An Examination Of The Presuppositions
Of Covenant And Dispensational Theology
6. A General Examination of the
Presuppositions of Covenant Theology
A few have suggested that the division of redemptive history which surfaced as covenant theology developed constitute a "pre-history" of dispensationalism (Dale deWitt. "The Roots of Dispensational Theology." Truth, Vol. XXIX, #5, Feb.-March, 1980, pp. 98-102). However, this is untenable and misleading, for the divisions of history made by dispensationalists are determined by criteria far different from those of covenant theologians. For a general overview, see John Murray's article on "Covenant Theology" in The Encyclopedia of Christianity. Vol. II pp. 199-216.
6.1 The Centrality of the Covenant Idea. While the radical disjunction of Israel and the church characterizes dispensationalism, the idea of one unified covenant of grace marks covenant theology. William Hendriksen suggests that "this doctrine must become ingrained in the very fiber of our being; it must be incorporated into the very substances of all our thinking and living" (The Covenant of Grace [Baker, 1978], p. 35). Heinrich Heppe (1861) observed concerning covenant theology: "thus the concept of the foedus Dei [God's covenant] is the essence of all revealed truths . . . the Christian must regard the separate revealed truths in the light of the covenant idea, in such a way as recognizes them as a whole only in relation to that idea" (Reformed Dogmatics Set Out and Illustrated from the Sources [Baker. 1978]. pp. 43 45). "Rather than considering it [the covenant] a specific dogma or doctrine of the church." says Peter deJong. "We should regard it as a basic motif or pattern controlling and modifying various doctrines in systematic theology" ( The Covenant Idea in New England Theology 1620-1847 [Eerdmans, 1945], p. 49; cf. pp. 18, 73). Thus the Puritans "used the covenant idea in their construction of a theological system" (deJong, p. 87). There can be no question that the covenant idea still pervades the mainline Reformed denominations (cf. "Faith '80 Conference Says Church Should Focus On Covenant" Calvinist Contact, March 28. 1980. p. l ).
6.2 The Covenant of Grace Defined. Although there are slight variations, such as whether the covenant of at ace is between the Father/Son or Trinity/elect, covenant theologians are generally agreed in their description of this covenant.
John Calvin -"The covenant made with all the fathers in so far from differing from ours in reality and substance, that it is altogether one and the same: still the administration differs" (Institutes, 2:10:2).
Edmund Calamy (1600-1666) - "There are two covenants that God made with man, a covenant of nature, and a covenant of grace. The covenant of nature. or of works. was made with Adam, and all mankind in him. This covenant Adam broke, and God presently had a quarrel against him for breaking of it . . . But, after man was fallen, God was pleased to strike a covenant of grace, or of reconciliation. This was first propounded to Adam by way of promise, 'The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head'" ("Keep Covenant!," The Protestant Review, Jan., 1979. p. 34).
William Hendriksen - "This one covenant of grace [is] identical in both dispensations. . . both Old and New Testaments reveal to us one and the same covenant of grace" (Covenant of Grace, pp. 24-25).
Gordon Clark - "Hence from the fall of Adam there has been one, just one continuing covenant of grace" (First Principles, p. 483).
Lewis A Ruff, Jr. - "At the heart of covenant theology is the understanding that there is continuity between the Old and New Testaments. There is only one way of salvation for both Abraham and I because there is only one covenant of grace in all ages. We rightly emphasize this truth in exposing the errors of Dispensationalism and upholding infant baptism" ("Reformed Churches and Jewish Evangelism," Presbyterian Guardian, March, 1979, p. 3).
W. A. Brown. - summarizing covenant theology, said: "A scheme of doctrine in which the entire system . . . is expressed in terms of two covenants (of works with Adam and of grace with Christ, the second Adam)" ("Covenant Theology," Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. 4, p. 216; quoted by D. Shantz, p. l ).
While the covenant idea did not pervade Calvin's thought. it appears accurate to say that the "implications of covenant theology are present in Calvin's teaching" in E. H. Emerson, "Calvin and Covenant Theology." Church History, Vol. XXV, June, 1956, p 141; quoted by D. Shantz, p. 6). However, it may also be the case that certain emphases in Calvin were obscured as covenant theology developed (cf. Dr. R. T. Kendall. Calvin and English Calvinism [Oxford Univ. Press, 1980], 237 pages; reviewed by Carl Henry in Christianity Today, March 21. 1980. pp. 37-38).
7. General Interaction with Heinrich Heppe's Reformed Dogmatics - Set Out and Illustrated from the Sources.
By looking at relevant sections of Heppe, we can further Isolate the broad theological approach of covenant theology. Heppe collates the teachings of selected Reformed theologians during the period of roughly 1530-1700.
7.1 "The Covenant of Works and the Righteousness of the Law" (pp. 281-300). Heidegger, and others, taught that the arrangement with Adam was a "covenant of works," that is, a covenant based on the legal principle of "do this and live" (pp. 283-284). Van Mastricht used Gal. 4:24, 3:10. 3:23-24 to show that a covenant of works with Adam came before a covenant of grace. The question naturally arises, what do these verses have to do with the Adamic situation? His answer is. "If you say the apostle is speaking of a covenant not in Paradise, but the covenant at Sinai, the answer is easy, that the apostle is speaking of the covenant in Paradise so far as it is reenacted and renewed with Israel at Sinai in the Decalogue, which contained the proof of the covenant of works" (pp. 289-290). Already we must begin to ask ourselves, where is the Scriptural evidence for a covenant of works being one of the two major covenants in history?
