Nov-2014 part
-
Upload
dave-teevee -
Category
Documents
-
view
225 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Nov-2014 part
Editor’s Notes
Youhaveinyourhandsthefirstissueofvolume48oftheProtes-tant Reformed Theological Journal.Webeginourforty-eighthyearofpublicationgratefultoGodfortheopportunitytocontinuetopublishourseminary’sfree-of-chargejournal,whichputssolid,thoughtful,scholarlyarticlesandbookreviewsinthehandsofourreaders. With some regularity theReformers attended colloquies. Acolloquywasatheologicalconferenceatwhichsignificantdoctrinalissueswerediscussed—doctrinalissuesoverwhichtherewasoftendifferenceofopinion.Theaimofthecolloquieswastheresolutionofthesedifferences,althoughthisaimwasnotalwaysachieved.Onesignificantcolloquycomestomind:theMarburgColloquyof1529,whichendedwithoutLutherandZwinglicomingtoagreementontheissueofChrist’spresenceintheLord’sSupper.ThispastsummertheProtestantReformedChurchesinAmerica(PRCA)andtheEvangelicalPresbyterianChurchofAustralia(EPCA)heldacolloquy—atheolog-icalconference.ThePRCAandtheEPCAareina“CorrespondingRelationship.”Thepurposeoftheconferencewasmutualencourage-mentinareasofagreement,aswellasdiscussioninareaswherethereisdisagreement.ThemainthemeoftheconferencewasthedoctrineofGod’scovenant.WeareindebtedtothefourmainspeakersattheconferenceforsubmittingthewrittenmanuscriptsoftheirspeechesforpublicationinthisissueofPRTJ. Thearticlescallattentiontoimportantareasofagreement—thecentralityofthecovenantinReformedtheology,thecovenantarisingoutoftheintra-trinitarianlifeofGod,theessenceofthecovenantasabondoffriendshipandfellowship,theunilateralcharacterofthecov-enant,andtheplaceofthechildrenofbelieversinthecovenant.Thearticlesalsoaddressareasofdisagreement.Onewell-knownareaofdisagreementistheEPCA’spermittingtheremarriageofthe“innocentparty”afterdivorceorthosewhohavebeenfaithlesslydeserted,inlinewiththeteachingoftheWestminsterConfessionofFaith(24.5,6).ThisistheissuetreatedinProf.Dykstra’sarticle. EPCApastor, theRev.DavidTorlach,presentsaratheruniqueexplanationoftheso-calledcovenantofworks—anexplanationthat
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 12
iswithintheboundsoftheWestminsterConfessionofFaithandis,atthesametime,distinctfromthetraditional(objectionable)cove-nantofworksviewpopularamongmostPresbyterianandReformedtheologians. Although thePRCAholds to a covenantwithAdampriortothefall,weprefernottodescribethiscovenantasacovenantofworks,nortospeakofcovenant“conditions,”sincethistermhasbeensomisused.Inaddition,wewoulddifferwithRev.Torlach’spresentationofthecovenantatSinaiasthecovenantofworksandthecovenantofworkscontinuingtobeineffectstilltoday. At thesametime, itmustnotbeoverlookedthatRev.TorlachrejectsallpossibilityofAdam’smeritingwithGod.HeinsiststhatGod’scovenantwasnotamutualagreementbetweenGodandAdam,butratherthatAdamwascreatedincovenantwithGod.AndherejectsthenotionthatAdamcouldhaveearnedahigherlifeorrighteousnesswithGod.AllthatAdamcoulddobyhisobedienceinthegardenwastocontinuetoliveinthestateofrighteousnessinwhichhehadbeencreated.Ifoneinsistsonmaintainingthecovenantofworks,andwillyetbeReformed,thesepositionsmustbemaintained.AndRev.Torlachgoesbeyondthis,byinsistingthatChristandthecovenantofgracewerenotasecondoption,anafterthoughtmadenecessarybyAdam’sfallintosin;rather,GodhadeternallypurposedChristandthecovenantofgracewiththeelect.Tothat,weaddahearty“Amen!” And,don’tforgetthebookreviews.Solid,insightfulreviewsofrecentlypublishedbooksthatdealwiththeissuesoftheday—FederalVision,justificationbyfaithalone,thetwokingdomscontroversy,theconditionalcovenant,andmore.IncludedisaveryfavorablereviewofonewhosearticlesandtranslationshaveappearedfrequentlyonthepagesofPRTJ.IrefertoDr.EugeneHeideman’sreviewof1834: Hendrik de Cock’s Return to the True Church,byMarvinKamps. Thankstoallourcontributorsandbookreviewers. Now,dearreaders,enjoy!
SoliDeoGloria!—RLC
November 2014 3
The Covenant and the ConfessionsNathan Decker
Introduction NearanddeartotheheartsofGod’speopleisthebiblicaltruthofGod’scovenant.ConsiderationofthedoctrineofGod’scovenantleadsustocontemplatetheveryheartoftheworkofGod’sgraceforHispeople. AllofGod’sworktoelect,create,regenerate, justify,sanctify,andpreserveHispeopleservesthepurposeofbringingthemintoandcausingthemtoenjoycovenantcommunionwithHimself.ThatasinfulandundeservingpeopleareinacovenantrelationshipwiththeinfiniteandgloriousGodofallthings,thatistosay,arefriendsofthelivingGod,issoul-stirring. NearanddeartotheheartsofGod’speoplearealsotheconfes-sions.ForChristiansinthePresbyteriantradition,anofficialplaceisgiventotheWestminsterStandards(ConfessionofFaith,LargerCatechism,andShorterCatechism)andfor those in theReformedtradition,anofficialplaceisgiventotheThreeFormsofUnity(Hei-delbergCatechism,BelgicConfession,andCanonsofDordt).TheconfessionscertainlydonotservethepurposeofreplacingtheBible;theconfessionsdonotevenstandonaparwiththeBible.Rather,theconfessionsaretheworkoftheSpirittoleadthechurch,usuallyinresponsetothepresenceoffalsedoctrine,toexplainclearlyandsuccinctlythetruthofGodrevealedintheScriptures.Theconfessionsholdaprominentplaceinthehistoryofthechurch.TheyareconcretemanifestationsoftheSpiritofChrist’sworkto“guidethechurchintoalltruth”(John16:13),andtheyhavebeenusedbyGodtoleadmanyofHispeopleintoaclearerandfullerunderstandingofthetruth.Theconfessionsofthechurch,therefore,aretreasuredbyReformedandPresbyterianbelievers. ThispaperconcernstheserealitiesthatarenearanddeartotheheartsofReformedbelievers,namely,thecovenantandtheconfes-sions.ItwillsetforththebiblicalteachingofGod’scovenantasitis expressed in theHeidelbergCatechism,BelgicConfession, andCanonsofDordt,theofficialconfessionalstandardsoftheProtestant
CovenantandConfessions
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 14
ReformedChurches.ThegoalofthepaperiscertainlytoleadustobetterunderstandthedoctrineofGod’scovenantofgracefromanintellectualpointofview.Itis,however,muchmorethanthat.Thegoalofthispaperisalsoaimedatourhearts.Theoverarchingpur-poseistoleadustoanevengreaterheartfeltthankstoGodforthebeautifuldoctrineofthiscovenantandfortheconfessionsthatGodhasgiventousasHischurch.Morespecifically,thepurposeistoleadustoappreciatetheSpiritofChrist’sworkthroughouthistorytoleadthechurchoftheReformationtowriteandadoptconfessionsthatteach,allowfor,andareconsistentwithonlyoneunderstandingofthecovenantofGod,namely,anunconditionalcovenantofgrace.
Covenant of Grace Defined At the outset of this paper, it is imperative to define clearlyandexplainbrieflywhatismeantbyGod’scovenantofgrace.ItisnecessarydothisonaccountofthefactthatthereareinReformedandPresbyteriancirclesmanydifferentideasconcerningthenatureofGod’scovenant.AnyseriousscholaroftheWordofGodreadilyacknowledgesthefactthatthetruthofthecovenantloomslargeinGod’srevelationofHimselfintheBible.Onthatpoint,thereislittledisagreement.Withrespecttowhatisthemeaningandcentralsignif-icanceofthecovenant,however,thereismuchdisagreement.Istheessenceofthecovenantanagreementorarelationship?IsthecovenantestablishedbyGodsolely,orisitdependentinsomewayuponman?WithwhomisGod’scovenantestablished?Whatistheplaceofthechildrenofbelieversinthecovenant?Whatisman’sresponsibilityinthecovenant?WhatistheplaceofChristinthecovenant?Isthecovenantameanstobringaboutagreaterreality,orisittheenditself? Thesequestionsareallveryimportant,andtheanswersgiventothemwillvarysignificantlyamongchurches,theologians,andpas-tors.Beforewecansetforththecovenant’splaceintheconfessions,therefore,itisnecessarytogiveaworkingdefinitionofthecovenantfor thispaper. Havingdone that,wecan then showhowsuchanunderstandingofthecovenantofgraceistaughtinandisconsistentwiththeReformedcreeds. ThefollowingisabriefdefinitionofGod’scovenant:thecove-nantofgraceisGod’srelationshipoffriendshipwithelectsinnersin
November 2014 5
JesusChrist.Althoughbrief,thatdefinitiongetsattheessenceoftheProtestantReformedviewofGod’scovenantofgrace.Onthebasisofthatdefinition,whatwewilldointhefollowingistoexplainseveralaspectsofthisviewofthecovenantofgrace.ThatwillbefollowedbrieflybysupportingpassagesandexplanationsfromtheThreeFormsofUnity.Thisexplanationisnotandcannotbeexhaustive.Passagesfromthecreedswillbequotedinordertodemonstratethepointsthataremade.Theyarenot,however,ineachcaseall ofthepassagesthatcouldbequoted.Nevertheless,bysettingforthsomerepresentativepassagesfromthecreeds,wewillseethattheThreeFormsofUnityteachanunconditionalcovenantofgracewiththeelect,andtherefore,anynotionofaconditionalcovenantofworkswithmorethantheelectiscontrarytothemainlinesoftheReformedfaith.
The Covenant Is Grounded in the Nature of God Inthefirstplace,God’scovenantwithmanisgroundedintheverynatureofGodastriune.Asisthecasewithallimportantpointsoftheology,itisprudenttobeginwithadiscussionofGod.Certainlythisisthecasewithrespecttothedoctrineofthecovenant.God,apartfromanythingoranyonethatHecreated,isacovenantGod.HeisthatastheGodwhoisoneinBeingandthreeinPersons—FatherandSonandHolySpirit.BecauseGodisthreeinPersons,withinHisownBeingHeenjoyssweetcommunionandfellowshipasFather,SonandHolySpirit. TheconfessionsteachthatGodisacovenantGodwithinHimself,whichisthefoundationofthecovenantofgrace.TheydosoinasmuchastheyteachthedoctrineoftheTrinity.Lord’sDay8oftheHeidelbergCatechismandtheBelgicConfession,Articles8-9setforththehistoricChristianunderstandingofwhoGodisastriune,oneinBeingandthreeinPersons,asFather,Son,andHolySpirit.Weneednotbelaborthispoint.However,whatisnoteworthyisthatArticle8oftheBelgicConfessionteachesthatthethreePersonsoftheTrinityare“really,truly,andeternallydistinct,accordingtotheirincommuni-cableproperties”(BC,Art.8).AGodwhoisoneinbeingandoneinpersoncannotbeacovenantGodwhoexperiencescommunionwithinHimself.AGod,however,whoisthreeinPersons,eachofwhomispersonallydistinctfromtheothers,byvirtueofthatfactcanand
CovenantandConfessions
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 16
doeshavefellowshipwithinHimselfasGod.TheFatherbegetstheSon,theSonisbegottenbytheFather,andtheHolySpiritproceedsfromFathertoSonandfromSontoFather.ThatisthecovenantlifeoffellowshipthatthetriuneGodexperiencesandintowhichtheelectarebroughtinthecovenantofgrace.
The Covenant Is Fellowship with God Second,theessenceofthecovenantisGod’ssweetcommunionandfellowshipwithHispeople.WebeganwiththenatureofGodas a covenantGodbecause it leads into this point concerning thefundamentalnatureofGod’scovenantwithman. God’scovenantwithmanisrootedinandarisesoutofthecovenantlifethatHehaswithinHimselfasatriuneGod.ThecovenantofgraceisGod’sworkofbringingmanintothatcovenantlifethatGodalreadyhaswithinHimselfasatriuneGod. It ispreciselyat thispoint that thereareseriousdifferences inviewsconcerning the fundamentalnatureof the covenantofGod.Istheessenceofthecovenantanagreementandpact?Or,aswasformerlystated,istheessenceofthecovenantalivingrelationshipoffriendshipandlove?TheSpiritoftruthhasledtheProtestantRe-formedChurchestoemphasizethatthetruthoftheScripturesisthelatter,namely,thattheheartofthecovenantisnotanagreement,butarelationshipofloveandfellowship. In thebookBelievers and Their Seed,HermanHoeksemaex-plained that the essenceof the covenant is notmerely a promise,isnotmerelyawaybywhichGodbringsHispeopletoeverlastingglory,andisnotmutualagreementbetweentwoparties.Instead,hewrotethatthe“essenceofthecovenantistobesoughtinthislivingrelationoffriendshipwherebyGodtheLordisasovereignfriendofHispeople,andtheyaretheLord’sfriend-servants,partakingofHisfellowship,bygracepossessingandmanifestingHislifeandfightingthebattleofHiscauseinthemidstoftheworld.”1 Somuchofwhatfollowsconcerningthedoctrineandapplicationofthecovenantisdependentuponthisverypoint.Therefore,IwilldemonstratebrieflythatthisconceptionofGod’scovenantasarela-
