. Far too much is involved in adopting so morose a conclusion that covenant theology is simply saying God makes covenants with men or that dispensationalism is a system of dividing biblical history into dispensations. Federal theology cannot be defined simply by saying, as John Murray does, “the idea of a covenant came to be an organizing principle,” without also completing his definition with his clarifying phrase: “of which the relations of God to men were construed.” [6] The second half of the definition is as critical an answer to the question of what as is the first part.
If understanding the relationship between God and men is foundational to understanding federalism, there must be a presuppositional premise to its definition that federal theology arose out of the need to answer the timeless question of continuity and discontinuity as it relates to the redemptive plan of God. The means to defining federalism, then, must come through addressing the question of whether God changes the way he relates to men in the various biblical ages. Is there a great difference between God’s relationship to Adam and God's relationship to Abraham or Moses? The question is complex. Embedded within this pressing question lies the tension between law and grace, works and faith, and freedom versus sovereignty. From Luther on, the relationship between God and men would beg for a clear and precise definition. Federal theology was the answer to the nagging antithesis between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility that nagged the Reformed conscience. The Puritan zeal for piety, coupled with their Reformation soteriology, would find its comfortable expression in federalism.
If theology were as simple as adopting a word to define relationships between God and his creation, then covenant theology and dispensationalism could agree. But so much more was involved in federal theology’s adoption of the term covenant to answer the plaguing questions of their day. In order to answer the many questions, the covenant framework provided theologians with a succinct and biblical term. John Von Rohr writes, “covenant thought was not created by Puritan theologians as a novel construct to deal with these issues.” [7] It was, in the early federalist’s estimation, a biblical term capable of answering the perplexities of the Christian life. The tension they addressed has been the strain that has plagued the church since Marcion, and it becomes the foundational question behind the rise of federalism. Simply put, every theology must strive to reconcile the apparent antithetical relationship between law and grace, works and faith, and Adam and Christ, in light of the presumed continuous nature of God’s divine and eternal decrees.
How did federal theology balance divine sovereignty and human responsibility in the covenant scheme? Puritan piety was the grand expression of its balanced theology of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. In Puritanism the ideals of the continental reformers met with the pietistic ideals of Puritanism; it was Christianity expressed through the idea and framework of covenant. An adequate explanation of federalism must speak to both thought and practice. What is federal theology? It is a theology that grew out of an emphasis on divine sovereignty among the Protestant reformers, yet it is more than that; it is not only a theology; it is a practice. Federal theology is the formulation of the ages that lends understanding and reason to the Christian life. It answers the questions that perplex the Christian regarding what has God done and what I need to do. Or to use the phrase of William Haller, it is the “wayfaring and warfaring” of the Christian pilgrim, perhaps best illustrated in Bunyan’s Pilgrims’ Progress, an allegorical expression of the practical federal theology. [8] Since federalism’s zenith was found in its expression in Scotland and England in the 17th century, it must be defined as a system of theology that was devised to give understanding to a Christian’s pursuit of piety. Federalism was one answer from the Reformation to the perplexing issue of divine sovereignty and human responsibility.
Federal theology can best be defined as a theological dogma that seeks to adequately resolve the enduring question of the nature of the relationship between God and men. The word covenant was adopted as the best expression of this relationship.