7.2 "The violation of the Covenant of Works" (pp. 301-319). Since Adam failed to earn eternal life by the legal principle of "do this and live," God purposed to have a Mediator fulfill the requirements of the law by the "covenant of grace." "This covenant of grace," said Heppe, was not so much set up in room of the covenant of works, as added to it" (p. 316).
7.3 "The Covenant of Grace" (pp. 371-409). Before the foundation of the world, the Father and Son "concluded a pact" (p. 376, called by many Reformed theologians the "covenant of redemption") in which Christ would come and redeem the elect. The unfolding of this pre-temporal "agreement" "was at last revealed after the fall" in Gen. 3:15 (pp. 378-379, 389). From henceforth, "as regards substance the covenant of grace was at all times one and the same" (p. 391). However, "the manner and mode of proclaiming and appropriating it varied at different periods" (p. 393).
This brings us to the distinction of "old" and "new" Testaments. Heppe asserted that covenant theologians generally regarded phrases like "first covenant" and "old covenant" as referring, not to tile Mosaic covenant, but to the whole age between Adam's fall and Christ's coming (pp. 394-395). Riissen (1695) said in this regard: "the name O. T. is not restricted to the Mosaic dispensation but is extended to the entire dispensation from the actual lapse of man and the promise given to him" (p. 395). This is a very questionable handling of Scripture. To push the "old covenant" back to Eden, and make Gen. 3:15 the commencement of the "new covenant" is certainly not doing justice to the historical moments when the Scripture states those covenants were ratified (Exod. 19:8; 24:7-8; Matt. 26:28).
Since covenant theologians pushed the "old" covenant back to the Adamic "covenant of works," a problem was encountered with the nature of the actual Mosaic covenant. Was it too a "covenant of works," or essentially a "covenant of grace"? Although there was some dissent among covenant theologians (p. 395). the majority agreed with Riissen: "we deny that it [Mosaic covenant] constituted a third covenant, and we insist that there was nothing else than a fresh administration of the covenant of grace, so that in actual substance it is the same as the covenant entered into with Abraham" (p. 399).
To say that the Mosaic covenant was "the same" as the Abrahamic covenant destroys the argument of Paul in Gal. 3:11-29. Paul's point is clear: though the law was "added" to the Abrahamic promise, and was not opposed to the promise its legal foundation was indeed different ("do this and live") than the Abrahamic covenant ("the just live by faith").
When history arrives at the Mosaic covenant, the "one covenant of grace" notion runs into a serious problem. Covenant theology is forced to talk out of both sides of its mouth, and assert a rather dubious proposition: the Mosaic covenant looks like a covenant of works, but in reality it is a covenant of grace.
Heidegger - "That by the same covenant of grace which he had previously made with Abraham, renewed at Sinai . . . donning the appearance of a covenant of works" (p. 398).
Riissen - "it is the same as the covenant entered into with Abraham .... clothed as to outward administration in the form of a covenant of works" (p. 399).
Alting - (1687) "The covenant of Sinai is of grace, the same as that With Abraham" (pp. 407-408). This tension will be further explored as we interact with H. Witsius' The Oeconomy of the Covenants Between God and Man.
8. SPECIFIC INTERACTION WITH HERMAN WITSIUS' OECONOMY OF THE COVENANTS (1685; New York: 1798; Vol. 1)
While Witsius confesses at the outset of his work that a man should not set forth "anything he is not firmly persuaded is contained" in Scripture concerning covenants. I believe he dogmatized in many crucial areas where the Bible does not speak, or does speak as opposed to his position.
8.1 The Two Primary Covenants in Scripture. Witsius asserted that "we find two covenants of God with man in Scripture: the covenant of works . . . and the covenant of grace" (p. 56). He then cites Rom. 3:27 as proof that a covenant of works ("do this and live") came before a covenant of grace ("whoever believes"). Where does the Bible teach that these are the two covenants between God and man?
8.2 The Covenant of Works. The covenant of works, Witsius said. was related to the principle of "do this and live." Thus, the "condition" of this covenant was "to be performed by man himself" (p. 57). In this covenant man is considered as working, and "man's glorying [in himself] is not excluded" (p. 57). In the covenant of grace, on the other hand. man is considered as believing, "which excludes all boasting" (p 57). He related Adam's working to Lev. 18:5 and Deut. 27:26 (p 59). Witsius made the baffling statement that in this pre-fall covenant of works, "there was no room for redemption, yet there was for salvation and eternal life" (p. 64). Is it Biblical to assert that Adam would have "earned" his own "salvation" by works had he obeyed God?
8.3 "Of the Law, or Condition of the Covenant of Works" (p. 72 ff.). Since the covenant of works is connected with the Mosaic terminology, "do this and live," the door is opened to posit that what Adam was "under" corresponded "in substance with what is expressed in the decalogue, being, what the apostle calls, the commandment which is unto life" (p. 76). Somehow, then, the Ten Commandments were "undoubtedly the law proposed to Adam, upon which the covenant of works was built" (p. 76). A question I have at this point is this: if Adam was ignorant of good and evil in his pre-fall condition, what sense does it make to allege that the "substance" of the Ten Words (which presuppose the existence of sin) was "proposed" to Adam? Further, this perspective does no justice to the appearance of the Decalogue in history, which Paul pinpoints in Rom. 5:13-14: "for until the law sin was in the world .... death reigned from Adam to Moses."