1 HermanHoeksema,Believers and Their Seed(Jenison,MI:RFPA,1971),65.
November 2014 7
tionshipoffellowshipwithmanis,infact,theteachingoftheWordofGod. Let’sbeginbyexaminingthemainwordthatisusedintheOldTestament,translatedas“covenant,”namely,berith.Itistruethatthereisambiguitysurroundingtherootmeaningofthisword.However,astrongcasecanbemadeinfavorofidentifyingtherootmeaningofberithas“tobind”or“toclasp,”whichidentifiestheheartofthecov-enantasunionwithGod.InEzekiel20:37,thenatureofthecovenantasunionwithGodisstatedexplicitly:“AndIwillcauseyoutopassundertherod,andIwillbringyouintothebondofthecovenant.” Genesis3:15,theoutstandingcovenantpromiseintheOldTes-tament,impliesthattheheartofthecovenantisfriendshipwithGod.ThemotherpromiseofGenesis3:15reads,“AndIwillputenmitybetweentheeandthewoman,andbetweenthyseedandherseed;itshallbruisethyhead,andthoushaltbruisehisheel.”Fromanegativepointofview,salvationisenmity(notfriendship!)withthedevilandhisseed.Whatisimpliedpositivelyisjusttheopposite:covenantsalvationislovingfriendshipandfellowshipwithGod. ThecovenantformulafoundthroughouttheOldTestamentem-phasizesthisrelationshipbetweenGodandHispeople.Thecovenantformula, found for example, inGenesis 17:7 and Jeremiah31:33,isbasicallythis:“IwillbeyourGod,andyouwillbemypeople.”Withoutusingtheword“covenant,”Revelation21:3,aversefoundinthechapterthatbeautifullydescribeslifeinthenewcreation,servesasacommentaryonthispointwhenitsays,“AndIheardagreatvoiceoutofheavensaying,Behold,thetabernacleofGodiswithmen,andhewilldwellwiththem,andtheyshallbehispeople,andGodhim-selfshallbewiththem,andbetheirGod.”LifewithGodisspokenofintermsofdwellingwithandtabernaclingwithGod.Thatisthelanguageoffriendshipandfellowship. Last, the Scriptures teach that the relationship ofmarriage(Is.62;Ezek.16;Eph.5;Rev.19)andthebondbetweenparentsandchildren (Ex.4:22; IICor.6:18;Heb.12:5-9)are symbolicofGod’scovenantrelationshipwithHispeople.Whatisthees-sentialnatureofthemarriageandfamilyrelationship?Acontractandagreement?Orarelationshipandfellowship?Theansweriscertainlythelatter.Ourearthlymarriagesandfamiliesaretobe
CovenantandConfessions
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 18
patternedafterGod’srelationshipwithus,whichisarelationshipofloveandfriendship. WhenwethinkofGod’scovenantofgrace,thisiswhatneedstocometoourmind:friendshipandfellowshipwithGod.IncludedintheReformedconceptionofthecovenant,therefore,arealloftheblessingsofsalvation.ThecovenantisnotamechanismputinplacebyGodinordertoleadapersontoreceivesalvation.Alifeoffellow-shipwithGodisnotonlytheessenceofthecovenant;itisalsotheessenceofsalvation.TodwellwithGod(Rev.21:3),tobefriendsofGod(James2:23),toknowGod(John17:3),andtobeonewithGod(John17:23)—allofwhichiscovenantlanguageoffellowship—istoenjoysalvationthatisworkedbyGod.UponthosewhomGodincorporatesintothecovenantHebestowsalltheblessingsofsalva-tion:regeneration,faith,justification,sanctification,preservation,andglorification. TheThreeFormsofUnityemphasizetherelationshipthatGodhaswithHispeopleinJesusChrist. Considerfirst theHeidelbergCatechism.ItistruethattheHeidelbergCatechismdoesnothaveaLord’sDaydedicatedtotheteachingofthecovenant.TheHeidel-bergCatechism,therefore,doesnothaveaspecificLord’sDaythatidentifiestheessenceofthecovenantasarelationshipwithGodinJesusChrist.SuchaspecificLord’sDay,however,isnotnecessarytoshowthattheHeidelbergCatechismteachesthistruthconcerningthecovenant.InlightofthefactthattheHeidelbergCatechismem-phasizes thatsalvation isapersonal,experiential relationshipwithGodinChrist,itimpliesthetruthofthecovenant.Indoingthat,theHeidelbergCatechismemphasizesfrombeginningtoendthatsalvationisapersonal,experientialrelationshipwithGodinChrist. ZachariasUrsinus,aco-authoroftheHeidelbergCatechism,wroteanothercatechisminwhichhestatedinanswertothequestion,“Whatfirmcomfortdoyouhaveinlifeanddeath?,”
ThatIwascreatedbyGodinhisimageforeternallife;andafterIwillfullylostthisinAdam,God,outofinfiniteandfreemercy,took me into his covenant gracethathemightgivemefaith,righteousnessandeternallifebecauseoftheobedienceanddeathofhisSonwhowassentintheflesh.
November 2014 9
From thepointofviewofUrsinus, salvation for thechildofGodwasbeingbroughtintothecovenantofgrace.Therefore,whenthecatechismteachesusconcerningGod’sworkofsavingsinners,itisvirtuallyexplainingwhatitmeanstobebroughtintothecovenantofgrace.AndsincesalvationintheHeidelbergCatechismisviewedasaliving,personal,andexperientialrelationshipwithGodinChrist,theHeidelbergCatechismisvirtuallyteachingwhatistheessenceofthecovenantofgrace. BecausetheHeidelbergCatechismiswrittenfromthispersonalandexperientialperspective, examples that speakof a living rela-tionshipwithGodthroughChristabound.Thefollowingaresomeinstances. In response to thequestionofwhat thebeliever’sonlycomfortinlifeanddeathis,A.1saysbeautifully,“ThatIwithbodyandsoul,bothinlifeanddeath,amnotmyown,butbelong unto my faithful Savior Jesus Christ,who,withHispreciousblood,hathfullysatisfiedforallmysins….”AndthatisfollowedwithQ.2:“Howmanythingsarenecessaryfortheetoknow,thatthou,enjoyingthiscomfort,mayestliveanddiehappily?”ThelifeoftheChristianisenjoyingthecomfortofbelongingtoJesus,allowingonetoliveanddiewithhappiness.Thatisthelanguageofarealandpersonalrela-tionshipwithGodinChrist.WhatissignificantisthefactthatthosefirsttwoQ&Asstandasanintroductiontoandsummaryoftheentirecatechism.ThewholeofthecatechismsetsforththeChristian’slivingrelationshipwithJesusChrist,whichisnothinglessthantheessenceofthecovenantofgrace. TherestofthecatechismspeaksinmanyplacesoftheChristian’sunionandrelationshipwithGodinChrist.InLord’sDay7,theLord’sDayonsavingfaith,wereadthatthosewhoaresavedbyChristare“ingraftedintoHim.”(HC,Q&A20).InLord’sDay9onthefirstarticleoftheApostle’sCreed(“IbelieveinGodtheFather,Almighty,Makerofheavenandearth),wereadthatfortheChristianthe“eternalFatherofourLordJesusChrist…is,forthesakeofChristHisSon,my God and my Father”(HC,Q&A26;Q&A120).This,tooisthelanguageofalovingrelationship.Abelieverisa“Christian”becauseheorsheisa“memberofChristbyfaith”(HC,Q&A32).AccordingtoLord’sDay21,thefirstapplicationofthecommunionofthesaintsisthatbelieversare“membersofChrist”(HC,Q&A55).Christians
CovenantandConfessions
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 110
arenotcarelessintheirlivespreciselybecauseitisimpossiblethatonewhoisinalivingrelationshipwithGodbybeing“implantedintoChristbyatruefaithshouldnotbringforthfruitsofthankfulness”(Q&A64).BelieverspartakeoftheLord’sSupperinorderto“becomemoreandmoreunitedtoHissacredbodybytheHolyGhost,whodwellsbothinChristandinus”(Q&A76). WhiletheHeidelbergCatechismsetsforththedoctrinesofgracefromthepersonalandexperientialperspective,whichaccountsformanystatementsthatspeakofanintimateuniontoandrelationshipwithGodinChrist,theBelgicConfessionandCanonsofDordtaremorestraightforwardanddoctrinalintheirassertionsofthetruth.Nevertheless,thereareseveralexplicitstatementsinthesetwoconfes-sionsthatusethesamekindoflanguageastheHeidelbergCatechism.TheBelgicConfessioninArticle9ontheTrinitycallsusto“observetheparticularofficesandoperationsofthethreepersonstowardus.”ThechildofGodiscalledtodothatbecauseheorsheisinaliving relationship withthattriuneGod.Itisimportantforustoliveoutoftheknowledgethat“TheFatheriscalledourCreator,byHispower;theSonisourSaviorandRedeemer,byHisblood;theHolyGhostisourSanctifier,byHisdwellinginourhearts”(BC,Art.9).InArticle22oftheBelgicConfession,faithisidentifiedasthe“instrumentthatkeepsusin communionwithHiminallHisbenefits”(BC,Art.22). WithrespecttotheCanonsofDordt,Article7ofthefirstheadofdoctrineisofparticularimportanceinthatitidentifiesGod’sworkofsavingtheelectasbringingthemintocovenantfellowship:“Thiselect number, thoughbynature neither better normore deservingthanothers,butwiththeminvolvedinonecommonmisery,GodhathdecreedtogivetoChrist,tobesavedbyHim,andeffectually to call and draw them to His communion by His word and Spirit”(Canons,I,7).Andtheninthefifthheadofdoctrine,wereadthatGodpreserveseternallythosewhom“Godcalls,accordingtoHispurpose, tothecommunion of His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ(Canons,V,1). Intheend,however,whatismostimportantarenotthosespe-cificstatementsthatspeakofman’sunionandcommunionwithGodthroughChrist.Whatweshouldnotlosesightofisthefactthatcov-enantfellowshipwithGodisnotonedoctrineamongmany,butthegrandpurposeofGodwithrespecttoallofHisworkwithman.All
November 2014 11
oftheworkthatisofGodtheFather,byGodtheSon,andthroughGodtheHolySpiritservesthepurposeofbringingmanintofellow-shipwiththetriuneGod.Therefore,insettingforthallofthemaindoctrinesofthehistoricReformedfaith,theThreeFormsofUnityteachthecovenantofgraceasfellowshipwithGod. Godcannotfellowshipwithspirituallydead,guilty,depravedsin-ners.GodworksspirituallifeintheheartsofHispeople.Therefore,theconfessions’teachingonregenerationsetforthanimportantaspectofGod’scovenantofgrace(HC,Q&A8;Canons,III/IV,10-13). Havingworked spiritual life in the hearts ofHis people,GodgivesfaithastheinstrumentbywhichHispeopleenjoyinthislifefellowshipwithHim.Therefore,theconfessions’teachingconcerningfaithsetforthanimportantaspectofGod’scovenantofgrace(HC,Q&A20-22;BC,Art.22;Canons,I,2-6;II,6-7;III/IV,13-14). ThechildofGodinthislifehasclingingtohimstillanoldmanofsin,againstwhichhemustfightallhislifelong.ThroughthefaiththatGodhasworkedinhisheart,Godjustifiesthesinner,declaringtohimallhislifethathissinsareforgivenandthatheisrighteousinChrist.Bymeansofthatjustification,thesinnerknowsthatdespitehissin,heremainsinlovingcommunionwithGodallhislifelong.Therefore,theconfessions’teachingconcerningjustificationsetforthanimportantaspectofGod’scovenantofgrace(HC,Q&A45and56;BC,Art.23;Canons,II,8;II:B,4) Goddoesnotandcannothavefellowshipwiththeunfruitfulworksofdarkness.Therefore,GodsanctifiesHispeoplesothatbythepowerofthelifeofChristinthem,theytrulyliveholylives.Therefore,theconfessions’teachingconcerningsanctificationsetforthanimportantaspectofGod’scovenantofgrace(HC,Q&A32,43,86,115,122,124;BC,Art.24;Canons,I,13;V,12-13). ThepromiseofGodisthatHewillneverleavenorforsakeHispeople. The covenant of grace is, according toGenesis 17:7, an“everlastingcovenant.”GodintoalleternityinJesusChristwillfel-lowshipanddwellwithHispeople(Rev.21).Ifthatistotakeplace,GodmustkeepHispeopleandbringHispeopleintoglory.Therefore,theconfessions’teachingconcerningpreservationandglorificationsetforththisimportantaspectofGod’scovenantofgrace(HC,Q&A1,46;BC,Art.37;Canons,V).
CovenantandConfessions
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 112
TheentirebodyorsystemoftheReformedfaith,whichissetforthinthesethreeconfessions,shedslightupontheglorioustruthofGod’scovenantandupontheheartofthatcovenant,namely,fellowshipnowandintoeternitywithJehovahinChrist.
The Covenant Is Unilateral, Unconditional, and Gracious Inthethirdplace,thecovenantofGodisunilateral,unconditional,andgracious.Thosearethreewaysofmakingwhatisessentiallythesamepoint,namely,thatGodsovereignlyestablishesandmaintainsthisrelationshipoffriendshipwithHispeople.Thecovenantisuni-lateralorone-sided,thatis,GodaloneconceivedofandbringsmanintoarelationshipwithHimself. Aunilateralcovenant issetoveragainstabilateralcovenant,whichis the ideathat therelationshipismutuallyconceivedofandenteredintobytwoequalparties.ThelanguageofScriptureisuniformlythatofGodspeakingsovereignly,asHedoesinGenesis17:7,“Iwillestablishmycovenant….”Thereisnodenyingthatcovenantrelationshipsbetweentwoearthlypartiescantaketheformofagreementsmutuallyagreeduponandenteredintobybothparties(AbrahamandAbimelechinGenesis21:27;IsaacandAbimelechinGenesis26:28;DavidandJonathoninISamuel18:3).Nevertheless,whenitcomestothesovereignGod’srelationshipwithasinfulpeople,itisGodalonewhoefficaciouslyisatwork. Animportantimplicationofthetruththatthecovenantisunilateralis that it is unconditional.Ifthecovenantisunilateral,thenecessaryimplicationisthatitisunconditional.Goddoesnotenterintothiscovenantrelationshipoffellowshiponlyifandwhenmanfulfillsacertaincondition,whetherthatbefaithorgoodworks,asistaughtbymanytoday.Rather,Godsovereignlyentersintoandmaintainsthiscovenantrelationship.Therefore,thecovenantisaltogetherofgrace,sovereigngrace!Asadepravedsinner,mancertainlydoesnotdeservetobebroughtintoabeautifulcovenantrelationshipwithGod,aswasdescribedabove.ThatsinnersarebroughtintolifewithGodistheoutstandingmanifestationoftheundeservedfavorofGodbestoweduponasinfulpeople.Inotherwords,aunilateralandunconditionalcovenantisacovenantall of grace. TheonlypossibleconceptionofthecovenantthatisconsistentwiththeThreeFormsofUnityisonethatisunconditional,sovereignly
November 2014 13
establishedbyGodalone.ItisthispointthatneedstobeemphasizedtodayinlightofthecontroversiesthatarealiveandwellconcerningthenatureofGod’scovenantwithHispeople.IsthereroomintheReformedconfessionsforaconditionalcovenant,acovenantthatisdependentupontheworksofman,whateverthoseworksmaybe,foritsestablishmentandmaintenance?Theanswertothatquestionisemphatically,“no.” Whileaconditionalcovenantbasedonman’sworksunderminesallofthemajorpointsoftheReformedfaith,Iwouldliketohigh-light just one aspect of the confessions’ teaching—their teachingconcerningfaith—forthatwillmakecleartheunconditionalnatureofGod’scovenantwithHispeople.Ifocusonfaithbecauseoneoftheerroneouscovenantviewsinourdayteachesthattheconditiononthebasisofwhichoneisbroughtintothecovenantandremainsinthecovenantissaidtobefaith(andfaithfulness,thatis,goodworks).Iamusingtheterm“condition”herenotinthesenseinwhichtheWestminsterStandardsuseit,namely,“anecessarymeansorway.”Rather, I speakof“condition” in thissense: aworkofmanuponwhichtheestablishmentandmaintenanceofthecovenantdepends.Dotheconfessionsteachthatfaithandgoodworksareman’swork,onthebasisofwhichthecovenantisestablishedbyGodandonthebasisofwhichoneremainsinthatcovenant?Welettheconfessionsspeakforthemselves.