O. Palmer Robertson notes, “In its most essential aspect, a covenant is that which binds people together.” [9] It speaks to both union and obligation. Federalism’s foundation is Reformation theology itself. It is built upon the tenants of Calvinism and has expressed itself historically against Arminianism, best summarized at the Synod of Dort. It is the champion of Reformed orthodoxy, touting the principals of the five Solas that distinguished Reformation doctrine. If anything, federalism is first an expression of the Reformation’s doctrinal distinctives: those of grace alone, faith alone, scripture alone, Christ alone, and to God alone the glory. David Wai-Song Wong quotes Cornelius Van Til, writing, “In defense of the orthodoxy of covenant theology, Van Til writes, ‘Covenant theology sprang up naturally as the most consistent expression of Calvinism.’” [10] This is the theological foundation upon which federalism was built. At the heart of the covenant motif and expression of federal theology, then, is grace itself. Each covenant expression woven together has, as its fundamental design, the doctrines of grace. Yet, at the same time, it is not so metaphysical that it is no earthly good. It was the bridge from Zurich and Geneva to the English and Scottish pew. It was the vehicle that brought the issue of grace and sovereignty to the practice of the common man. Thus, it is not simply a theological thought or set of doctrinal expressions; it is much more; it is a religion.Federalism was one expression offered by the reformers to account for the application of the doctrines of grace to practical living. It was the answer to the question of “what now?” which the conscience raises once grace is understood and divine sovereignty is established in the understanding as true. Federalism offered an answer as to how a man was to live and act, knowing that he had been saved by grace alone. The answer was found in the amalgamation of covenant thought. As federalism developed, it slowly began to offer a covenantal formulation to express the relationship between God and men at every juncture of biblical history. Since God is ever shown to be sovereign in the biblical text, federalism sought to align human responsibility with divine sovereignty at every phase of biblical revelation. Thus, the covenant addressed two primary stages of covenant: that of the prelapsarian relationship of God with men and that of the postlapsarian relationship between God and men. Yet federalism developed in reverse order, working from redemption to creation to God’s eternal decree before all things. Its grand finale would tout three covenants: 1) a covenant of redemption, speaking to the eternal covenant between the Father and Son at the time of the decree; 2) a covenant of life or of works, speaking to the relationship between God and men in Adam; 3) a covenant of grace, addressing the relationship between God and men in Christ.
Federal theology first adopted the term covenant of grace to express itself. The covenant of grace was the earliest and essential expression of federalism and remains so. Much of the discussion regarding the apparent antithesis between the 16th and 17th federal theologians centers on the covenant of works. Early on, the covenant of grace was identified as that overarching covenant of God that was first mentioned after Adam’s fall, best expressed in the days of Abraham, reaffirmed and expressed at Mt. Sinai, and later solidified in the New Covenant. It was one covenant, and it served to define how God relates to those fallen in Adam. Every covenant expression in the word of God, and even some not explicitly called a covenant, was put under the structure of the covenant of grace. The Noahic covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant, and the new covenant were all defined as different administrations of that same covenant of grace. John Murray wrote of the covenant of grace, saying, “it was regarded as having begun to be dispensed to men in the first promise given to Adam after the fall, but as taking concrete form in the promise to Abraham and progressively disclosed until it reached its fullest realization in the New Covenant.” [11] This earliest expression of the covenant motif would remain fairly uniform throughout the life of federalism. It was the starting point upon which, from Calvin to Murray, a clear and distinct line of agreement could be traced.
The covenant of grace was the answer to the dilemma of God’s relationship to men after Adam’s fall. It was the way in which God determined to express himself to fallen men--by way of a covenant of grace. The promise of the covenant was life and the requirement was faith. John Murray says, of the covenant of grace, that it was “that by which God reconciles us to himself in Christ and bestows upon us the twofold benefit of gratuitous righteousness in the remission of sins and renovation after God’s emphasis.” [12] It was a way of accounting for the varied expressions of God’s redemptive grace in relationship to fallen men through the distinct stages of redemptive history. Continuity was established between God’s actions on Adam’s behalf toward the man and the continuing purpose of God in bringing about the salvation of an elect group of people from Adam’s posterity in Christ. Thus, the redeemed were one people of one covenant, continuous in every age.
The expression of the covenant of grace varied through the ages. Thus, there was at one moment continuity and at the next discontinuity by way of expression. When was the covenant of grace enacted? It was enacted with Adam after the fall when God gave to the man a covenant, and in that covenant was the promise of Christ. How then does this covenant continue? It is expressed again with Abraham, with Israel at Mt. Sinai, and with the church in the New Covenant. Yet these are not distinctly different covenants, but one and the same. Also, since a covenant is just that--a covenant--even the covenant of grace was “both conditional and absolute.” [13] Von Rohr said of the covenant of grace: “The covenant does have its conditions, both antecedent and consequent, and thus involves a mutuality of commitment.” [14] A covenant is uniformly a covenant, a bond between two parties, and, even though God provides the necessary provision of faith to the elect to affirm the sinner’s side of the covenant, it is still a covenant. Thus the Westminster Divines wrote of the covenant of grace: “he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.” [15] Here again one sees the uniformity of the idea of a covenant upheld: there is God--the party that offers the covenant--and with the covenant comes the promise of life; the requirement of man is faith, but, as noted, it is supplied by grace itself. Here federalism balanced the idea of divine sovereignty and the responsibility of man, where grace is not antithetical to human responsibility or law.