Witsius believed that the law given to Adam reflected "the most holy nature of God Himself" (p. 80). Since he related the Decalogue to this, just how does the Sabbath commandment reflect God's essential holiness?
Witsius said that Rom. 7:10, "the commandment ordained to life." refers to the covenant of works when Adam was in innocency (p. 92). Even though it is clear that Paul has in view the Mosaic administration as addressed to sinners. Witsius stated that a "commandment ordained unto life" can refer only to a pre-fall situation (p. 93).
8.4 The Covenant of Grace (p. 217 ff.). After the fall, a "new covenant of grace" was instituted by God. As textual support, Witsius cited Heb. 8:13, "he says, new, he makes the first old" (p. 217). Feeling sonic inappropriateness about the relevance of this text. Witsius immediately added, "it is indeed true, that the apostle, in that place, does not speak precisely of the covenant of works, but of the old economy of the covenant of grace .... Yet we properly build on his reasoning," for every new covenant supposes the abrogation of an old one (pp. 217-218). Is this a careful handling of the Word of God? Does this not point to the great lengths one must go in order to "fit" Scripture into a system?
The covenant of grace, then, "is an agreement between God and the elect sinner" after the fall (p. 226). It is based on the "compact between God the Father and the Son" in eternity (p. 226). Witsius saw three periods of this "pact": (1) "Its commencement is to be sought in the eternal counsel of the adorable Trinity" (p. 244): (2) "the second period of this covenant I place in that intercession of Christ, by which, immediately upon the fall of man, he offered himself to God . . . actually to perform those things" (p. 245; where does the Scripture teach this sentiment?); (3) "the third period Of that compact is that, when, on his assuming human nature, he suffered his ears to be bored" ( p. 246).
8.5 "Of the Oneness of the Covenant of Grace, As To Its Substance" (p. 411 ff). Witsius proposed to look at the things which are the same in every age, "and shell explain the different oeconomies, or dispensations, and the new accessions to each" (p. 412).
8.6 "Of the Different Oeconomies, or Dispensations of the Covenant of Grace" (p. 434 ff.). The "two principal heads" of the history of redemption are the Old and New Testaments (p. 434). Obviously, the N.T. means by these designations the Mosaic covenant (Old) and the covenant ratified by Christ's blood (New). However, this simplicity must be clouded in covenant theology. Why? Because to them the "Old Covenant" came to include everything after the fall until the coming of Christ. "We begin the economy of the Old Testament immediately upon the fall and the first promise of grace, and end it in Christ" (p. 437). Witsius boldly stated that this idea was founded on Scripture: "nor do we speak without Scripture, when we reckon all that time which followed frond the fall to the coming of Christ. to the Old or former Testament. For this we have the apostle's authority" in Heb. 9:15, "he is the mediator of the new covenant . . . for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant" (p. 439). Thus, the "first testament" included four ages (1. from Adam to Noah; 2. Noah to Abraham; 3. Abraham to Moses; 4. Moses to Christ; pp. 443-446). I trust that you are struck with the arbitrariness of this reasoning. The writer of Hebrews certainly meant the Mosaic covenant, and nothing else, when he said "first covenant" in Heb. 9:15 (cf. 9:18-19). Yet the covenant of works/covenant of grace structure forces covenant theologians to be insensitive to the concrete moments in history when the specific covenants mentioned in Scripture were "cut."
Further, Witsius pushed back the "yoke" and "burden" of the Mosaic economy to those in the patriarchal age. "That covenant [Mosaic] . . . was also entered into with the ancient patriarchs" (pp. 454, 459). But Paul states that the Mosaic law was "added" at a specific time in history to the Abrahamic promise (Gal. 3:17).
When Witsius treated Jer. 31:32 and Gal 4:24, which both speak of an "old" covenant, he, as must be expected, came up with two Old Testaments: "the first institution of the Old Testament is not treaded of in these places, but the solemn renewal and confirmation of it" (p. 456).
The overriding feature which struck me as I considered Witsius' formulation of covenant theology is his absolute disregard for the plain statements of Scripture, and invention of things not stated in Scripture. Everything is swallowed up in the covenant of works covenant of grace presupposition. These are asserted to be the two primary covenants of Scripture, and yet the Scriptural "evidences" presented is twisted and strained. If these two covenant are so important in structuring a Biblical theology, should not the textual evidence for them be perspicuous?
9. Some Tension Points in Covenant Theology
Having looked at the backbone of covenant theology, I wish now to examine some tension points which surfaced in my study of covenant theology. If the presupposed covenant of works/covenant of grace foundation is shaky, then it is natural for problems to arise in the building erected upon it.