HeidelbergCatechism,Lord’sDay23,Q.59.Butwhatdothitprofittheenowthatthoubelievestallthis?A.ThatIamrighteousinChrist,beforeGod,andanheirofeternallife.Q.60.HowartthourighteousbeforeGod?A.OnlybyatruefaithinJesusChrist;sothatthoughmyconscienceaccuseme,thatIhavegrosslytransgressedallthecommandmentsofGod,andkeptnoneofthem,andamstillinclinedtoallevil;notwithstanding,God,withoutanymeritofmine,butonlyofmeregrace,grantsandimputestome,theperfectsatisfaction,righteousness,andholinessofChrist;evenso,asifIneverhadhad,norcommittedanysin:yea,asifIhadfullyaccomplishedallthatobediencewhichChristhasaccomplishedforme;inasmuchasIembracesuchbenefitwithabelievingheart.Q.61.Whysayestthou,thatthouartrighteousbyfaithonly?A.NotthatIamacceptabletoGod,onaccountoftheworthinessofmyfaith;butbecauseonlythesatisfaction,righteousness,andholinessofChrist,
CovenantandConfessions
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 114
ismyrighteousnessbeforeGod;andthatIcannotreceiveandapplythesametomyselfanyotherwaythanbyfaithonly.
BelgicConfession,Article 22: Webelieve that, to attain the trueknowledge of this greatmystery, theHolyGhost kindleth in ourhearts anupright faith,which embraces JesusChrist,with allHismerits,appropriatesHim,andseeksnothingmorebesidesHim.Foritmustneedsfollow,eitherthatallthings,whicharerequisitetooursalvation,arenotinJesusChrist,orifallthingsareinHim,thatthenthosewhopossessJesusChristthroughfaith,havecompletesalvationinHim.Therefore,foranytoassert,thatChristisnotsufficient,butthatsomethingmoreisrequiredbesidesHim,wouldbetoogrossablasphemy:forhenceitwouldfollow,thatChristwasbuthalfaSavior.ThereforewejustlysaywithPaul,thatwearejustifiedbyfaithalone,orbyfaithwithoutworks.However,tospeakmoreclearly,wedonotmean,thatfaithitselfjustifiesus,foritisonlyaninstrumentwithwhichweembraceChristourRighteousness.ButJesusChrist,imputingtousallHismeritsandsomanyholyworkswhichHehasdoneforus,andinourstead,isourRighteousness.AndfaithisaninstrumentthatkeepsusincommunionwithHiminallHisbenefits,which,whenbecomeours,aremorethansufficienttoacquitusofoursins.
CanonsofDordt,I,10—Thiselectionwasnotfoundeduponforeseenfaith,andtheobedienceoffaith,holiness,oranyothergoodqualityordispositioninman,astheprerequisite,cause,orconditiononwhichitdepended;butmenarechosentofaithandtotheobedienceoffaith,holiness,etc.Thereforeelectionisthefountainofeverysavinggood,fromwhichproceedfaith,holiness,andtheothergiftsofsalvation,andfinallyeternallifeitself,asitsfruitsandeffects.
WhatistheteachingoftheThreeFormsofUnityconcerningfaith?Itshouldbeveryclear.FaithisagiftofGod,ablessingofsalvation,afruitofbeingsavedbyGod.Faithisnottheworkofman.Andfaith,therefore,isthemeansby which(emphaticallynotthebasison which)thechildofGodisjustifiedandknowshimselforherselftobeamemberofthecovenantofGod.MembershipinGod’scovenantisaltogetheronaccountofthesovereignworkofGod.Anditisallofgrace.Manbynatureisadepravedanddeadsinner,undeservingofbeinginthefamilyofGod.ItisimpossibleforhimtomeritanythingwithGod.Itisallofgracethatdeadanddepravedsinnersareincorpo-
November 2014 15
ratedintothefamilyofGod.Withthisinview,itissignificantthatintheThreeFormsofUnity,whenthetermcovenantisusedspecifically,itisalwaysidentifiedasacovenantofgrace. Thatraisesthequestion:whataboutthebeliever’sgoodworksorfaithfulnessinconnectionwiththecovenant?Man’spartisnottohelpestablishthecovenantrelationshipwithGodthroughfaithandgoodworks,butrather,havingbeenincorporatedintothecovenant,man’spartasthefriendofGodistoserveHimoutofloveandthanks.Inthecovenant,GodisFriend-sovereign;manisfriend-servant.EverychildofGodwhoknowshimselforherselftobeamemberofGod’scovenant takes thispart in thecovenantveryseriously,becauseofthe tremendouswonderofgrace that suchadepravedsinner trulyisandforeverwillbethefriendofGod.AconditionofgoodworksisnotneededasanincentiveformantoobeyGod’swordandcom-mandments.Rather,theinevitablefruitofGod’ssovereignworkofbringingtheelectintoHiscovenantistheirgenuinedesireandactualperformanceofgoodworkstothegloryofGod’sname. TheReformedconfessionsareconsistentwiththisunderstandingofman’spart in thecovenantofgrace. TheThreeFormsofUnityteachtheproperplaceofgoodworks asthefruitofbeingbroughtintothecovenantofgrace.IntheHeidelbergCatechism,thetreatmentofgoodworks,prayer,andtheTenCommandmentsarefoundinthethirdsection(onthankfulness),afterthecatechismhassetforthman’smiseryofsinanddeliverancefromthesameinJesusChrist.Christiansdogoodworks,pray,andobeytheTenCommandmentsoutofgratitudeforhavingbeengiventheblessingsofthecovenantofgrace.Toquotejustonemorearticle,thefollowingisaportionofArticle24fromtheBelgicConfessionon“Man’sSanctificationandGoodWorks:”
WebelievethatthistruefaithbeingwroughtinmanbythehearingoftheWordofGod,andtheoperationoftheHolyGhost,dothregenerateandmakehimanewman,causinghimtoliveanewlife,andfreeinghimfromthebondageofsin.Thereforeitissofarfrombeingtrue,thatthisjustifyingfaithmakesmenremissinapiousandholylife,thatonthecontrarywithoutittheywouldneverdoanythingoutoflovetoGod,butonlyoutofself-loveorfearofdamnation.Thereforeitisimpossiblethatthisholyfaithcanbeunfruitfulinman:forwedonotspeakofavainfaith,butofsuchafaith,whichiscalledinScripture,
CovenantandConfessions
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 116
a faith thatworkethby love,whichexcitesman to thepracticeofthoseworks,whichGodhascommandedinHisWord.Whichworks,astheyproceedfromthegoodrootoffaith,aregoodandacceptableinthesightofGod,forasmuchastheyareallsanctifiedbyHisgrace:howbeittheyareofnoaccounttowardsourjustification.ForitisbyfaithinChristthatwearejustified,evenbeforewedogoodworks;otherwisetheycouldnotbegoodworks,anymorethanthefruitofatreecanbegood,beforethetreeitselfisgood.
God’scovenantofgraceisunilateral,unconditional,andallofgrace,thenecessaryfruitofwhichisalifeofgoodworksperformedoutofgratitudetoGod.
The Covenant Is Established with the Elect in Christ Inthefourthplace,thecovenantofgraceisestablishedwiththeelectinJesusChrist.Membershipinthecovenantofgraceisdeter-minedsolelybyGodonthebasisofHiseternaldecreeofelection.ItistheelectandtheelectalonewhoareincorporatedintothecovenantfamilyofGod.ElectiongovernsmembershipinthecovenantbecauseChrististheHeadofthecovenantofgrace.AndifChrististheHeadandMediatorof thecovenant, thosebrought into thecovenantareonlythosegiventoJesusChristineternityinthedecreeofelection.DavidEngelsmawritesthefollowinginCovenant and Election in the Reformed Tradition:
Godestablishedthecovenantofgrace,inhistory,withJesusChrist.ItisafundamentalerrorwithregardtothedoctrineofthecovenanttorelateJesusChristtothecovenantonlybyhavingHimcarryoutthecovenantwillofGodonbehalfofthepeopleofGod.JesusisnotonlythemediatorofthecovenantthroughwhomGodhasfellowshipwithandsavesHispeopleandthroughwhomthepeopleofGodcommunewithandserveGod.JesusChristisalsotheheadofthecovenantofgrace. ThetriuneGodhasmadethecovenantwith themanJesusChrist,theeternalSonofGodinhumannature.JesusChrististherepresentativeofthepeopleofGod.Heisalsothesourceandfountainforthepeopleofthespirituallifeandthebenefitsofsalvationthatbelongtothecovenant.2
2 DavidJ.Engelsma,Covenant and Election in the Reformed Tradition (Jenison,MI:RFPA,2011),177-8.
November 2014 17
Afewparagraphslater,Engelsmaendsthissectionbydrawingthefollowingconclusion:
BecauseChrist is theheadof thecovenant, asGalatians3:16and19teach,Christdeterminesmembershipinthecovenant.Allthose,butthoseonly,whoareChrist’saretheseedofAbrahamwithwhomGodmakesHiscovenant,andheirsofthepromise,whichGodmadetoChrist.ThisistheconclusionaboutmembershipinthecovenantthatGalatians3:29drawsfromthetruththatGodmadethecovenantpromisetoChrist:“AndifyebeChrist’s,thenareyeAbraham’sseed,andheirsaccordingtothepromise.”3
ThoseinChrist,thosewhoareAbraham’strueseed,thosewhoareheirsaccordingtothepromise,thatis,thosewhoaremembersofthecovenant,aretheelect. TheconfessionsmakeitclearthatthecovenantanditsblessingsarefortheelectalonewhowerechosenineternityandgiventotheLordJesusChrist.TheHeidelbergCatechismdoesnothaveaspecificLord’sDayonelection,andtherefore,doesnotstateexplicitlythatthecovenantisestablishedbyGodexclusivelywiththeelect.However,fortworeasonsthenecessarilyimplicationofwhattheHeidelbergCatechismdoesteachisacovenantofgraceanditsblessingsfortheelectalone.First,thecatechismisclearinitsteachingthatChrististheHeadofHispeopleandHischurch(HC,Q&A49,50,51,and57).Toquotejustoneofthosepassages,inA.50concerningJesusChrist’ssessionatGod’srighthand,weread:“BecauseChristisascendedintoheavenforthisend,thatHemightappearasHead of His church,bywhomtheFathergovernsallthings.”JesusChristasHeadbestowstheblessingsofsalvationuponHisbody,thechurch,whichiscomposedoftheelectgatheredoutoftheworldfromthebeginningtotheendoftheworld(HC,Q&A54).Second,thecatechismessentiallyidentifiesthechurchandthecovenantastoitsmembershipintheanswertoQ.74:“Yes;forsincethey[infants],aswellastheadult,areincludedinthe covenant and church ofGod….”So,ifChrististheHeadofthechurchwhogivessalvationblessingstoitsmembers,ifthemembersofthatchurcharetheelectinChrist,andifthechurchandcovenantareoneandthesameastoitsmembership,thenecessaryconclusion
3 Engelsma,Covenant and Election,179.
CovenantandConfessions
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 118
isthatthecovenantofGod,accordingtothecatechism,iswiththeelectinChrist. IpassovertheBelgicConfession(which,however,isaltogetherconsistentwiththeaboveteaching)inordertoexaminetheCanonsofDordt.OnearticleinparticularsetsdownclearlytheReformedteachingconcerningthecovenant,Christ,andelection.Article8ofthesecondheadofdoctrine,whichconcernsthe“DeathofChrist,andtheRedemptionofManThereby,”states:
ForthiswasthesovereigncounselandmostgraciouswillandpurposeofGodtheFather,thatthequickeningandsavingefficacyofthemostpreciousdeathofHisSonshouldextendtoalltheelect,forbestowingupon themalone thegiftof justifyingfaith, thereby tobring theminfalliblytosalvation;thatis,itwasthewillofGodthatChristbythebloodofthecross,wherebyHeconfirmedthenewcovenant,shouldeffectuallyredeemoutofeverypeople,tribe,nation,andlanguageallthose,andthoseonly,whowerefrometernitychosentosalvationandgiventoHimbytheFather;thatHeshouldconferuponthemfaith,which,togetherwithalltheothersavinggiftsoftheHolySpirit,HepurchasedforthembyHisdeath;shouldpurgethemfromallsin,bothoriginalandactual,whethercommittedbeforeorafterbelieving,andhavingfaithfullypreservedthemeventotheend,shouldatlastbringthemfreefromeveryspotandblemishtotheenjoymentofgloryinHisownpresenceforever.
Thisarticledefinitivelysetsforththerelationshipbetweenthecove-nant,election,andChrist,astaughtbythehistoricReformedchurch.Article8quotedaboveteachesthedefiniteandefficaciousatonementofthecrossofChrist.Christdiedfor,andthroughthatdeath,effi-caciouslysavedtheelect,whomHewillpreserveandbringintotheenjoymentofHisgloryforever.Indoingthat,thearticlestatessig-nificantlythatChrist“confirmedthenewcovenant.”AnyReformedtheologianwhoseparateselectionandthecovenantisnotreckoninghonestlywithCanonsofDordtII,Article8,whichexplicitlytiesto-getherChrist’sdeath,thesalvationwroughtonthebasisofthatdeath,andtheeternaldecreeofelection.Theonlyconclusiontowhichonecancomewhenheseriouslyconsiderstheteachingofthisarticleisthatthedecreeofelectiongovernsthecovenantofgrace.