Such expression, however, was not capable of fully explaining the relationship between God and men in every stage. Once a theologian answers the question of how God relates to fallen men in Christ, he must then turn his attention to the plaguing thought of the relationship between Adam and God. Thus later federalism, at the close of the 16th century, constructed the covenant of works in terms that defined the relationship between God and men before the fall. The covenant idea did not vary; it still had God and man as the two parties, along with promises and curses, and its requirement of obedience. What did change, though, was the nature of the covenant. In the covenant of grace, God provides that necessary requirement of faith, whereas in the covenant of works, absolute obedience is the requirement placed upon man. The promise again is life, and the curse is death. The covenant of works was made between God and Adam, where all Adam’s descendants were included in him, and Adam was promised life for obedience. It was believed that Adam was endowed with justice and holiness, that the law was written on his heart, and that his violation of one command was a violation of the whole law. According to federal theology, man’s first relationship with God was expressed in the covenant of works. Man was given a period of time to earn eternal life that would be obtained by obedience to the covenant’s demands. The relationship was one of compact, where man was to obey and God was bound to reward, if such obedience followed. Thus, Adam’s pre-fallen state was not, by design, the consummate relationship between God and men, and it was not intended to be so. If the covenant had been kept, however, Adam would then have been granted the rewards of a greater, realized relationship. The Garden of Eden, then, is set forth as a probationary environment where Adam was tasked with holiness.
For the federalist, this development brought greater cohesion to the tension between works and grace. As federalism became more and more immersed in Puritan scholastic thought, the emphasis upon piety and its pursuit shifted the attention from grace to works. Such a shift in emphasis was not so much an abandonment of the ideals of the early Reformers as it was an attempt by those in its wake to flesh out the ideals in practice. How could they avoid the extremities of Antinomianism and, at the same time, the errors of Arminius? How could they balance grace and works without abandoning the pursuit of piety or their insistence upon grace as the principal cause of all that is good? The answer is found in the covenant schemata that wed Adam to his progeny. The covenant of works, while broken, was not lost. The covenant of works preceded the covenant of grace, and the covenant of grace was an answer to the dilemma of the broken covenant of works. Where the covenant of grace established continuity in restoration, the covenant of works established continuity in holiness. As the covenant of grace continues, so does the covenant of works, in that the covenant of works is not abolished but eventually resolved by Christ, in us, in the covenant of grace. Therefore, the overarching relationship between God and men, upon first appearance, becomes works rather than grace. Such is an overstatement of the facts and is the basis for much of the discussion of supposed antithesis.
The answer to the other side of the relationship between men and God was the covenant of works. It sought to meld together the idea of works and practice with that act of redemptive grace best summarized in the covenant of grace. The federalist saw God’s first relationship with men as one with promised eternal reward, and it was only thusly expressed in that time before Adam’s fall. In this estimation the Mosaic covenant is not a covenant of works. Also according to the federalist, the Mosaic covenant was simply a further revelation of God’s redemptive grace to men, and it was never intended as another trial for men to do what Adam had failed at in Eden. This is Mark Karlberg’s point, when he states:
The principle of works-inheritance as an administrative element in the Mosaic Covenant is limited to the sphere of the symbolic-typical. Since the spiritual benefits of redemption in the Mosaic Covenant are purely a matter of sovereign, saving grace, the pedagogical function of the law of Moses is still typical [. . .]. The operation of the works-law-principle, antithetical to the faith-grace-principle, in the Mosaic Covenant applies to a restricted, though characteristic sphere of covenant life. [16]
Thus, for federal theology there is a dichotomy in biblical theology drawn, not between the Mosaic covenant and the new covenant, but between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. As Karlberg states, “The covenant [covenant of works] whose principle of life-inheritance is that of works can never be reinstituted. The operation of the works-principle […] in the Mosaic Covenant cannot be interpreted so as to constitute the covenant under Moses as a covenant of works.” [17] God’s relationship to men is only and always expressed in one of two ways: through the broken covenant of works with Adam, in which all men in Adam are declared to be covenant breakers, or through the covenant of grace, in which only those elect and redeemed by grace are by faith in Christ in covenant with God. They achieve what Adam never did: that state of realized eternal life. They are not restored to Adam’s place before the fall, but to that place obedience would have taken him. Consequently, there is no antithesis between law and grace, as grace and law are in unison. There is no question of discontinuity other than by way of covenant administration, since the overarching covenant of redemption in the decretal work of God seeks to affirm the divine intent behind the covenant with Adam, through the covenant of grace.