9.1 The Covenant of Grace and Historical Covenants. It is my contention that viewing the covenant of works/covenant of grace as the primary covenants is Scripture has had the effect of dehistoricizing the covenants revealed in the Bible as "cut." This occurs because the covenant of grace is a post-fall, yet a-historical covenant, which is said to be variously administrated in the historical covenants (cf. my "is There A 'Covenant of Grace'?." BRR, Vol. 7. #3, 1977, pp. 43-53). In this system, then, it is impossible to do justice to the "covenants of promise" (Eph. 2:12; Rom. 9:4) which were "cut" in history, because they are all flattened out, being contemplated as "various administrations of the one covenant of grace." To emphasize this, consider what two contemporary covenant theologians have said:
The two primary covenants are: Covenant of Works (or Creation): the promise of God is life for Adam and his posterity . . . Covenant of Grace (or salvation): the promise of God is life and salvation through Jesus Christ for all who believe (Dr. Jack Fennema, "Growth in the Lord," Calvinist Contact, March 3, 1978, p. 2).
The advocates of Covenant theology reject 'this common belief in two basic covenants' and hold that the really basic covenant is the one covenant of grace. It is found throughout the Old and New Testaments . . . The two halves of the Bible should be regarded not as separate covenants made by God with mankind, but as records of the way in which the one covenant was administrated in two different ways for necessary reasons (J. G. Vos, Blue Banner Faith and Life. April-June, 1978, p. 29).
Can these truth claims be sustained by careful exegesis?
If, as Dr. Gordon Clark suggests, "a Christian theologian should use Biblical terms in their Biblical meaning," is it valid to take the covenant concept and employ it as a theological catch-all without careful regard for how the word "covenant" is employed in Scripture? Check the Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance (pp. 272, 274, 618-619), and the Englishman's Greek Concordance (p. 144). and see if "covenant" is ever used to designate something that is not ratified in history.
The covenant implies a covenant occasion in which the contract between God and man was actually established in space and time . . The covenant is established in historical occurrences that can be recorded, commemorated and renewed (The Problem of Wineskins, p. 104).
It seems to me that an objective examination of the Biblical data reveals one eternal purpose (counsel) of God in Christ (Eph. 3:11; et al.) and a plurality of historical covenants (Eph. 2;11; Rom. 9:4). It is Christ who gives meaning and continuity to all the covenants (Rom. 15:8). In Heb. 13:20, the new covenant is called "everlasting." This indicates both the historical moment of that covenant ("blood"), and the consumatory nature of that covenant (it will never be superseded by another covenant, hence "everlasting"). Read John Murray's The Covenant of Grace. His biblical-theological study led him to see in Scripture a plurality of covenants (p. 26) culminating in the finality of the new covenant (pp. 28, 31-32). He nowhere found in the Bible "one covenant of grace" variously administrated. To be sure, in his other writings he states that such a covenant exists. But he did not find it as a result of his study with the title, The Covenant of Grace. Here, he uses the phrase "covenant grace," but never "the covenant of grace."
Also, read H. Buis's article on "Biblical Covenants" in the Encyclopedia of Christianity, Vol. II, pp. 219-229. Is it not passing strange - if the covenant of works/covenant of grace are the two main Biblical covenants - that this study of Biblical covenants never once mentions them as being revealed in Scripture?
Dr. R. J. Rushdoony rightly observes that a covenant is "cut" in history ("Covenant, law, grace, and antinomianism." Chalcedon Position Paper #11, March, 1980). We must ask, "Where was the covenant of grace cut in history?" Where does the Bible teach about an a-historical covenant of grace which hovers above history, and is the same in "substance" in all the historical covenants? Scripture moves from an eternal purpose in Christ to historical covenants. Covenant theology moves from an eternal covenant, to an a-historical covenant of grace, and then to historical administrations of this covenant of grace.
Douglas Shantz says that "covenant divisions are not as arbitrary as dispensational divisions" ("Baptists and Covenant Theology," p. 24). I disagree, My study would lead me to conclude that the categories articulated by covenant theologians are, in the final analysis, just as arbitrary and confusing as those in dispensationalism (cf. 7.3, 8.6 above).
9.2 The Covenant of Grace and the Trinity. Covenant theology pushed the covenant concept back into the deliberations of the Father, Son, and Spirit. This is usually called the "covenant of grace" is based.
It seems to me that covenant theology ended up with a bi-lateral covenant, and some unhealthy statements about the reason why the Word was made flesh.
9.2.a A Bi-lateral Covenant of Redemption. While on occasion the involvement of the Trinity is alluded to (Witsius, p. 399) in the covenant of redemption, usually it is presented as a bi-lateral "compact" between the Father and Son (cf. Shantz, p. 3; Heppe, p. 376; Witsius, pp. 226-227, 397; John Owen, Works, Vol. 10, p. 168; deJong, pp. 53-54; Clark, p. 461). "The covenant of our salvation," says E. W. Johnson, "is not a bi-lateral contract between the Father and Son. It is a unilateral contract made by the persons of the eternal Trinity: (Sovereign Grace Message, Sept., 1971, p. 2). While covenant theology obviously wishes to be Trinitarian, their "covenant of redemption" issues in confusion at this point. Why is the Holy Spirit, practically speaking, usually omitted in discussions pertaining to the "eternal purpose"? Also, in some cases, this pre-tempiral covenant concept elicits some vary dubious language. For example, Gordon Clark states: "For Christ the Covenant of Redemption was a Covenant of Works" p. 468).