November 2014 19
The Covenant Is Established with Believers and their Seed Inthefifthplace,thecovenantofgraceisestablishedwithbelieversandtheirseedsothatinfantsofbelieversareincorporatedsavinglyintofellowshipwithGod.ConsiderGod’swordtoNoahinGenesis9:9,“Iwillestablishmycovenantwithyou,andwithyourseedafteryou….”ConsiderGod’swordtoAbrahaminGenesis17:7,“Iwillestablishmycovenantbetweenmeandtheeandthyseedaftertheeintheirgenerationsforaneverlastingcovenant,tobeaGoduntothee,andtothyseedafterthee.”ConsiderPeter’swordinActs2:39,“Forthepromiseisuntoyou,andyourchildren,andtoallthatareafaroff,evenasmanyastheLordourGodshallcall.” Inthisrespect,twoimportantqualificationsmustbemade.ThefirstisthatmembershipinthecovenantofGodisnotexclusivelyforthosewhoarethechildrenofbelievers.God,throughevangelismandmissionwork,bringsintothecovenantcertainpersonswhowerebornofunbelievingparents.Therearesomewhoare“afaroff”(Acts2:39),whothroughthepreachingofthegospelarebroughtintothecovenantofgrace.Second,GoddoesnotestablishHiscovenantwithevery single baptized childofbelievers.SuchistheerroneousteachingoftheFederalVision,whichteachesthateverysinglebaptizedchildissavinglyunitedtoJesusChristandreceivestheblessingsofsalvationinChrist. But, according to theFederalVision, for thecontinuedkeepingofthoseblessingsofsalvation,suchachildofbelieversmustfulfilltheconditionofgoodworks.Suchisnotthebiblicaltruthofthecovenantofgrace.Althoughthedecreeofreprobationincludessomeinthevisiblechurch(Rom.9:6and13),thepromiseofGodisthatHeestablishesthecovenantwithbelieversandtheirchildren.Therefore,accordingtothatpromiseofGod,weviewandtreatourchildrenasmembersofGod’scovenant. TheReformedconfessionsteachthatGodrealizesHiscovenantofgracehistoricallyinthelineofcontinuedgenerations.Notsur-prisingly,boththeHeidelbergCatechismandtheBelgicConfessionteachtheproperplaceofchildreninthecovenantinthecontextoftheirdiscussionsof thesacramentofbaptism. Arethechildrenofbelieverstobeviewedasmembersofthecovenantofgrace,evenintheirinfancy,andthereforetoreceivethesignofthecovenantinthesacramentofbaptism?Theanswerofthesetwoconfessionsis,“yes.”
CovenantandConfessions
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 120
Childrenofbelieversmustbebaptizedbecausethey,aswellasadults,areincorporatedintothecovenantofgrace.InanswertoQ.74,“Areinfantsalsotobebaptized,”thecatechismsays:
Yes:forsincethey,aswellastheadult,areincludedinthecovenantandchurchofGod;andsinceredemptionfromsinbythebloodofChrist,andtheHolyGhost,theauthoroffaith,ispromisedtothemnolessthantotheadult;theymustthereforebybaptism,asasignofthecovenant,bealsoadmittedintotheChristianchurch;andbedistinguishedfromthechildrenofunbelieversaswasdoneintheoldcovenantortestamentbycircumcision,insteadofwhichbaptismisinstitutedinthenewcovenant.
The Belgic Confession in its condemnation of the BaptisterrorthatdeniesthebaptismofinfantsechoesthisteachingoftheHeidelbergCatechisminitsconclusiontoArticle34onholybaptism:
ThereforewedetesttheerroroftheAnabaptists,whoarenotcontentwith theoneonlybaptismtheyhaveoncereceived,andmoreovercondemnthebaptismoftheinfantsofbelievers,whomwebelieveoughttobebaptizedandsealedwiththesignofthecovenant,asthechildreninIsraelformerlywerecircumcised,uponthesamepromiseswhicharemadeuntoourchildren.AndindeedChristshedHisbloodnolessforthewashingofthechildrenofthefaithful,thanforadultpersons;andthereforetheyoughttoreceivethesignandsacramentofthat,whichChristhathdoneforthem.
While theHeidelbergCatechism andBelgicConfession treattheplaceofchildreninthecovenantfromthepointofviewofthesacrament of baptism, theCanons ofDordt do the same from theheart-wrenchingexperienceofbelievingparentswhomustdealwiththedeathofachildininfancy.ThesignificantarticleintheCanonsofDordtisArticle17ofthefirstheadofdoctrine:
SincewearetojudgeofthewillofGodfromHisWord,whichtestifiesthatthechildrenofbelieversareholy,notbynature,butinvirtueofthecovenantofgraceinwhichthey, togetherwiththeparents,arecomprehended,godlyparentshavenoreasontodoubt theelection
November 2014 21
CovenantandConfessions
andsalvationoftheirchildrenwhomitpleasethGodtocalloutofthislifeintheirinfancy.
Withoutgettingintothecontroversythatsurroundsthisarticle,themainpointofitsteachingisclear.Notjustparents,butchildrenofbelievers,arepartofthecovenantofgrace.Andwhenunderstoodinlightofthepreviouspointconcerningelectionandthecovenant,thechildrenofbelieverswhoarecomprehendedinthecovenantaretheelectchildrenofbelievers. David.EngelsmatiesthosetwopointstogetherinhisexplanationofthisarticleinCovenant and Election in the Reformed Tradition:
Withexplicitreferencetothecovenantofgrace,totheinfantchildrenofbelievers,andtothesalvationoftheseinfantchildrenofbelieversinthecovenantofgrace,theCanonsexplicitlydeclarethatthecovenantofgraceisrelatedtoelection:“electionand[covenant]salvation.” TheCanonsalsoexplicitlyteachthattherelationbetweenelectionandcovenantsalvationisthatelectiongovernsthecovenant:thesalvationofinfantchildrenofbelieversisduetotheelectionoftheseinfantbelievers.Believingparents“havenoreasontodoubtoftheelection andsalvation[emphasisadded—DJE]”ofthesechildren,thatis,theparentsmaybelievethesalvationoftheseinfantchildrenbecauseofGod’selectionofthesechildren.4
Conclusion Imaketwopointsbywayofconclusion. Inthefirstplace,aconsiderationofthedoctrineofGod’scove-nantofgraceasitistaughtintheReformedconfessionshasledustosee,andthereforeappreciate,thesystemoftheReformedfaith.ItistruethatifonereadstheThreeFormsofUnitylookingspecificallyforreferencestothetruthofGod’scovenant,veryfewwillbefound.ThereisnoLord’sDay,article,orheadofdoctrinedevotedspecif-icallytothedoctrineofGod’scovenantofgrace.(HereinisfoundadifferencebetweentheThreeFormsofUnityandtheWestminsterStandards,whichdohavespecificchaptersandquestionsdevotedtothedoctrineofthecovenant.)Theword“covenant”isnotfoundintheBelgicConfessionandisfoundonlyeighttimeseachintheHeidelberg
4 Engelsma,Covenant and Election, 66
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 122
CatechismandCanonsofDordt.Nevertheless,thedoctrineofGod’scovenantofgraceistobefoundthroughoutthesethreeconfessions.ThisistruebecausethereisbeautifulharmonyfoundinthesystemoftheReformedfaith,whichreflectstheunityofthetruthofScripture.ThedoctrineofGod’scovenantofgraceisnotonedoctrineamongmany,onaparwithalltheothers.Rather,thecovenantofGodistheoverarchingthemeoftheentirewordofGod(thetwopartsoftheBibleare,afterall,theOldTestamentandNewTestament,“testament”beinganotherwordfor“covenant”).Becausethisistrue,alltheotherindividualdoctrines,whicharetaughtexplicitlyineachconfession,arenotonly inharmonywithbutshed lighton the truthofGod’scovenant.ThenatureofGodastriuneteachesusaboutthetruthofthecovenant.God’seternaldecreeofelectionshedslightonthetruthofGod’scovenant.Thefallofmaninformsusconcerningthenatureofthecovenant.SimilarstatementscouldbemadeconcerningeverydoctrineoftheReformedfaithexpressedintheThreeFormsofUnity.HavingexaminedthecentraldoctrineofScriptureassummarizedintheReformedconfessions,wehavebeenledtoseeandappreciatetheunityofthetruthonthedoctrineofthecovenant. Inthesecondplace,havingexaminedthecovenantofgraceasitistaughtintheReformedcreeds,weareequippedtobefaithfultoourcallingaschurchestodefendthetruthofScriptureoveragainstthelie,specifically,todefendthetruthoftheunconditionalcovenantofgraceoveragainst thelieof theconditionalcovenantofworks.ThaterrorcomestoexpressiontodayespeciallyintheheresyoftheFederalVision.Itisbeyondthescopeofthispapertoexplainfullyerrantteachingsconcerningthecovenant.However,thispaperwaswrittenwithdefiniteerrorsonthecovenantinmind.Godhasledthechurchesthroughouttheagesintothetruth,andthattruthhasbeenofficiallyestablishedintheReformedandPresbyteriancreeds.Alwaysintheprocessofdevelopingdoctrine,therefore,thequestionmustbeasked:doesthisteachingharmonizewiththetruthastaughtinthecreedsthatthechurchhasadopted?Aconditionalcovenantofworksdoesnotandcannot.Theunconditionalcovenantofgracedoes.Anditdoessobeautifully.l
November 2014 23
The Covenant of Worksand its Significance
David TorlachIntroduction and Definitions Theword“covenant”istheEnglishtranslationofabiblicalterm.ThewordsusedinScripturetranslatedas“covenant”aretyrIB (berith)intheOldTestament(OT)anddiaqhvkh(diatheke)intheNewTesta-ment(NT). Inattemptingtocometoacorrectunderstandingofwhatacov-enantis,manyhavestudiedtherootsofthesewords.Theoriginofthewordberithmaywellbeaverbmeaning“tocreateorform,”orpossibly“tobindortofetter.”1Thissecondmeaningdoesseemtobethemostlikely,2 but rather than entering into these disputes over its exactetymology,weoughttodeterminethemeaningfromthewaytheHolySpiritusesthiswordinHolyScripture.This,fortheReformedbeliever—for thebiblicalChristian—mustbedeterminativeof themeaningof“covenant.” WhenonestudiesthewordberithintheOT,itisusedtodenotearelationshipbetweenmenofequalstanding,menofdifferingstanding,andalsotherelationshipbetweenGodandman.Examplesofarela-tionshipbetweenmenofequalstandingareAbrahamandAbimelechinGenesis 21, orDavid and Jonathan in ISamuel18:1-4. Theseagreementsandcommitmentswereonthebasisofaloveandrespectthattheyhadforoneanother,formalizedbywayofacovenant.Thesecouldbetermed“paritycovenants,”3andareobviouslyverydifferentfrompurelybusinessorlegalcontractswhichoccurintheBible,suchasinGenesis23(AbrahamandEphron),Genesis47:18-26(Joseph
1 O.PalmerRobertson,The Christ of the Covenants(GrandRapids,Michigan:BakerBookHouse,1980),5,(footnote3).
2 G.JohannesBotterweckandHelmerRinggren,Theological Dictio-nary of the Old Testament(GrandRapids,Michigan:WilliamB.EerdmansPublishingCompany,1975),255.
3 C.K.Campbell,God’s Covenant(Nutley,NewJersey:PresbyterianandReformedPublishingCo., 1973), 5; JohnMurray,The Covenant of Grace. (London:TheTyndalePress,1954),9;MalcolmH.Watts,MauriceRoberts,andDavidN.Samuel,The Covenant of Grace(Ramsgate,Kent:TheHarrisonTrust,1992),1.
CovenantofWorksanditsSignificance
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 124
andthepeopleofEgypt),andJeremiah32:9-12(Jeremiahandthepurchaseofafield).Incontrasttotheselegalarrangements,covenantsinvolveapersonalinterestinandcommitmentto,thewell-beingofthe other party. Thereisalsoadifferencebetweenthese“paritycovenants,”andcovenantsthataremadewithmenofunequalstanding.AnexampleofacovenantbetweenmenofunequalstandingisfoundinJoshua9,betweenJoshuaandtheGibeonites.TheGibeonitesdeceivedIsrael,Joshuamadeor“cut”acovenantwiththem,andtheybecameservantstoIsrael.Somehavecalledthesecovenantsofmen“suzeraintycov-enants”aftertheNear-Easttermforonebeinganoverlord.4Thatis,thistypeofcovenantisoneinwhichgreatbenefitisbestoweduponaninferior,usuallyinvolvingsomeformofcommunionorfellowshipaswellasprotection.Inturn,thebeneficiarywasexpectedtoperformhispartofservingthebenefactor.Onceagain,thiswasnotabusinesscontractwhichcouldbebrokenbytheonepartynotfulfillingtheirpartof thebargain: itwas lastingandcouldnotbebroken. Andhence,wehaveGalatians3:15—“Brethren,Ispeakafterthemannerofmen;thoughitbebutaman’scovenant,yetifitbeconfirmed,nomandisannulleth,oraddeth thereto.” Inotherwords,evenmen’scovenants,iftheyaretruecovenants,oncetheyhavebeenratified,cannotbeannulledit,setitaside,orhaveconditionsaddedtothem. Turningfromcovenantsinvolvingmenonly,tocovenantsestab-lishedby God,thereisamarkeddifferencetobearinmind.WhenwereadofGodestablishingor“cutting”acovenantwithman,thereisnosenseofanybargainingorinputonthepartofman.Justaswhencovenantsbetweennon-equalswereestablished,andtheinferiorpartywasnotinanypositiontohammeroutsomekindofagreement,itisinfinitelymoresowhenGodestablishesthecovenant.Isaiah55:9—“Forastheheavensarehigherthantheearth,soaremywayshigherthanyourways,andmythoughtsthanyourthoughts.”AnditisnotonlyGod’sthoughts,butwhoHeisinHisbeing—theAlmightyGodandCreator.God’scovenantsarethereforealwayscompletelyfromHim,andtheyaremostsureandcertain,mostperfect,mostgood,andmostwise:manonhispart,cannotdoanythingelsebutacquiescetothese.ThisisreflectedbythewayinwhichScripturespeaksofGod
4 Campbell,God’s Covenant,8;Watts,et.al.,The Covenant of Grace,1.
November 2014 25
aloneestablishingHiscovenant,withoutmanworkingorcontributinginanyway.SoinGenesis17:7orEzekiel16:62,Godsays:“I willestablish mycovenantwithyou.”Goddoesthework;GodestablishesthecovenantandthecovenantbelongstoHim.Nevertheless,therearestilltwopartiesinvolvedinacovenant,andthebasicideaofthecovenantneedstobeborneinmind:thepurposeofthecovenantislifeandrelationship,communionandbenefit,aswellasthecommitmentoftheonepartytotheother. ComingnowtotheNT,asnotedalready,thetermforcovenantisdiatheke,andthiswordaddsmoretoourunderstandingofcovenant.Uniformly in theNT,when theHolySpiritquotesanOTpassagecontaining thewordberith,He translates it asdiatheke.5 This issignificant,forthereisawordintheGreekwhichmeansacontract,bargain,orabusiness-likeagreementbetweentwoormoreparties.Thisistheword sunqhvkh(suntheke);butthiswordisneverusedbytheHolySpirit.Themeaningofdiathekeisthatof“adispositionorarrangementmadetowardanother,”andthusitcanalsoindicate“atestamentorwill.”ThusfromtheNTwemayknowthatacovenantwasarelationship,involvinganotherparty,withtheemphasisupontheonesideorpartycommittingthemselvestotheotherparty,inordertobestowblessingandrichesupontheotherbywayofcommunionorfellowship.Thisdidnotprecluderesponsibilityordutyonthepartoftherecipientinthecovenant.WhenweputthistogetherwiththeOTunderstanding,weareinapositiontodefineGod’scovenant. AccordingtoHeinrichBullinger,“acovenantortestament…in-volvedcomingtogetherinaunionoffriendshipwiththeobservanceofparticularceremoniesandconditions.”6FrancisRobertsin1657definedthecovenantasGod’s“gratuitousagreementwithHispeo-ple,promisingthemeternalhappinessandallsubordinategood:andrequiringfromthemallduedependenceuponGod,andobedienceuntoHim,inordertoHisglory.”7Healsosaidthat“covenantisa
5 ForexampleinHebrews8:8,whenquotingfromJeremiah31:31.6 AndrewA.Woolsey,Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought
(GrandRapids:ReformationHeritageBooks,2012),232.7 FrancisRoberts,The Mysterie and Marrow of the Bible: viz. God’s
Covenants with Man(London:printedbyR.W.forGeorgeCalvert,andsoldatthesignoftheHalf-MooninPaul’sChurchyard,1657),14.