It is said that grace comes in to meet the demands of that faltered relationship. Weir writes:
According to federal theology, the prelapsarian covenant was made with Adam and is still binding upon all men, even after the Fall of Adam into sin. The postlapsarian covenant of grace is made with Jesus Christ, the second Adam, who keeps the original prelapsarian covenant of works, takes upon himself the penalty for breaking it, and then applies this work of redemption to his elect people. [18]
Federalism offered two explanations for the relationship between God and men. The first, the covenant of grace, stressed man’s inability and God’s ability, without discounting the responsibility and necessary action of man. In this relationship the free grace of God was championed alongside the necessary action of man. The second, the covenant of works, provided a broader view of the entire work of creation. Geerhard Vos, purporting an antithesis between the Lutheran anthropocentric theology and the Reformed theocentric theology, wrote, regarding the covenant motif and its central feature being God’s glory:
What we inherit in the second Adam is not restricted to what we lost in the first Adam: it is much rather the full realization of what the first Adam would have achieved for us had he remained standing and been confirmed in his state. [19]
The consummate goal of God in the creation of man (God’s glory) is the very thing Adam forsook. The covenant of grace is the means to the glorification of God, the ultimate goal of all things. The covenant of grace, not contrary to the covenant of works, but alongside it, accomplishes what the first Adam failed to do, what God decreed, and what man must do. It is in this fuller expression of federal thought that works, to the reader, appears to overshadow grace.
As noted, later federal theology brought in a third covenant to answer the question of men’s relationship with God. The covenant of redemption, made between the Father and eternal Son, was put forth as that compact or decision to enter into the works of creation and redemption. This covenant was a precursor to the other two covenants. Here the doctrines of predestination, election, and sovereignty, were all wed into the covenant scheme. In the end, the three covenants served federalism enough to account for any dispute of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. Federalism was an experiential phenomenon in that it addressed the man as actually involved in the covenanting scheme of God. God was sovereign and man was responsible. Law and grace were not antithetical but unified. Seeming discontinuity was given sweeping continuity, and the Christian had an explanation and purpose set for his life.
Federal theology presents itself as a biblical theology and would argue that its use of the word covenant is of biblical origin. It does not deny that its three principal covenant expressions are not found in the biblical text. Just as with the word trinity, it would argue for its theological value and integrity based upon the covenant motif in scripture. It offers continuity in light of seeming incongruities in the biblical text. It provides an answer to the dilemma raised regarding works and faith as well as grace and law. Federalism offers an answer to the pressing dilemma of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. As Sinclair Ferguson notes, “during the sixteenth century covenant theology came to be regarded as a key to the interpretation of Scripture and, during the seventeenth century, a key to the interpretation of Christian experience. It brought with it a fresh insight into the unity of Scripture.” [20] Federal theology sought to provide a useful answer for Christian living that balanced the word of God with practice.
Federal theology is best defined as a system of theology constructed over a span of several centuries; it wed together the high and necessary doctrines of the early reformers with the great emphasis of practice and piety in the latter reformation. They combined to address the historical question of God’s relationship to men and expressed their answer in the idea of covenant. It accomplished for them a balance of doctrine and practice and served to save a place for the law of God in the Christian life. Man’s relationship to God was not diametrically opposed to the original Adamic administration prior to the fall, but was seen to be continuous in the covenant scheme. Federalism served as a useful tool against the enemies of their day, those of too much supposed liberty [Antinomians] and those of too much supposed attention to man’s ability [Arminians and Romanists].