9.2.b Reason For the Son Coming As Mediator. I believe that in discussing the pre-temporal relationship of Father and Son, covenant theologians kept talking when they should have put their hands over their mouths and remained silent. Through asserting the equality of the Father and Son, there is a marked tendency for the system to result in a pre-temporal subordination of the Son. For example, John Gill stated that in the pre-temporal "council," the Father was greater than the Son, not just with reference to His assumption of human nature in the economy of redemption, but with reference to their essential "nature": "this economy . . . of the covenant, thus settled in subordination among themselves by agreement and consent, is done with great propriety . . . suitable to their natural relations they bear to each other, as equal divine persons; for who so proper to be the proposer of terms in the covenant, to direct and prescribe them, and to exercise a kind of authority, as He who is the first person in order of nature, and that stands in the relation of a Father to the second person" (Body of Divinity, Vol. I Book II, p.313).
And why was the Word chosen as the suitable Mediator? Gill, Thomas Goodwin and H. Wisius all assert that Christ is the Mediator of God and men because He stood as the middle person between Father and Spirit in the Trinity.
John Gill - "The fitness of Christ for his work and office, as the Mediator of the covenant; since a mediator was necessary, and he must be one of the divine persons in the Trinity; the Son of God being the middle Person in it, seems most proper and suitable to preserve the order, name, and place of the persons in it: it does not seem so decent, that the first Person should be a Mediator to the second; but rather, since, as Dr. Goodwin expresses it, the suit of trespass was commenced, and ran in the name of the Father, of the first Person for the rest . . . and since it was proper that the Mediator should become the son of man . . . it seems most agreeable that he who is the Son of God, should become the Son of man . . . and for the first or third Person to become a Mediator between God and Man, does not seem so becoming, as he who is the second or middle Person among them" (p. 333).
Thomas Goodwin - "Of the three persons in the Godhead, the Son is the fittest to be mediator . . . If we consider the relations of the three persons among themselves, [the Son] is of all the fittest to undertake this work . . . He that was to be mediator it was meet he should be the Son of man, the son of a woman as his mother . . . and this title and appellation will fitliest become him that is a Son (though of God) already . . . It was meet that the Son of God should be this mediator, that the due order that is between these three persons be also kept. The Father is the first, the Son second, the Holy Ghost the third; and he that is to be mediator must be called to it, and sent by another person, therefore the Father is not to be mediator; for both the Son and the Holy Ghost being from the Father in subsisting, are not to send the Father, who is the first . . . He being the middle person of the three, bears the best resemblance of the work, to be a mediator, to come between for us, to the other two . . . He was from the Father, and the Holy Ghost from him, and it is he in whom, as it were, the other two are united, and are one, and so he is able to lay hands on both . . . as for one and the same person to be both God and man was a middle rank between God and us men; so it is Son of God and middle person between the persons themselves" (Christ Our Mediator, 1692, pp. 41-42).
H. Witsius - "As the second person alone is the Son, and our salvation consists in adoption, was it not proper, that the Son of God should become the Son of man?" (Oeconomy, p. 277).
Where does the Scripture reveal this rationale for why the Word was made flesh? It would be my judgment that their elaborations of the "covenant of redemption" caused them to bring the proper subordination of the Son in the historical economy of salvation into the pre-temporal Trinitarian relationship.
The verse that has been used in a confusing manner in this regard is Psalm 2:7 - "I will declare the decree; the Lord has said to me, you are my Son; this day I have begotten you." This verse has been used with reference to an eternal relationship of Father and Son (cf. Heppe. p. 120). However, it is clear that the verse itself refers to a decree to be realized in history, not to an eternal relationship. Further, the N. T. quotes this verse several times (Acts 13:33: Heb. 1:4-5). In these places, Ps. 2:7 is clearly referenced to the historical manifestation (and, more pointedly, to the resurrection) of Christ, not to the eternal relationship of Father and son. R. C. H. Lenski noted on Acts 13:33:
The passage occurring in the Psalm does not speak of the generatio aeterna, not of the inner Trinitarian relation of the two Persons, not of eternity but of time (Interpretation of Acts. p. 538).
The verses used to substantiate an eternal subordination of the Son in fact refer to the relationship of the Trinity in the outworking of redemption in history (cf. Heppe, pp. 118-121). Verses that relate to God's action in history are wrongly applied to the pre temporal relationship of the Trinity. It is of critical importance to distinguish between the pre-temporal (metaphysical) relationship and the economic (historical) relationship of the Trinity. Ps. 2:7 falls in the latter category; a verse like John 17:5b falls in the former category.
9.3 The Covenant of Grace and Church/State Union. Historically, covenant theology has been connected with the idea of a "Christian state," or "holy commonwealth" (cf. Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, and Anatomy of A Hybrid; J. Zens, "'More of Cromwell, Less of Gurnall'?," BRR, Vol. 8, #1, pp. 20-32; W. B. Selbie, "The Influence of the Old Testament On Puritanism," BRR, Vol. 8, #3, pp. 13-24). Some contemporary men, such as Drs. R. J. Rushdoony and Greg Bahnsen, are calling for covenant theologians to evidence consistency by returning to the strong "holy commonwealth" ideals of the Westminster Assembly (cf. Bahnsen, "God's Law and Gospel Prosperity: A Reply to the Editor of the Presbyterian Journal," pp. 10-12, 29).