CovenantofWorksanditsSignificance
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 126
graciousandintimatewayofGod’sbringingmaninto‘fellowshipandcommunion’withHimself.”8AndHermanHoeksema,theprominenttheologianofthePRC,definedthecovenantasfollows:
(Thecovenant) is the relationof themost intimatecommunionoffriendship,inwhichGodreflectsHisowncovenantlifeinHisrela-tiontothecreature,givestothatcreaturelife,andcauseshimtotasteandacknowledgethehighestgoodandtheoverflowingfountainofallgood.9
Theseviewsordefinitionsbringouttwoaspectsofthecovenant:thecovenantisnotonlyalegalandbindingmeansofGodblessingHispeoplebybringingthemintorelationshipwithHimself,butthecovenant is theveryrelationshipandcommunionitself. It isboththemeansand the relationship. Someappreciationof thewonderandgloryofthisconceptionofcovenantcanbegintobeseenwhenit isunderstoodthat thebasisofcommunionwithGodis theveryfellowshipthatGodhaswithinHimselfasthetriuneGod—withintheTrinity. It is thisperfect relationshipandcommunionwithwhichGodcondescendstoblessHispeopleinthecovenant—thecovenantre-lationshipistoliveandwalkwithGod.ItisnotpossibleformerefallenhumansfullytocomprehendthewondrousworkofgracethatGodhasperformed:tobringmanintocommunionwiththeeternalandalmightyJehovahGod.AsHermanHoeksemahassaid:“thecovenantistheveryessenceofreligion,thehighestgood,theverybestthatcaneverbeimpartedtomanthroughgrace,thehighestbliss.”10
Scripture Evidence of the Covenant of Works Havingestablishedthegeneralunderstandinganddefinitionofacovenant,thenextstepistoseethetruthofacovenantofworksinScripture.Ofcourse,thereisnotermintheScripture,“covenantofworks,”justasthereisnoterm,“Trinity,”butthisdoesnotpreclude
8 WonTaekLim,The Covenant Theology of Francis Roberts(Chun-gnam,SouthKorea:KingandKingdom,2002),32.
9 HermanHoeksema,Reformed Dogmatics(GrandRapids,Michigan:ReformedFreePublishingAssociation,1985),322.
10 Hoeksema,Reformed Dogmatics,322.
November 2014 27
thetruthanddoctrineofthesemattersintheBible.Wemayalsocallthisdoctrinethe“covenantoflife,”orthe“covenantofnature,”bywhichitisalsoknown. First,wemayknowthattherewasacovenantestablishedwithAdaminthegarden.ThisisborneoutbyScriptureinHosea6:7—“Buttheylikemenhavetransgressedthecovenant:therehavetheydealttreacherouslyagainstme.”TheKJVexpressionhere“likemen”isbettertranslatedfromtheHebrewas“likeAdam.”ItistheHebrewwordforAdam,andwhenthesameexpressionisusedinJob31:33,itistranslatedas“Adam.”SowemaysaythatGod’srelationshipwithAdaminthegardenwasacovenant. ThisisalsoindicatedbythelanguageofScriptureinthefirsttwochaptersofGenesis.InthefirstchapterofGenesis,Godisreferredto as myh=I Ol a> (Elohim,“God”)alone,thenameindicatingthealmighty,infiniteBeing,Creatorofall.However,inchapter2,comingtothecreationofmanwhereGod’sparticularrelationshiptoAdamisex-pandedandexplained,thenameofGodusedismyhi Ol a> hw:hy] (Jehovah Elohim, translatedas“theLordGod”).ThisisthecovenantnameofGod,indicatingtherebythatinregardtothecreatureofAdam,Godhadestablishedacovenantrelationshipwithhim.ThisisconfirmedbythewholetenorofGod’sdealingwithAdaminthegarden.GodspeakstoAdamasinapersonalrelationshipofloveandcommunion,suchthat,itbecomesobviousthatGodmadeapracticeofcomingtotalkandfellowshipwithAdamandEveinthecooloftheevening.11 Butevenmorethanthisarethetwotreesinthegarden,whichhadspecialsymbolicsignificance.Somehavegonesofarastocallthemsacraments(asacramentbeingacovenantsignandseal).GodgaveAdamnotonlyallthetreesofthegardenfromwhichtoeat,butspecificallya treecalled the treeof life. This treesymbolized thefullnessoflifethatAdamhadwithGodincovenantrelationship.Andmostnotably,Adamlostaccesstothistree,andthustolife,whenhesinnedandwascastoutofthegarden.12Buttherewasalsothetreeof
11 Genesis3:8—“AndtheyheardthevoiceoftheLordGodwalkinginthegardeninthecooloftheday:andAdamandhiswifehidthemselvesfromthepresenceoftheLordGodamongstthetreesofthegarden.”
12 Justasasidenote,God’selectwillregainaccesstothistreeinevengreater abundance, in the newheaven and new earth. Revelation 22:2,
CovenantofWorksanditsSignificance
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 128
theknowledgeofgoodandevil,ofwhichtreeAdamwascommandednottoeat.Noticemustbegivenheretothelaw—alawgiventoAdamandEve,incovenantrelationship.ThissymbolizesallthelawofGodthatwaswrittenintheheartofman,byvirtueofthefactthatAdamwasincovenant.Thecovenantrelationshipdoesnotprecludelaw.ThelawofGodisnotopposedtocovenant,butispartofit—thecovenantisalegalrelationship.Thisisnotatallcontradictory,forthelaw,asPaulsaysinRomans7:12—“isholy,andthecommandmentholy,andjust,andgood.”Thetreeisalsosymbolic—thetreeitselfwasnotpoisonousbutsymbolizedtherighteousnessandobedienceofman—oritwouldsymbolizehisrebellion,disobedienceandunrighteousness. And thatbringsus toconsider somethingvery importantwithrespecttothiscovenantofnatureorcovenantoflife—itwasacondi-tionalcovenant.Thishastobethecase.ThereisnodoubtthatAdamwasincovenantwithGod,andinAdam,allmankindwasincovenantrelationshiptoGod.13ButthiscovenantwasconditionaluponAdam’sobedience—uponAdam’songoingrighteousness.14 GodgavehimtrueandperfectlifeandcommunionwithHimself,butsaid:“Butofthetreeoftheknowledgeofgoodandevil,thoushaltnoteatof14—“Inthemidstofthestreetofit,andoneithersideoftheriver,wastherethetreeoflife,whichbaretwelvemanneroffruits,andyieldedherfruitev-erymonth:andtheleavesofthetreewereforthehealingofthenations….Blessedaretheythatdohiscommandments,thattheymayhaverighttothetreeoflife,andmayenterinthroughthegatesintothecity.”
13 Romans5:12,19—“Wherefore,asbyonemansinenteredintotheworld,anddeathbysin;andsodeathpasseduponallmen,forthatallhavesinned….Forasbyoneman'sdisobediencemanyweremadesinners,sobytheobedienceofoneshallmanybemaderighteous.”
14 WCFChapter7,sectionII:“Thefirstcovenantmadewithmanwasacovenantofworks,whereinlifewaspromisedtoAdam;andinhimtohisposterity,uponconditionofperfectandpersonalobedience.” AndWLC20: “TheprovidenceofGod towardman in the estate inwhichhewascreated,wastheplacinghiminparadise,appointinghimtodressit,givinghimlibertytoeatofthefruitoftheearth;puttingthecreaturesunderhisdominion,andordainingmarriageforhishelp;affordinghimcommunionwithhimself;institutingtheSabbath;enteringintoacovenantoflifewithhim,uponconditionofpersonal,perfect,andperpetualobedience,ofwhichthetreeoflifewasapledge;andforbiddingtoeatofthetreeofknowledgeofgoodandevil,uponthepainofdeath.”
November 2014 29
it:forinthedaythatthoueatestthereofthoushaltsurelydie”(Gen.2:17).Thusthecontinuationofthecovenantoflifewasconditional uponAdam’sobediencetothecommandofGod.AndbecauseAdamdidnotfulfillthiscondition,hefellfromtheestatewhereinhewascreated,losingcommunionwithGodandfallingunderthecurseofthatsamecovenant. AnotherevidenceofthecovenantofworksliesintheNT,inthepassagesdealingwithoriginalsin,andthefederalorcovenanthead-shipofAdamandChrist.InRomans5,forexample,itbecomesquiteclearthatPaulcomparesAdamtoChristinthisway.InanotherplacePaulcallsChristthesecondorlastAdam:“Andsoitiswritten,ThefirstmanAdamwasmadealivingsoul;thelastAdamwasmadeaquickeningspirit”(ICor.15:45).BothAdamandChristwerefederalheadsandrepresenteddifferentbodiesofmen: Adamrepresentedallmankind,whereasChristrepresentedonlytheelect.Thus,theyrepresenteddifferentcovenants—one thecovenantof life, and theother,thecovenantofgrace. ThissamethemeiscarriedthroughintheallegorygivenbyPaulinGalatians4,wherehespeaksoftwocovenants.Now,itcouldbesaidthatPaulisonlyspeakinghereoftwodispensationsoftheonecovenant. Buthowis it then, that theonecovenantgivesbirth tobondageanddeath,whiletheothercovenantgivesrisetofreedomandtheinheritanceoflife?Surely,byfaiththerightunderstandinganduseoftheolddispensationofthecovenantisthatallitsritesandceremonieswouldgiverisetolifeinChrist?Andnotonlythat,buttheentirethrustofPaul’sargumentisthatwecannotbesavedbyworks,butonlybygracethroughfaithalone.Therefore,eitherwetrustinworksandareunderthecovenantofworksinAdam,orwehavefaithinChristandaresavedbyHisperfectwork.Therefore,thispassagealsopointsustothetruthofthecovenantofworks. And the covenantofworkshasneverbeenabolished; it stillstands today. Thuswe have in Leviticus 18:5 (quoted inGal.3:15 andRom.10:5)—“Ye shall thereforekeepmy statutes, andmyjudgments:whichifamando,heshallliveinthem:IamtheLord.”BecauseacovenantmadebyGodcanneverbebrokenordisannulled, therefore, still today, every human being stands incovenanttoGod—thecovenantoflife.Theymustkeepthelawin
CovenantofWorksanditsSignificance
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 130
ordertohavelifewithGod.Theymustbebornrighteousandtheymustliveinperfectobedience,glorifyingGodinthought,wordanddeed.Iftheylivethisway,thentheywillhavelifeandcommunionwithGod.But,ofcourse,thisiscompletelyimpossible:“Nowweknowthatwhatthingssoeverthelawsaith,itsaithtothemwhoareunderthelaw:thateverymouthmaybestopped,andalltheworldmaybecomeguiltybeforeGod”(Rom.3:19). Inourconsiderationofthiscovenant(ofworks),plainlytherearesignificantdifferencestothecovenantofgrace.Iwillnotat-temptheretoprovethetruthsofthecovenantofgrace,butsimplyto state some essential differences. First—andwe have alreadyalludedtothis—thecovenantofworkswasmadewithAdamasthefederalheadofthiscovenant(“federal”derivingfromthewordfoedus—Latinforcovenant),sothatallmankindwasrepresentedinAdam.Thus,thecovenantofworkswasmadewithallmankind.ComparethistothecovenantofgracewhichhasJesusChristasitsfederalHead,andthereforeismadeonlywiththeelectinHim.Thecovenantofgraceisonlyfortheelect,notforallmankind,and the covenant of grace has a different federal head than thecovenantofworks. Theothermajordifference is theunconditionalnatureof thecovenantofgrace.Foralltheelectinthecovenantofgrace,thiscovenantisunconditional,becausealltheconditionsforlifewithGod(paymentofthepenaltyforsin,perfectrighteousnessandobe-dience,andbeingunitedtoChristbyfaith)havebeenfulfilledbyJesusChristandbytheworkofHisSpiritintheelect.Therefore,wereceiveandareinthecovenantofgraceunconditionally.Itwasbecausethecovenantoflifewasconditionalthatwecouldfallfromlifeinthatcovenant.ButbecauseJesusChristhasfulfilledalltheconditionsofthecovenantofgraceasourMediator,wecanneverfallfromthecovenantofgrace.