If one were to offer today’s reader a concise, accurate, and exhaustive definition of federal or covenant theology, what would it be? Federal theology defines every expression of God’s relationship with men in terms of a covenant, entailing two parties (an agreement with promises and curses), with an annexed requirement. God has only expressed himself in relationship to men in one of two ways: either by works or by grace. The covenant of works, made with the first man, was where life was promised upon perfect obedience, but only for a time. It was not a covenant of law but was a relationship where law served to define the covenant obligations. To say it was a covenant of works means it was a relationship based upon demands the man needed to supply on his own merit. In contrast to that covenant, the covenant of grace is the answer to the broken covenant of works. It is established upon the principle of grace. Man is not required to supply the necessary component of faith that meets the demands of the covenant; God supplies the faith, yet God does not believe for man; rather, man himself exercises faith. God infuses a principle of life into the regenerate soul, imparting faith to the man so that the man may barter with God by way of covenant obedience. In this understanding law is not antithetical to grace. The covenant of grace is not about law any more than the covenant of works was about law; rather, one is by man’s ability to do, while the other involves God’s supply on man’s behalf. The biblical antithesis, therefore, exists not between Sinai and the cross, but between Adam before the fall and Christ.
Where does federal theology stand today? As noted in the last chapter, perhaps the greatest threat to federal theology is the predominant ignorance of it. It is a complex and ancient theology. Much of today’s religion is not enamored by a system of theology that requires a great deal of thought to be understood. Time has left the church with dusty books of three centuries or so, that sought to teach and explain this system, yet as catechismal instruction ceases and churches lose interest in theology, federal theology is certain to find itself buried in the shelves of yesteryear. Couple this with a general disdain of the doctrines of grace and the waning need perceived by most for such a theology today and its perpetuity is in question. In some sense, American Christianity champions the principles of Arminianism and Antinomianism. What need is there for a theology that was made to contradict both errors? The greatest day of federalism was the 17th century. The greatest accomplishment of the 17th century in the English branch of the Reformation was its accomplished piety. The Reformation raised questions that federalism answered, and, until those questions are again raised, federalism’s place will remain mostly among scholastic discussions and historical studies.
Despite this fact, the pressing question remains as to the validity and perpetuity of federal theology. Was it the right answer to the questions raised by the doctrines of the Reformation and the call for piety? Is its fundamental presupposition (defining two distinct covenants or relationships between God and men as that of works in the prelapsarian environment and that of grace in the postlapsarian work of redemption) truly biblical? Some might argue federalism was the noose of the Reformation, that its blossoming led to a scholastic overemphasis upon works and consequently led men away from the championed doctrines of the early Reformation. Some might also argue the logical course of federalism was dead works and nothing more than dying religion. Still others might argue the Reformation was to history what Augustine was to the early church and federalism was to history what medieval Catholicism and scholasticism was to the dying church. Anne Hutchinson, the so-called Antinomian of Puritan New England, was determined to fight against the legalistic branch of federal theology in her day. In our day, Perry Miller and R. T. Kendall, among others, have sought to pit federalism against the earlier Reformation, claiming federal theology became its own worst enemy as works replaced grace as its principle doctrine. What is one to make of these charges and even of federal theology itself?
However one answers the charges of historians, and even history itself, federalism remains a dominant branch of theology today. It is not easily dismissed because it offers answers to pressing questions. Is it the best expression and answer available in theology today? This remains the question raised by this text. Are there viable options still to be considered by those answering the most probing questions of Christianity? At the very least these considerations may be put forth. Federalism has historically been seen by many as a champion of what is perceived to be the greatest day of the church. It could be said that federalism was instrumental in sustaining the longest and greatest revival of religion in this Christian era. It succeeded in the way of piety that no other group has ever done before or since its day. Religious affections were at a sustained peak for several generations. Federalism clearly accompanied a day unlike any other day.