The Reformers and the Puritans, unfortunately, believed it was justifiable to employ the sword in the maintenance of "true religion." The O. T. had to be their textbook in this regard (deJong, p. 80: "much of the political theory of the Puritans was derived directly from the Old Testament:). H. Bullinger, Zwingli's assistant, was typical of their attitude when he said: "the Christian emperors a 1000 years ago were right to appoint capital punishment for those who should spread new dogma and teach different things with insult to God [about the Trinity]" (quoted by Heppe, p.105).
While developed covenant theology came to believe that church and state should be separate in principle, "in practice this did not happen" (deJong, p. 79). DeJong sees the rejection of the "theocratic ideal which had inspired the first [New England] fathers" as a significant contributing factor to the decline of Calvinism (p. 9).
John Warwick Montgomery seems to pinpoint the connection of the one covenant concept and church/state union:
The most influential factor in creating a legalistic tone in Puritanism was doubtless the Calvinist stress on a single covenant in Scripture . . . which elevated the Old Testament to a position of great prominence in Puritan theology. Old Testament laws were indiscriminately applied to New Testament situations (cf. Earle's detailed work, The Sabbath in Puritan New England) . . . Puritan-Calvinist preoccupation with the history of salvation in the Old Testament gave a special cast to the New England colonists' western dream . . . consistent with their Old Testament interests, they went on to identify themselves with Israel, reading their own history as the story of a new Chosen People (The Shaping of America [Bethany, 1976], pp. 44-45).
9.4 The Covenant of Grace and Infant Baptism. Historically, the one covenant of grace has been the most-employed argument by covenant theologians to justify infant baptism: "the doctrine of the covenant of grace is the strongest argument for infant baptism" (J. G. Vos, Blue Banner Faith and Life, April-June, 1978, p. 29); "it is precisely because there is such evidence of the perpetual operation of this gracious principle in the administration of God's covenant that we baptize infants. It is for that reason alone that we continue to baptize them" (John Murray, Christian Baptism, p. 71). Since explicate exegetical evidence for infant baptism is non-existent (cf. G. Bromiley, Children of Promise, pp. 105, 107), pedobaptists must resort to their a-historical covenant of grace. "Because," they say, "children were included in the old administration of the covenant of grace, we have all the reason to believe that children are included in the new administration of the covenant of grace."
This is clearly John Calvin's line of reasoning. "The covenant made with all the fathers in so far from differing from ours in reality and substance, that it is altogether one and the same: still the administration differs . . . If the covenants remains firm and fixed, it is no less applicable to the children of Christians in the present day, than to the children of the Jews under the Old Testament" (Institutes; 2.10.2, 4.16.5). To withhold baptism from an infant of Christian parents brings dreadful consequences, which Calvin found in the provision for those who failed to circumcise their children; "God will take vengeance on every one who despises to impress the symbol of the covenant on his child (Gen. 17:14)" (Institutes; 4.16.9). Thus, for Calvin, the idea of one covenant with two administrations "served especially to maintain the place of infants in the church" (deJong, p. 22). Zwingli, too, saw the idea of one covenant "as one of the outstanding arguments in favor of infant baptism" (deJong, p. 23).
Not a few Baptists have virtually capitulated to infant baptism upon a consideration of the "one covenant of grace variously administered." That is why it is absolutely imperative for Calvinistic Baptists to think through this matter. Is the covenant of works/covenant of grace theological structured exegetically tenable or not?
9.5 The Covenant of Grace and "Conditions." There were varying ideas among covenant theologians as to whether the covenant of grace was "conditional" (upon faith and repentance) or "unconditional" (cf. Shantz, pp. 3-4). Here, I simply wish to point out my judgment that in Puritanism the emphasis came to fall on the "conditions" (cf. William K. B. Stoever, 'A Fair and Easie Way to Heaven' - Covenant Theology and Antinomianism in Early Massachusetts [Wesleyan Univ. Press, 1978], "The Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace," p. 97 ff,; Dr. R. T. Kendall, "Assurance and Sanctification" [taped message]; and Norman Pettit, The Heart Prepared [Yale Univ. Press, 1966]). The idea of "entering into covenant" with God was accompanied by such ideas as putting oneself in the "way of grace," the "probability" of success in conversion with proper use of the "means of grace," and "striving against our corruption" while seeking salvation (cf. Stoever, pp. 105-106).
Iain Murray insists that in all of this the Puritans were not "reviving the idea of human ability in salvation" ("Thomas Hooker and the Doctrine of Conversion (3)," Banner of Truth, Feb., 1980, p. 17). The Puritans clearly intended to maintain human inability in salvation. But their emphasis on "means" and "striving" also clearly intended and communicated more than just the duty of men to believe the gospel. Consider the following remarks by Joseph Alleine, John Flavel and George Whitefield. Judge for yourself whether of not the effects of such teaching would open the door wide for misunderstanding the place of human activity in the salvation process.
Joseph Alleine - "Being thus prepared, on some convenient time set apart for the purpose, enter upon the work, and solemnly, as in the presence of the Lord, fall down on your knees and spreading forth your hands towards heaven open your heart to the Lord in these, or the like words: [a prayer three pages long follows] . . . This covenant I advise you to make, not only in heart, but in word; not only in word, but in writing; and that you would with all possible reverence spread the writing before the Lord, as if you would present it to Him as your act and deed. And when you have done this, set your hand to it and sign it. Keep it as a memorial of the solemn transactions that have passed between God and you, that you may have recourse to it in doubts and temptations" (Alarm To The Unconverted [1671; Banner of Truth, 1976], pp. 117-120).