Wrong Conceptions of the Covenant of Works Itneedstobesaidatthispoint,thatthereareanumberofwrongconceptions of the covenant ofworks that have arisen over time,justastherearewrongconceptionsofthecovenantofgrace.Andsomeofthesewrongconceptionshavebeenheldquitewidelyamong
November 2014 31
varioustheologians.Butthesewrongconceptionsdonotmakethebasicdoctrineitselfwrong—thewrongconceptionssimplyneedtoberejected,biblically,inordertokeepthepurityofthebiblicaltruth.Wenotejustafewofthese. First, there is the idea that the covenant ofworkswas simplyan agreement,workedout betweenGod andman, sometime afterman’screation.Therearetwoaspectstothis:thatitwasapactorbusiness-likearrangement(withtwoequalparties);andalsothatitwasestablishedafterthecreationofman,asanafter-thoughtor“add-on.”WehavealreadyseenthattheverylanguageofGodinScriptureindicatesthatGod’scovenantsareneverpactsoragreements,eventhoughman’scovenantsmaybe. Godconceivesof thecovenant;Goddecreesit;andGodputsitintoplaceandpractice.ThistiesintothewayinwhichthecovenantoflifeorthecovenantofworkswasestablishedbyGodatthetimeofman’screation.HecreatedmantobeincovenantcommunionwithHim:thiswasnotsomethingaddedonlater.ThisiswhytheWestminsterLargerCatechismincludescon-siderationofthecovenantofworksintheprovidenceofGodtowardman,statinginquestion20—“intheestateinwhichhewascreated.”TheWestminsterStandardsholdthatmanwascreatedintothecove-nantofworks—intothatcovenantalrelationshipofrighteousnessandcommunionwithGod. Second,istheideathatsomehow,inthecovenantofworks,mancouldearnhimselfamuchhigherplacethanwhatheenjoyedinhiscreatedstate.ThewholetenorofGod’srelationshipwithAdaminthegardenwas:“Dothisandlive”;“Continueinrighteousnessandcontinuetoenjoythiswonderfulstateoffellowshipandcommunion.”Adam’srelationshipwithGodinEdenwasalreadyperfectandglo-rious—GodsaidthatallHehadmadewas“verygood.”TherewasnothinghighertowhichAdamhimselfcouldattain.Thatisnottosaythattheremayhavebeen(andthisispurelyconjecture,becauseGodneverplannedthatthisshouldhappen!)aprobationarytime,afterwhichitwouldhavebeenimpossibleforAdamtofall.Webelievethistobethecasewiththeangels,forexample.ButthereisnosuggestionintheBible(norintheWestminsterStandards)thatthiswouldresultinAdambeingtranslatedintoafarhigherstateofglory,soastoliveandhavecommunionwithGodinheavenandearth,andtohavea
CovenantofWorksanditsSignificance
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 132
gloriousandspiritualexistenceliketoChrist’s.No,therighteousnessthatAdamworkedwasnotonlyhisdutyandhisdelight,butitalsomaintainedhiminthecovenantrelationshipthatGodhadestablished,becauseitwasconditioneduponthatrighteousness. Therefore,werejectthewrongconceptionsofthecovenantofworks,butlayholduponthetruthitself.
The Covenant of Works in the Reformed Tradition IfthecovenantoflifeisavalidReformed,andthereforebiblicaltruth,weshouldfindthatatleastthecentralnubandkernelofthistruthwillhavebeenpresentthroughoutthehistoryoftheNTchurch.Andintime,weshouldseethisdoctrinedeveloped,refined,anddefendedbythetruechurch.Thisispreciselywhatwedofind,asweexaminethehistoryofthedevelopmentofcovenantdoctrine. WestartwithAugustine.AndrewWoolsey,inhisdissertationUnity and Continuity in Covenantal Thoughtsays,“Theterm‘covenantofworks’wasnotusedbyAugustine,butthepicturehepresentedofthedivinearrangementwithAdaminEdencontainedalltheingredientsofsuchacovenantaslaterportrayedbythe‘covenanttheologians.’”15 HealsoquotesthefollowingfromAugustine:
Manycovenants,tobesure,arecalledGod’scovenantsinadditiontothetwochiefones,theoldandthenew,whichallmaylearnbyreadingthem.Nowthefirstcovenantgiventothefirstmanisreallythis:“onthedaythatyoueat,youshalldiethedeath”(Gen.2:17).Nowsinceamoreexplicitlaw(lex evidentior)hasbeenvouchsafedlater,andtheApostlesays:“Butwherethereisnolaw,thereisnotransgression”(Rom.4:15),howcanthewordswereadinPsalmsbetrue,namely:“Ihavereckonedallsinnersonearthastransgressors?”(Ps.119:119).Onlyonthegroundthatallwhoareheldinbondagebyanysinareguiltyoftransgressingsomelaw. Wherefore,ifeveninfants,asthetruefaithmaintains,arebornsinners,sotheyarealsoseentobetransgressorsofthelawthatwasissued in the gardenofEden…this since circumcisionwas a signofregenerationandtheactofbirthbringsperditionupontheinfantthroughtheoriginalsinbywhichGod’scovenantwasfirstbroken,unlessregenerationsetshimfree,thesedivinewordsmustbeinter-
15 Woolsey,Unity and Continuity,173.
November 2014 33
pretedasiftheysaid:“Hewhohasnotbeenregenerated,hissoulshallperishfromamongthepeople,”forhebrokeGod’scovenantwheninAdam,togetherwithallmankind,hehimselfalsosinned….Sincehe[God]didnotexpresslystatewhatsortofcovenanttheinfanthasbroken,wearefreetounderstanditasreferringtothatcovenantwhoseinfringementcouldbeattributedtothechild.16
Reading theother church fathers, such as JustinMartyr, Irenaeus,andClementofAlexandria,wemayalsoseesignificantcovenantalthought,althoughnotasmuchclarityonthedoctrineofthecovenantofworks. IntheMedievalperiod,therewaslittledevelopmentoftheologicalunderstanding;yettherewassome.Duringthistime,bothThomasAquinasandDunsScotusspokeofbothacovenantofsalvationandacovenantofcreationmadewithallmankind.Later,moreconserva-tivetheologiansGregoryofRiminiandThomasBradwardine(inthe1300s),althoughtheydifferedsignificantlywithAquinasandScotus,agreedwiththeessenceofthesetwocovenants.17 ThenfollowedtheReformation.UlrichZwinglihadnosystem-aticsettingforthofacovenant inEden,but inhiswritingson thecovenantagainsttheAnabaptistsheusedseveralconceptsthatpavedthewayfordevelopmentofthedoctrineofthecovenantofworks.ThesethingswerepickedupbyHeinrichBullinger,whosucceededZwingliinZurich:thelawofGodnaturallywrittenintheheartofAdam,andtherepresentativeheadshipofAdam,ascomparedtotherepresentativeheadshipofChrist.18 Bullingerdevelopedcovenantunderstandingmuchfurther,andisconsideredtobethefirsttohavewrittenatheologyofthecovenantinhisDe Testamento(in1534).HiscovenanttheologyalsoappearsinhisDecades,writtenin1549.Hereheisveryclear,indemonstratingthatGod’scovenantofgraceisonlyfortheelect.Bullingerconceivedofanexternal,visiblechurch,withwhomGodmadeHiscovenantexternally,butthendistinguishedthatfromthetrue,invisibleandinwardchurch,towhominrealityGod’scovenantbelongs.ButBullingeralsodefinedGod’srelationshipto
16 Woolsey,Unity and Continuity,173,quoting fromAugustine,De Civitate Dei,XVI.133-135.
17 Woolsey,Unity and Continuity,195-199,includingfootnotes.18 Woolsey,Unity and Continuity,225.
CovenantofWorksanditsSignificance
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 134
Adaminthegardenasbeingdifferentfromthecovenantofgrace.Itwasdifferentinthatitwasalegalrelationship,requiringalovingobediencetoGodandrevealingthewayinwhichhewouldcontinuetoreceivelifeandcommunion.“Infact,Godshowedhimthetreeasasignofthatwhichwasimposedbytalkingaboutthelaw,certainlyofhisobediencetotheLordalone,asthewiseandbountiful,excellent,greatestGodandCreator.”19Woolseygoessofarastosay:“TheonlydifferencebetweenBullinger’spositionandthatof later‘covenanttheologians’hereistheappellation‘covenantofworks.’”20 JohnCalvinlikewisedidnotspeakofa“covenantofworks.”Indeed,theword“covenant”isnotfoundfrequentlyinhiswritings,eventhoughtheconceptsofcovenantaltheologyarefoundthereliberally.Andhedidwriteconcerningthepre-fallrelationshipbetweenGodandAdamalso.Hesawthattherelationshipwasbaseduponlaw,thattheimageofGodwasexpressedinthatlaw,andthatobediencetothelawwastheconditionuponwhichcontinuinginlifewaspromised.21Woolseynotes:
Calvindidnotuse the term“covenantofworks”…but thekindoflanguagehediduseisworthnoting:divinecondescension,accom-modation toman’scapacity,bindingandunitingmanwithGod,apromissoryagreementoflifewithlegalandethicalobligations. Itmightwellbeasked,whatmoreisneededtoconstituteacovenantofworksarrangement?22
Calvinhimself says, in speakingofGodgivingHis law formentoobeyandpromisinglifethereby:“God…treatsaccordingtoanagreement, and so there is amutual obligation between himselfandthepeople.NoonewillsurelydenythatGodhereexhibitsaspecimenofhismercywhenhedeigns thusfamiliarly tomakeacovenantwithmen.”23 As theReformationproceeded, therewasfurtherdevelopment
19 Bullinger,Decades,165a-116b,quotedinWoolsey,Unity and Con-tinuity,247.
20 Woolsey,Unity and Continuity,248.21 JohnCalvin,InstitutesI,15.8;CommentariesonGenesis2:16-17,
Romans11:35,Ezekiel20:11.22 Woolsey,Unity and Continuity,282.23 Calvin,CommentaryonEzekiel20:11.
November 2014 35
ofthedoctrineofthecovenantofgrace,andside-by-sidewiththis,thedevelopmentofthecovenantofworks.ZachariusUrsinusandCasparOlevianus,theHeidelbergtheologians,weretwoinvolvedinsuchdevelopment.Thesetwoparticularly,drawingontheconceptsandwritingsofCalvin,Beza,andMelanchthon,morecarefullydefinedthecovenantofworksoveragainstthecovenantofgrace,showingtheirsimilarities,differences,andrelationship. WilliamPerkins,whowasaPuritanpreacher, anda fellowofChrist’sCollege,Cambridgeinthelate1500s,spokeclearlyofthecovenantofworks.Hesaid:“Therearetwokindsofcovenant….ThecovenantofworksisGod’scovenant,madewiththeconditionofperfectobedience,andisexpressedinthemorallaw….Thecov-enantofgraceisthatwherebyGodfreelypromisingChrist,andhisbenefits,exactethagainofman,thathewouldbyfaithreceiveChrist,andrepentofhissins.”24AndwemayfindthatthesameideasofthecovenantofworksareexpressedbyScottishpreachersandtheologianslikeRobertRollockandRobertHowie.Andthereareothers,suchasFrancisGomarus,andlaterJohannesCocceiusandHermanWitsius,andthensuchasJohnBallandThomasBoston. Whatwecanalsonoteis that,particularlyat theheightofthedevelopmentofcovenanttheologyinReformedthought,holdingtothecovenantofworkswasamarkoftheologicalorthodoxy.Infact,itwasthehereticssuchastheSociniansortheRemonstrants(forex-ample,Episcopius)whorejectedthecovenantofworksasascripturaldoctrine.AndonceagaintodaywefindthatthecovenantofworksisattackedbythelatestoftheheresiesagainsttheReformedfaith—theFederalVision.
The Covenant of Works in the Reformed Confessions Onewouldexpectthat,withthedevelopmentofcovenanttheologythroughtheperiodoftheReformation,itwouldbethelaterReformedconfessionsthatwouldspeakofthisdoctrine.Andthisiswhatwefind. Interestingly,HermanBavinck said that “The doctrine of thecovenantofworksisbasedonScriptureandiseminentlyvaluable.”
24 WilliamPerkins,Golden Chaine, quoted inWoolsey,Unity and Continuity,466.
CovenantofWorksanditsSignificance
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 136
And,“Thecovenantofworksandthecovenantofgracestandandfalltogether.”HeactuallymaintainedthatthebasicunderstandingoftheconceptsofthecovenantofworksarefoundintheBelgicConfessionArticles14-15andintheHeidelbergCatechism,Q&As6-11. ButbythetimewecometotheWestminsterConfessionandCat-echisms,aswehaveseen,thedoctrineiswelldefinedthroughouttheReformedworld,andthereforeisstatedexplicitly.ThedoctrineofthecovenantofworksisalsofoundabitlaterintheHelveticConsensusFormulaof1675,Canons7-10.
The Significance of the Covenant of Works AswithallthetruthsofScripture,thedoctrineofthecovenantofworksisnotjustanacademicfact.AllthetruthsoftheBiblepointtothebeautyandthewonderofJesusChristandHiswork.Andthisispreciselywhatthecovenantofworksdoesalso. Thecovenantofworksclearlysetsforthwhatiscentralandneces-saryformaninordertohavelifeandcommunionwithGod—thatis,perfectrighteousnessandperfectlovingobedience.Whichistosay,tobeconformedperfectlytothelawofGod,andgladlytoobeythewillofourCreator.Therefore,assoonasmanceasedtohaverighteousnessandobedience,eveninonesmallthing,helostthecommunionandblessingsofthatcovenantandcameunderitsnecessarycurse.God,beingtheGodofallrighteousnessandjustice,mustbringthewholeofHisinfinitejudgmenttobearonallandeverysin.Thisisthebasisfor understandingwhat relationship allmankindhaswithGodbynature—andwhatkindofsalvationweneed.ItisutterlyimpossibleforustorepairthecovenantofworksandenterintoblessingwithGodthroughourownworks.Anyworkofoursiscompletelyexcludedbyunderstandingthatinitialcovenantofworks—itisadeathknelltotheheresyoftheFederalVisionwhichclaimsthatweneedfaithandworks. Next,thecovenantofworksclearlysetsforththesalvation,therescue,weneed.Weneedsomeonetofulfillthecovenantofworks,tostandinourplaceasaFederalandCovenantHead,torepairallthathasbeenbroken,andtofulfillcompletelyallthatwewereunabletodoinAdam.ThisiswhatChristdoes(Rom.5:1-21).First,Hetakesall thepenalty incurredby everyone that belongs toHim, andHe
November 2014 37
CovenantofWorksanditsSignificance
suffersthatperfectjusticeforalloursins:originalandactual.Butsecond,HethenstandsintheplaceofthefirstAdam,andforalltheelect,choseninHimbeforetheworldbegan,Helivesalifeofperfectrighteousnessandlovingobedience.JesusChristfulfills,completelyandperfectly,thecovenantofworks.BeingGodandman,HisperfectworkstandsforalleternityforallofHispeople. Thecovenantofworksalsounmistakablysetsforththerelation-shipbetweenlawandgospel. Lawandgospelarenotcompletelyseparated,butareintimatelyconnected.God’slaw,beingareflectionofHimself isholy, justandgood(Rom.7:12). Andmankindwasoriginallycreatedinacovenantinvolvinglaw.InAdam,wewereunderthelaw,andblessedgreatlybyitandbythekeepingofit.Buthavingfallen,thatsamelaw,thatsamecovenant,becameacurseandnotablessing,becauseofoursin.Butthen,Christcomes,andfulfillsthatlaw—Hisbloodhasbeensprinkleduponthemercyseatandtherighteousnessofthelawsatisfied.Now,thegospel,thegoodnewsis—wearenolongerunderthelaw(underthecovenantofworks),butweareundergrace(thecovenantofgrace):“Forsinshallnothavedominionoveryou:foryearenotunderthelaw,butundergrace”(Rom.6:14).Theterrorofthelawisgone,thecurseofthecovenantofworkstakenaway,andthelawisnowourgoldenpathwaytowalkin,outofgratitudetoourcovenantGodforallHehasdoneforus.ThelawofGodisthusseentobeimportantforallaspectsofourlifewithGod:antinomianismisdoneawaywith;legalismiscondemned,andtheFederalVisionshowntobeheresy. Further,thecovenantofworksbringshometothenaturalmanwherehestandsbeforeGod.Hedoesnotsimplystandasacreature,owinghonorandworshiptoGodasCreator;butheisinrealityinarelationshiptoGod—GodestablishedthecovenantofworkswithAdamandeveryhumanbeinginhim,andthatcovenantstillstands.Thisisanabsoluterequirementofallmen,thattheyfulfillallthatcovenant,ortheyfacetheeternalwrathofGod.Inthisway,itcanbeshownthatGodisjustandgoodtobringeternaljudgmentagainstallwhoarenotinChrist. Incontrasttothecovenantofworks,thecovenantofgraceshinesinevengreaterbeautyandglory.JesusChristhascomeandfulfilledalltheconditionsofthecovenantofworks,completely,totheuttermost.