Federalism, however, had a tendency to be over-speculative regarding the soul, at times inclining toward a legalism of its own. Clearly the Great Experiment in Puritan New England, and the day of Cromwell as Protector of the Commonwealth in England, demonstrated the difficulty in the balance of law and grace in practice. Still, the most important of all questions concerns not the success of a theology, but its uniformity with the word of God. If anything, the very fundamental premise of federal theology is questionable. The question is not so much asked of federalism, "Has God said?" but, rather, "Is this feasible?" The questions asked of federalism must remain: "Is a covenant truly the only way in which God relates to men, and is the dichotomy of works and grace in relation to the fall the proper means of biblical division?" The only answers that federalism can provide are derivative answers built on supposition and implication. Charles Hodge honestly said, when presenting a supposed Edenic covenant:
[. . .] this statement does not rest upon any express declaration of the Scriptures. [. . .] Although the word covenant is not used in Genesis, and does not elsewhere, in any clear passage, occur in reference to the transaction thereof recorded, yet inasmuch as the plan of salvation is constantly represented as a New Covenant, new, not merely in antithesis to that made at Sinai, but new in reference to all legal covenants whatever, it is plain that the Bible does represent the arrangement made with Adam as a truly federal transaction. [21]
As Hodge implicates, to accept federalism is to accept a foundational premise. Richard A. Mueller notes:
They go on to structure their systems around such concepts as the pactum salutis, the foedus gratiae, the foedus operum, and the ordo salutis. As this point the ‘gentle reader’ may well begin to wonder which Bible this systematic theologian has been reading […]. How biblical is a ‘biblical theology’ that takes its most important terms and its major doctrinal topics from somewhere other than the Bible?” [22]
The foundational premise of federalism remains what was summarized by the Westminster divines and quoted above (in Section VII of the Westminster Confession of Faith), that God relates to men and “hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.” Federal theology begins with a premise that must be agreed upon. Before one can ever embrace federalism he must first embrace the presupposition that God relates to men by way of a covenant. In such a presupposition, a person infers that God and men are always bound in a contractual arrangement where there are promises, curses, and requirements. For one to embrace federalism is for one to embrace a premise; thus, the primary question at hand regarding the validity of federal theology is the veracity of that premise. The fundamental questions at hand are neither whether it makes sense nor whether it answers our questions sufficiently. The question to answer is this: "Does God only and always relate to men by way of a covenant?" A federalist must agree with Robert Rollock, here quoted by Gerhard Vos, “God says nothing to man apart from the covenant.” [23]
[1] John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray: Studies in Theology, 4, (Carlisle: Banner of Truth Trust, 1982), 216.
[2] Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 6 ed., III, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 616.
[3] John Von Rohr, The Covenant of Grace in Puritan Thought: AAR Studies in Religion, 45, (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 1.
[4] Ibid.
[5] John Murray. Collected Writings of John Murray, 4, (Carlisle: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1982), 217.
[6] Ibid.
[7] John Von Rohr, The Covenant of Grace in Puritan Thought: American Academy of Religion Studies in Religion, 45, (Atlanta: Scholars Press), 1986, 9.
[8] Ibid., 6.
[9] O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants, (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980), 4.
[10] David Wai-Song Wong. The Covenant Theology of John Owen. Ph.D. dissertation,
WTS, 1998, 79.
[11] Murray, 223.
[12] Murray 225.
[13] Von Rohr, 17.
[14] Von Rohr, 11.
[15] Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, III, 617.
[16] Mark W. Karlberg, The Reformed Interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant, WTJ, 43, 1, Fall 1980, 55.
[17] Ibid., 54.
[18] Weir, vii.
[19] Vos, 9.
[20] Sinclair B. Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, (Carlisle: The Banner of Truth Trust), 1995, 20.
[21] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Soteriology, II, (Hendrickson, 1999), 115.
[22] Richard A. Muller, Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation: The Study of Theology From biblical interpretation to contemporary formulation, 7, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 85-6.
[23] Geehardus Vos, The Covenant in Reformed Theology, (Philadelphia: K. M. Campbell, 1971), 5.