John Flavel - "Objection: But you have told us that no sinner can open his own heart, nor bow his own will to Christ? Answer: True, he cannot convert himself, but he may do many things in order to it, and which have a tendency to it, which he does not do . . . If it be not in your power to open your heart to Christ, it is in your power to forbear the external acts of sin, which set your heart the more against Christ . .. Objection: [After all our striving] we may be Christless and hopeless when all is done. Answer: But yet remember, God may bless these weak endeavors, and give you his Almighty Spirit with them: nay, it is highly probable that he will do so; and is a strong probability nothing with you?" (Christ Knocking At the Door of Sinners' Hearts, pp. 58, 60).
George Whitefield - "Wait therefore at Wisdom's gates. The bare probability of having a door of mercy opened, is enough to keep you striving . . . You know not but you may be in the number of those few, and that your striving may be the means which God intends to bless, to give you an entrance in . . . For though after you have done all that you can, God may justly cut you off. Yet never was a single person damned who did all that he could" (Memories of George Whitefield, John Gillies [1834], sermon on John 16:8, p. 418).
The elements of Alleine's remarks ("sinner's prayer," signing a document, and looking to that document in times of doubt) parallel contemporary Arminianism, often castigated by the Calvinists. Yet we are told in the prefatory remarks to Alarm that "here, we have no hesitation in saying, are the principles which must be present in any true presentation of the Gospel." I believe contemporary Calvinists need to read such material with great discernment.
9.6 The Covenant of Grace and Law. The doctrine of the covenant also served to emphasize "the importance of the decalogue for the Christian life" (deJong, P. 22). According to covenant theology, the "substance" of the decalogue was present from Adam onwards (cf. 8.3 above). Thus, in this system, "the law, from the beginning, has been a means of grace" (E. Kevan, The Law of God in Christian Experience - Bible Readings Given At the Keswick Conference, July, 1955 [London, 1955], p. 48).
I suggest that this approach fails to do justice to the centrality of Christ in ethics (cf. "'This Is My Beloved Son . . . Hear Him,'" BRR, Vol. 7, #4, pp. 15-52). At this point, I wish to make several pointed observations about covenant theology's view of law in Christian experience.
9.6.a First, Witsius made the following remarks about the Ten Commandments: "all prescription of duty belongs to the law . . . [in the teaching of Christ and the apostles] there is a certain mixture of various doctrines . . . each of which ought to be reduced to their proper heads, so that the promises of grace be referred to the gospel, all injunctions of duty . . . to the law" (pp. 407, 411). Does this hard and fast distinction reflect sensitivity to the N. T. ethical perspective? Is it not the case that in the N. T. duties are pressed upon believers because of their relationship to the grace of Christ in the gospel? (Cf. my "Believer's Rule of Life," BRR, Vol. 8, #4, p. 16). "Love one another, even as I have loved you," is the starting point of Christian ethics. "Under grace," duty flows out of union with Christ. In Witsius scheme, the gospel is said absolutely not to prescribe duty; only the law is granted this function. But how contrary this is to N. T. teaching (cf. C. H. Dod, Gospel and Law [New York, 1951]. "Principles and Motives of Christian Ethics in the New Testament," pp. 25-45)! Because everything is subsumed under the one covenant of grace, covenant theology has not done justice to the new demand that obtains with the coming of Christ. The command to love is old; the command to love as it is connected to the decisive redemptive event of the cross is new (John 13:34-35; 15:12-13). Patric Fairbarin said that the Law is the "special instrument . . . for keeping alive in men's souls a sense of duty" (Revelation of Law in Scripture, p. 289). Will such a statement stand the test of N. T. exegesis? Ethics in covenant theology has been oriented around Moses, not Christ.
9.6.b Secondly, covenant theology puts the believer in a tension of being both "under law" and "not under law." Samuel Bolton put it like this: "The law sends us to the Gospel that we may be justified; and the Gospel sends us to the law again to inquire what is our duty as those who are justified . . . It is a hard lesson to live above the law, and yet walk according to the law . . . to walk in the law in respect of duty, but to live above it in respect of comfort" (True Bonds of Christian Freedom, pp. 71, 219, 220). Where does the N. T. teach all of this? I submit that (1) this places the Christian in a position God has never intended for him: and (2) that this is contrary to the N. T. teaching on sanctification. On the one hand, covenant theology tells us that the law promotes transgression, stirs up sin, brings death, and cannot be the means of sanctification (Kevan, pp. 30, 38., 49, 77). Yet, on the other hand, we are told that "grace is more commanding than law," "that it is a mark of spiritual infancy . . . to be under law." and that in sanctification we are left "within the law as a rule of life" (Kevan, pp. 66, 59, 68).