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 138
Thecovenantofworkswasrevealedfirst,thatwemightknowandseewhatChristhasdoneonourbehalfinthecovenantofgrace.Andthisiswhatmakesthecovenantofgraceunconditionaltotheelect.GodfromalleternityestablishedHiscounselofpeacebetweenHimself(thetriuneGod)andJesusChrist(theBranch)asseeninZechariah6:12-13:“Andspeakuntohim,saying,ThusspeakeththeLordofhosts,saying,BeholdthemanwhosenameisTheBRANCH;andheshallgrowupoutofhisplace,andheshallbuildthetempleoftheLord:EvenheshallbuildthetempleoftheLord;andheshallbeartheglory,andshallsitandruleuponhis throne;andheshallbeapriestuponhisthrone:andthecounselofpeaceshallbebetweenthemboth”).Hethensetforththeconditionalcovenantofworks,inwhichmanfellintosin,renderinghimselfspirituallydeadandcondemned.JesusChristcame,havingtakenHispeopletoHimself,andfulfilledthecounselofpeace,workingandfulfillingallconditionsasProphet,PriestandKing.Therefore,aswestandinChristandwithHimasourMediator,therearenoconditionsforoursalvation.TheHolySpiritworksfaithinus,andweareunitedtoChrist,andallconditionsarefulfilled.Nothingstandsinthewayofoursalvation,orinthewayofourblessedness in lifeandcommunion foreverwithGod. Thecovenantofworksactuallyemphasizesandstressestheunconditionalnatureofthecovenantofgrace. Finally,thisdoctrineofthecovenantofworksshowsthatthroughtheworkofChristandgrace,wehavebeenelevatedtoafarhigherlifethanwewouldeverhavehadinthegarden,andinthefirstcovenant,perfectthoughitwas.Thatis,Adam’slifeinthegardenwasasperfectasitcouldeverbe,asacreatureenjoyinglifeandcommunionwithGodincovenantwithHim.ButGodalwaysplannedsomethingfargreater.Inthewayofthecovenantofgrace,itisnecessarythatweareunitedtoChrist,thesecondAdam,inordertobemadepartakersof thebenefitsHehaspurchased. But thatmeanssomethingveryglorious,whichGodalwayspurposed.WearemadetobeheirswithChrist—wearemadetobetheverysonsanddaughtersofGodand(whatevergloriousthingthismaymean)made“partakersofthedivinenature”(IIPeter1:4).Adam,andmankindinhim,couldneverearnormeritanythinggreaterthanthatwhichGodhadlovinglygivenintheestateofcreation.Forwhenwehavedoneallthosethingswhich
November 2014 39
CovenantofWorksanditsSignificance
wearecommandedtodoinGod’slaw,westillconfessthatweareunprofitableservants:wehaveonlydonethatwhichwasourdutytodo(Luke17:10).ButChrist,beingbothmanandtheeternalSonofGod,couldearnormeritfarmoreforHispeople.ThatwasalwaysGod’spurpose,andwewouldreceivethemostwondrousblessingsthatHehasearnedinthecovenantofredemption.
Conclusion Inconclusion,IquotefromWilhelmusáBrakel,theologianfromthelate1600s,andauthorofA Christian’s Reasonable Service.Hesaid:“Acquaintancewiththiscovenantisofthegreatestimportance,forwhoever errs here or denies the existence of the covenant ofworks,willnotunderstandthecovenantofgrace,andwillreadilyerrconcerningthemediatorshipoftheLordJesus.SuchapersonwillveryreadilydenythatChristbyHisactiveobediencehasmeritedarighttoeternallifefortheelect.”25BrakelspoketrulyconcerningtheArminiansofhisday;andinourday,hespeakstrulyconcerningthemenoftheFederalVision. Therearethosewhodenytheconceptofthecovenantofworks,butwhoholdtotheprinciplesoftruthcontainedinit.WeunderstandthatourbrethrenofthePRC,althoughtheyhaverejectedaparticularconceptionofthecovenantofworks,standwithusinmanyoftheprinciplesoutlinedinthispaper,andinthatwerejoice.But,itwouldbeequallygoodtoconvincethemfromScriptureofthecorrectandconfessionalunderstandingwehaveofthisdoctrineandwhichweholddear. MaytheLordusethesethingswehaveexaminedtoencourageourheartsinthegraceandtruthofJesusChrist,forHisglory,andforthestrengtheningofHischurch. l
25 WilhelmusáBrakel,The Christian’s Reasonable Service,vol.1,trans.BartelElshout(Morgan:SoliDeoGloria,1992),355.
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 140
God’s Covenant of Graceand Marriage
Russell J. Dykstra God’sgraciouscovenantwithHispeopleisacentralandextraor-dinarilysignificantdoctrineinReformedandPresbyterianchurches.ThechurchhaslongunderstoodtheimportanceofGod’scovenant,asisevidentfromtheidentificationofGod’sinspiredWordastheOldTestament(orcovenant)andtheNewTestament(orcovenant). InthejudgmentofmostReformedtheologians,thecovenantistheveryheartofReformeddoctrineandlife.ManyPresbyteriantheologianshavelikewisedevotedsolideffortsinsettingforthandexplainingthisdoctrine.Inthedoctrineofthecovenantalltheology“comestogether.”Thevariousdoctrinesofachurchcomeintofocusinherdoctrineofthecovenant,thusrevealingeitherintrinsicconflictandcontradictioninitstheology,or,harmonious,organicunity. FortheProtestantReformedChurches,thedoctrineofthecovenantisessentialtoourexistenceasadenomination.Alreadyin1950,Rev.HermanHoeksemaset forthwhathebelieved tobe thedistinctivecontributionoftheProtestantReformedChurchestotheReformedfaith,aswellastheirdistinctivestandintheReformedchurch-world.Hewrote:
ButIask,whatistheheritageoftheProtestantReformedChurch-es? Is thereanypartof the truthwhich theyhaveemphasizedandfurtherdevelopedindistinctionfromotherReformedChurches? ...IfyouaskmewhatisthemostpeculiartreasureoftheProtestantReformedChurches,Ianswerwithoutanyhesitation:theirpeculiarviewofthecovenant. Andwhatistheirparticularconception? Itstandscloselyconnectedwiththeirdenialofcommongrace,andwiththeiremphasisonthedoctrineofelectionandreprobation. Moreover,itemphasizesandcarriesouttheorganicidea. Brieflystatedit teachesthatGodrealizesHiseternalcovenantof friendship, inChrist, the Firstborn of every creature, and theFirst-begottenof thedead,organically,andantitheticallyalong the
November 2014 41
God’sCovenantofGraceandMarriage
linesofelectionandreprobation,andinconnectionwiththeorganicdevelopmentofallthings. Thatis,inanutshell,thepeculiarProtestantReformedheritage.1
Subsequent events in the history of the ProtestantReformedChurches(PRC)wouldonlyconfirmthatconviction,andifpossible,makethedoctrineofthecovenanttobeevenmoredistinctandmorebelovedbythemembersofthePRC. This glorious doctrine is significant notmerely for theology.Believersliveoutoftheirtheology,andwhattheybelievewillaffect,evendirect,theirlives.ThisisespeciallytrueofthedoctrineofGod’scovenantofgrace.ThecovenantsetsforthourrelationshiptoGodand that relationship isdeterminative forallof life’s relationships.Sincewe livewithGodinconsciouscovenant life,we live in thisworldasHisfriendsandservants.Thatwilldirectlyaffectourlivesasfamiliesandwilldetermineourrelationshiptoourneighbors,ourfellowworkers,andobviously,ourfellowsaints. One of the institutions that is profoundly affected byGod’sgraciouscovenantismarriage.Everybelieverrecognizesthecloserelationship betweenGod’s covenant of grace andmarriage. TheBiblepresentsGod’scovenantwithHispeopleintermsofmarriage.TheburdenofthispaperisthatmarriageexistsforthesakeofGod’scovenant,andthereforemarriagemustbeshapedandmoldedafterGod’severlastingcovenantofgrace. In thepaperwewillexaminefirst,what thecovenant is. YoucanbeassuredthatIwillbesettingforthmyconvictionofwhattheBibleteaches,andthatthisistheestablishedpositionoftheProtestantReformedChurches. Second,wewill examinepassages that linkthecovenantandmarriage.Third,wewillcompareandcontrasttheinstitutionofmarriagewithGod’scovenantwithHispeople—howtheyarealike,andhowtheyaredifferent.Fourth,wewillnotetheeffectthataconditionalcovenanthasontheinstitutionofmarriage,ascomparedtoanunconditionalcovenant.Inparticular,Iwillfocusontheimplicationsformarriageandfacethequestion,ismarriageaunionthatonlyGoddissolvesbydeath,orismarriageaunionthatcanbedissolvedastheresultofsin?Thegoalofthepaperinthis
1 “ProtestantReformed,”Standard Bearer,26,(March15,1950):269.
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 142
fourthsectionistodemonstratethatmarriage,likeGod’scovenant,isunbreakable,andthatonlydeathdissolvestheunionofhusbandandwife.
God’s Gracious Covenant of Friendship Briefly expressed,we hold thatGod’s covenant of grace is arelationshipoffriendshipthatGodsovereignlyestablisheswithHischosenpeopleinChrist.Inthiscovenant,ChristisbothHeadofthecovenantpeopleandMediatorofthecovenant.GodestablishesHiscovenantunconditionallywithbelieversandtheirelectseedinthelineofcontinuedgenerations. ThestartingpointforunderstandingthecovenantisGodHim-self—GodisacovenantGod.Astheeternal,triuneGod,HeisthelivingGod.Father,Son,andSpirithavelivedtogethereternallyinarelationshipofloveandfriendship.ThatgloriouslifeisthepatternforGod’sgraciouscovenantwithHispeopleinChrist.ForGodhasdeterminedthatHispeoplewillknowandloveHim,livewithHiminfellowship,andpraiseHimforever. TheBibleemphasizesthattheessenceofthecovenantofgraceisarelationshipoffriendship.ThatisnottosaythattheBibleanywheredefinesthecovenantasfriendship,anymorethantheBibleinanyoneplaceneatlydefinesandcircumscribestheatonement,orjustification,oranycentraldoctrine.YetthistruthispresentedthroughouttheBible. EvidencethatGod’srelationshiptoHispeopleisafriendshipisfoundalreadyinthegardenofEden,whereGodwalkedinthegarden,callingtoHisfriend/servantAdamtocommunetogether(Gen.3:8),apparentlyanordinaryactivity,andoneenjoyedbyfriends.Infact,GodhadcreatedAdamandEveinHisownimageandlikenesssothatarelationshipoffriendshipcouldexist.Immediatelyafterthefall,Godpromisedtoputenmitybetweentheseedofthewomanandtheseedoftheserpent.ThoughGoddidnotexplainhow,subsequenthistoryrevealedthatGodaccomplishedthatenmitybydrawingHischosenpeopleoutofthefallenraceintocovenantfriendshipwithhim.AsfriendsofGod,Hispeoplewouldbehatedbytheworld. Further,ofEnochandNoahwereadthattheywalked with God,anotheractivityoffriends. Inaddition,ScripturecallsAbrahamafriend of Godnolessthanthreetimes(IIChron.20:7;Is.41:8;James2:23).