I am not in any way denying the usefulness of the Mosaic commands in the Christian life. But these commands come to us through Christ. Perhaps the following diagram will help illustrate my point.
|
OLD EXODUS |
NEW EXODUS |
|
(Moses, Mediator) |
(Christ, Mediator) |
|
Redemptive Event: |
Redemptive Event: |
|
Moral Demand: |
Moral Demand: |
The N. T. uses the O. T. freely 92 Tim. 3:16). But the O. T. is not viewed in isolation from the consummation of redemptive history in the New Covenant (cf. "Believer's Rule of Life," p. 19). When Christ said, "if you love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15), He did not mean, "keep all the old covenant commandments"; He meant that our attention was to be fixed on His commandments (cf. D. M. Canright, "What Law Are Christians Under," BRR, Vol. 9, #1, pp. 11-13; cf. Walter Chantry, Today's Gospel: Authentic or Synthetic?, pp. 40-41, were he equates Christ's commandments with the Ten Commandments). In our sanctification, we are "in-law to Christ" (1 Cor. 9:210, and are enabled to "fully fulfill (anaplerosete) the law of Christ" (Gal. 6:2).
9.6.c Thirdly, covenant theology allows for no other means of conviction than the Ten Commandments. "It is the law that brings conviction of sin" (Kevan, p. 40). "Our Savior used the law as a primary tool of evangelism. He knew that preaching the Ten Commandments was the only way to teach a sinner his guilt and thereby stir within him a desire for God's grace" (Walter Chantry, Today's Gospel, p. 39; emphasis mine). We have already seen that covenant theology rules out the gospel's ability to press duty; now we see that the gospel is denied the power to produce conviction. Covenant theology dogmatically asserts that law must be preached before gospel (cf. Charles Bridges, The Christian Ministry, pp. 222-238).
But we must ask some questions. Are the Ten Commandments the "only way" to teach sinners their guilt? Apparently not, for Paul specifically said that when he was among Gentiles his evangelistic method was "with law" (1 Cor, 9:21). He nowhere used the Ten Commandments with Gentiles to convince them of sin. There is no evidence of this in the brief sermons addressed to Gentiles that are recorded in Acts 14:15-17 and 17:23-31. Rather, as can be seen in Rom. 1, his starting point was general revelation. Furthermore, even the use of the O. T. special revelation in Acts does not reveal the use of the Ten Commandments to drive men to Christ. Rather, Christ in all of His offices is proclaimed (Acts 17:2-3; 26:22-23).
If "law-preaching" is essential, as the Puritans asserted it is, why do we not find any examples of this method in Acts? Would we not expect something so allegedly crucial to be clearly revealed in apostolic preaching? But, as F. F. Bruce observes, "there is no evidence that Paul ever used the law in this way" (Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, p. 192).
Does the N. T. teach that the law is the only medium of sin-conviction? John 16:8-11 is admittedly the most important passage concerning Holy Spirit conviction. George Smeaton said of it: "the most conclusive passage on the Spirit's work in connection with conversion in the whole compass of Scripture," After studying this passage extensively, I can see nowhere the teaching that the Spirit will take law-preaching and drive men to Christ. I have found no commentator who finds the exclusive use of the law by the Spirit in this text. Rather, as Leon Morris notes: "it should not be overlooked that all three aspects of the work of the Holy Spirit dealt with in these verses are interpreted Christologically. Sin, righteousness and judgment are all to be understood because of the way they relate to Christ" (Commentary on John, p. 699). Thus James Buchanan said about this passage in his book on the Holy Spirit: "it may be safely affirmed that it is by the Spirit's witness to Christ that he is first brought to see the magnitude of his guilt . . . Christ's exaltation . . . is sufficient . . . to carry home conviction of sin."
Walter Chantry says: "until this moralist [the rich young ruler] could see his soul in the light of God's law, he was unprepared for the Gospel . . . [When pulpits proclaim the law] you also discover churches with convicted sinners prepared to hear the way of salvation" (Today's Gospel, pp. 38, 46). Does the N. T. divide sinners into the categories of "prepared" and "unprepared" with reference to hearing the gospel? Was the Philippian jailor "prepared" for the imperative to "believe" by Ten Commandment preaching? Who determines when a man is "sufficiently" convicted by the law so as to be "fit" for advancing on to the gospel (cf. 9.5 above)? Where in the N. T. is Ten Commandment preaching presented as a necessary prerequisite which "prepares" men for the "message of salvation"?
I believe that the dogmatism regarding "law-preaching" must be re-examined in the light of Scripture. Binding the consciences of preachers (who wish to be faithful in their ministries) and sinners (who may sit under the Word) to the absolute necessity of Ten Commandment preaching elicits a type of bondage because such a method is out of line with the N. T. data.
The Puritans took this matter of "law-preaching" very seriously, as the following quote from John Owen demonstrates:
What is necessary to be found in us antecedaneously to our believing unto the justification of life? . . . there is supposed in them in whom this faith is wrought . . . the work of the law in conviction of sin . . . that which any man hath first to deal withal . . . is the law . . . Without this the gospel cannot be understood, nor the grace of it duly valued . . . the faith which we treat of being evangelical . . . cannot be acted by us, but on a supposition of the work and effect of the law . . . And that faith which hath not respect hereunto, we absolutely deny to be that faith whereby we are justified, Gal. 3:22-24; Rom. 10:4 (Justification, pp. 74-76).
Will the N. T. sustain such a strict opinion? In light of the truth claims made by Owen, we need to be clear in this matter.