November 2014 43
God’sCovenantofGraceandMarriage
ThecovenantGoddweltinandwithIsrael,saying“Iwillestab-lishmycovenantwithyou…andIwillsetmytabernacleamongyou:andmysoulwillnotabhoryou,andIwillwalkamongyou,andwillbeyourGod,andyeshallbemypeople”(Lev.26:9,11,12).Thetabernacleitselfwasarevelationofthecovenant.ItiscalledGod’shouse—whichcallstomindafamilydwellingplaceandfellowship.Thetabernacleconsistedoftworooms,withGod(symbolically)pres-entinone,andthepeople(representedinthepriests)intheother.Itpicturedthecovenant—GodandHispeopledwellingtogetherunderoneroof. ConsideralsohowPsalm25:14describestheintimacyofcov-enantlifewithGod—“ThesecretoftheLordiswiththemthatfearhim,andhewillshowthemhiscovenant.”TheHebrewdisclosestheremarkablefamiliarityfoundinGod’slifewithHispeople.Therootmeaningofthewordtranslated“secret”is“pillow”or“cushion.”Itpaintsthepictureoffriendssittingtogetherinfamiliarconversation,orevenofahusbandandwifeinfellowship,withtheirheadslyingonacommonpillow.Thisisaboutfriendship.JehovahsharesHisfamiliarconversations,Hissecrets,withHis friends,and(note theHebrewparallelisminPsalm25)causesthemtoknowHiscovenant. ThiscovenantrelationshipisrealizedinJesusChrist,theMediatorofthecovenant.HeisImmanuel—Godwithus.Hecametotaber-naclewithus(John1:14).AndbyHisatoningworkHerealizedthecovenant:removingthesinandguiltthatstoodbetweenHispeopleandGod,removingforevertheircurse,andreconcilingthemuntotheFather.ThesesamepeoplearegiventhelifeofChristfromaboveandarerecreatedinHisimage,thusmakingfellowshipwithGodbothpossibleandactual. Theculminationofthiseternalcovenantofgraceandreconcili-ationisrecordedinRevelation21:3—“AndIheardagreatvoiceoutofheavensaying,Behold,thetabernacleofGodiswithmen,andhewilldwellwiththem,andtheyshallbehispeople,andGodhimselfshallbewiththem.” GodnotonlyteachesinHisWordthatthecovenantisarelationoffriendship;Hecausesustoknow(fromourexperience)thenatureofthatfriendship,namely,thatitisclose,intimate,andunbreakable.Hehasgiventhreehumanrelationshipsaspicturesofthecovenant
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 144
life.Bymeansofthese,Godnotonlydriveshomethetruththattheessenceof the covenant is friendship;He alsogivesHis people aforetasteoftheeternalcovenantofgrace. GodillustratesHisfriendshipwithHiscovenantpeoplewiththefriendship of men likeDavid and Jonathan,whose soulswereknit togetherinlove.Wereadthat“JonathanandDavidmadeacovenant,becausehelovedhimashisownsoul”(ISam.18:1-4).Proverbs18:24hintsatthesame—“thereisafriendthatstickethcloserthanabrother.” ThefamilyisalsoapictureofGod’scovenantwithus,forHeisourFatherforJesus’sake.GodadoptsusasHischildren(Eph.1:4-6),evensendingtheSpiritofChristintoourheartscrying“Abba,Father”(Rom.8:15;Gal.4:6).RecreatedintheimageofChrist,God’scov-enantpeopleevenbearaspiritualresemblancetotheirelderbrother.Itbecomesmanifest that theybelongtothefamilyofGod,andaschildrentheyhavetherighttoliveinHishouse,sitatHistable,andhavecommunionwitheachotherandwithGodinChrist.Tothemistheinheritancepromised,viz.,eternallife. Thethirdpictureofthecovenantismarriage,towhichwewillreturnlater.AlltheseGod-givenpicturesalsoindicatethattheessenceofthecovenantisfriendship. Forthesakeofclarityandcompleteness,wefocusonafewmoreelementsofthecovenant.First,thecovenantofGodisaneternal covenantmadewithChristandwith thepeopleofGod,chosen inChrist.ThisistheteachingofPsalm89:1-37.ThisPsalmbeginswiththepsalmistpraisingGodforHisfaithfulness. ThenGodHimselfspeaks:“Ihavemadeacovenantwithmychosen,IhaveswornuntoDavidmyservant,ThyseedwillIestablishforever,andbuildupthythronetoallgenerations”(Ps.89:3-4).God’scovenantiswith“Hischosen”(pointingtoelection)andwithDavid(atypeofChrist).GodpromisestoestablishHisthroneforever,indicatingthatthecovenantiseternal,andthattheonewithwhomthecovenantismadeisGod’sownSon,whosethronealoneiseternal. Thedescriptionsandpromisesfoundinverses19ff.canonlyreferultimatelytoChrist.Itbecomesespeciallyevidentinverse26:“Heshallcryuntome,Thouartmyfather,myGod.”AndnoticeGod’spromiseinthenextverse:“AlsoIwillmakehimmyfirstborn,higherthanthekingsoftheearth.”
November 2014 45
God’sCovenantofGraceandMarriage
Thencomesthebeautifuldescriptionofaneternal,unbreakablecovenant(28):“MymercywillIkeepforhimforevermore,andmycovenantshallstandfastwithhim.”Godexplainsthatifthechildren ofHisSon(thosegiventoChristeternally)breakthecovenant,He(God)willchastisethem(30-32).“Nevertheless (Godaffirms)mylovingkindnesswillInotutterlytakefrom him [Christ],norsuffermyfaithfulnesstofail. My covenant will I not break, noralterthethingthatisgoneoutofmylips”(Ps.89:33-34,myemphasis). God’scovenantisaneternalcovenantoflovemadewithHisownSon,andallthosegiventotheSonbytheFather. GodmadethisplaintoAbrahaminGenesis17:7,testifying,“AndIwillestablishmycovenantbetweenmeandtheeandthyseedafterthee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be aGoduntothee,andtothyseedafterthee.”Galatians3explainsthatthe“seed”inthispromiseisChristHimself.TheSpiritdeclares:“NowtoAbrahamandhisseedwerethepromisesmade.Hesaithnot,Andtoseeds,asofmany;butasofone,Andtothyseed,whichisChrist”(Gal.3:16). ThisiswhyGod’scovenantofgraceisunbreakable.ThechildrenofChristwill‘break’thecovenant.This‘breaking’ofthecovenantdoesnotmeantthattheywilldissolve,eliminate,ordisannulit.RathertheywillviolateGoddemandstoHiscovenantpeople.Buttheycannotbreak(thatis,dissolve)God’scovenantbecauseGodestablishediteternallywithChrist.God’scovenantisunbreakable. TheBiblealsoteachesthatGodestablishesHiscovenantwithbelievers and their seed.Genesis17:7isthecleareststatementofthis.ThereGodaddressesAbraham(Hisfriend):“AndIwillestablishmycovenantbetweenmeandtheeandthyseedaftertheeintheirgener-ationsforaneverlastingcovenant,tobeaGoduntothee,andtothyseedafterthee.”Yet,sincethecovenantiswiththeelectinChrist,notallthenaturalchildrenofAbrahamaremeant.GodestablishesHiscovenantofloveandfriendshipwiththeelectchildrenofbelievers,notwiththereprobateborntobelievingparents,suchasEsau. ThuswhenGodestablishedHiscovenantwithChrist,Heestab-lisheditwitheverymemberofthebodyofChrist,andaccordingly,witheverymemberofthecovenant.ThisisGod’seternalplan.GodeternallyappointedChristHeadandMediatorofthecovenant.The
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 146
covenantofgraceisnotaresponsetothefallofAdam,orastopgapefforttofixAdam’ssin.ThecovenantofgraceisGod’seternalplan.God’sgoalistoliveincovenantloveandfellowshipwithHispeopleeternally. WhathasbeensaidimpliesthatGod’scovenantiscontrolled by election.ManyfalselyaccusethePRCofidentifyingcovenantwithelection.Thatchargeisnonsense.Electionisadecreetochoosecer-tainpersonstosalvationinChrist.Thecovenantisarelationshipoffriendship.Yettheclosestpossiblerelationexistsbetweencovenantandelection,forelectiondeterminesmembershipinthecovenant,andreprobationexcludesfromthecovenant.Simplyput,GodestablishesHiscovenantonlywiththeelect.Inadditiontothetextsgivenabove,consideralsoPsalm132:11-14:“TheLordhathswornintruthuntoDavid;hewillnotturnfromit;OfthefruitofthybodywillIsetuponthythrone.IfthychildrenwillkeepmycovenantandmytestimonythatIshallteachthem,theirchildrenshallalsosituponthythroneforevermore.FortheLordhathchosenZion;hehathdesireditforhishabitation.Thisismyrestforever:herewillIdwell;forIhavedesiredit.”
Marriage: A Picture of God’s Covenant God’seternal,unbreakablecovenantwithHispeople inChristshapesandmoldsmarriage,becauseGodcreatedmarriage tobeapictureofHiscovenantrelationshipwithHispeople.ThisbecomesplainalreadyintheOldTestament. IntheOldTestament,Godpresentsthisrelationshipasabetrothal.Abetrothalwasnotthesameasthemodern-dayengagement,whichis anagreement tobecomemarried,butnot a legal agreement. Abetrothalwaslegallybinding.ThisisevidentfromthebetrothalofJosephandMary.WhenJosephdiscoveredthatMarywaswithchild,hedeterminedtoputheraway.Itwasdivorcethatheintendedtopur-sue.Theywerelegallyhusbandandwife,butnotyetlivingtogetherashusbandandwife.Thusalso Deuteronomy20:7,whichspeaksofaman“thathathbetrothedawife,andhathnottakenher.” IntheprophecyofHosea,GodusesthisrelationshiptodescribeHiscovenantlifewithIsrael.TheLordspeakstothetentribesofthekingdomofIsraeltowardtheendherexistence. Shehadforsaken
November 2014 47
God’sCovenantofGraceandMarriage
Jehovah.GoddescribesIsrael’ssinsasadultery(“…thelandhathcommitted greatwhoredom, departing from theLord,”Hos. 1:2).Israel’ssinsaresobadthatGoddeclares:“Pleadwithyourmother,plead:forsheisnotmywife,neitheramIherhusband:letherthere-foreputawayherwhoredomsoutofhersight,andheradulteriesfrombetweenherbreasts”(Hos.2:2).WhenIsraelturnedtoidols,“shewentafterherlovers,andforgatme,saiththeLord”(Hos.2:13). But Jehovah did not forsakeHiswife. On the contrary,Hepromises,“Therefore,behold,Iwillallureher,andbringherintothewilderness,andspeakcomfortablyuntoher.AndIwillgiveherhervineyardsfromthence,andthevalleyofAchorforadoorofhope:andsheshallsingthere,asinthedaysofheryouth,andasinthedaywhenshecameupoutofthelandofEgypt.Anditshallbeatthatday,saiththeLord,thatthoushaltcallmeIshi”(Hos.2:14-16—Ishi isliterally“myman,”orbetterhere,“myhusband”). ThroughtheprophetHoseaGodspeaksofacovenant:“AndinthatdaywillImakeacovenantforthem…”(Hos.2:18).ThenfollowsthebeautifulvowofHisbetrothaltoIsrael:“AndIwillbetroththeeuntomeforever;yea,Iwillbetroththeeuntomeinrighteousness,andinjudgment,andinlovingkindness,andinmercies.Iwillevenbetroththeeuntomeinfaithfulness:andthoushaltknowtheLORD….AndIwillhavemercyuponherthathadnotobtainedmercy;andIwillsaytothemwhichwerenotmypeople,Thouartmypeople;andtheyshallsay,ThouartmyGod”(Hos.2:19,20,23). SeveralotherinspiredprophetsusethissamekindoflanguagetodescribetherelationshipofGodtoIsraeland/ortoJudah. TheprophecyofJeremiahaddressesapostatizingJudah,andGodcommandsHismessenger,“GoandcryintheearsofJerusalem,say-ing,ThussaiththeLord;Irememberthee,thekindnessofthyyouth,theloveofthineespousals,whenthouwentestaftermeinthewil-derness”(Jer.2:2).Espousalisthesameasbetrothal.InsubsequentversesGodcondemnsherforherdeparturefromHim,comparingheractionstothatofaharlot,and,onewhohaslovedmanystrangers. TheLordsubsequentlyaddressesJudahasHis wife.“Theysay,Ifamanputawayhiswife,andshegofromhim,andbecomeanotherman’s,shallhereturnuntoheragain?shallnotthatlandbegreatlypolluted?butthouhastplayedtheharlotwithmanylovers.” Andthen
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 148
theunexpected,amazing,graciousadmonition: “Yet return again to me,saiththeLord”(Jer.3:1). ThroughtheprophetJeremiah,theLordcontinuedtodescribethewickednessofbothIsraelandJudahintermsofanunfaithfulwife,andspeaksevenofthedivorce!“AndIsaw,whenforallthecauseswherebybackslidingIsraelcommittedadulteryI had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce;yethertreacheroussisterJudahfearednot,butwentandplayedtheharlotalso”(Jer.3:8,myemphasis). Andstill,mostamazing,Godtellsthem:“Turn,Obackslidingchildren,saiththeLord;forIammarrieduntoyou:andIwilltakeyouoneofacity,andtwoofafamily,andIwillbringyoutoZion”(Jer.3:14).Thatisthegraciousassurance,eventhough,inverse20theLordremindsthem:“Surelyasawifetreacherouslydepartethfromherhusband,sohaveyedealttreacherouslywithme,OhouseofIsrael,saiththeLord”(Jer.3:20). AndstilltheLorddoesnotutterlyforsakeHiswife.InJeremiah31:3HespeaksofHisundyinglove:“TheLordhathappearedofolduntome,saying,Yea,Ihavelovedtheewithaneverlastinglove:thereforewithlovingkindnesshaveIdrawnthee.” Andlaterinthatchapter,God,Israel’sHusband,givesthepromiseofanewcovenant.
Behold,thedayscome,saiththeLord,thatIwillmakeanewcovenantwiththehouseofIsrael,andwiththehouseofJudah:NotaccordingtothecovenantthatImadewiththeirfathersinthedaythatItookthembythehandtobringthemoutofthelandofEgypt;whichmycovenanttheybrake,although I was an husband unto them,saiththeLord:Butthisshallbe thecovenantthatIwillmakewiththehouseofIsrael;Afterthosedays,saiththeLORD,Iwillputmylawintheirinwardparts,andwriteitintheirhearts;andwill be their God, and they shall be my people.Andtheyshallteachnomoreeverymanhisneighbour,andeverymanhisbrother,saying,KnowtheLord:forthey shall all know me,fromtheleastofthemuntothegreatestofthem,saiththeLord:forIwillforgivetheiriniquity,andIwillremembertheirsinnomore(31-34,myemphasis).
OurmarriagetoGod,Hiscovenantofgrace,isneverbroken(dis-solved).ThoughHiscovenantpeopletransgressandplaytheadul-
November 2014 49
God’sCovenantofGraceandMarriage
teress,sothatGodputsthemaway—divorcesthem—foratime,stillGodmaintainsthemarriage.Evenafterputtingheraway,divorcingher,Hestillinsiststhattheyaremarried. ThesametruthofGod’sunconditional,everlastingcovenantissetforthinEzekiel16intermsofamarriage.InitGodremindsJudahofherhopelessbirth(unwantedandlefttodie)andofGod’sgivingherlife(vv.4-6).Aftershematured,GodtookherasHiswife—“NowwhenIpassedbythee,andlookeduponthee,behold,thytimewasthe timeof love;andIspreadmyskirtover thee,andcovered thynakedness:yea,Iswareuntothee,andenteredintoacovenantwiththee,saiththeLordGod,andthoubecamestmine”(8). ThefollowingversesrecountJudah’sapostasyintermofadulterywithmanylovers,thatis,idolgods,“asawifethatcommittethadultery,whichtakethstrangersinsteadofherhusband”(32)!ForthisspiritualadulteryGodprophesiedcertainanddreadfuljudgment,endingwith:“ForthussaiththeLordGod;Iwillevendealwiththeeasthouhastdone,whichhastdespisedtheoathinbreakingthecovenant” (59). Soisthemarriage(thecovenant)over?Bynowweknowthatcannothappen.Inamazinggrace,Jehovahconcludes,“NeverthelessIwillremembermycovenantwiththeeinthedaysofthyyouth,andIwillestablishuntotheeaneverlastingcovenant….AndIwillestablishmycovenantwiththee;andthoushaltknowthatIamtheLord”(60,62). GodspoketoJudahalsothroughIsaiah,withasimilarmessagetoaspirituallyunfaithfulwife.“ThussaiththeLord,Whereisthebillofyourmother’sdivorcement,whomIhaveputaway?orwhichofmycreditorsisittowhomIhavesoldyou?Behold,foryouriniquitieshaveyesoldyourselves,andforyourtransgressionsisyourmotherputaway”(Is.50:1).ButJehovahdidnotforsakeHiseternallybelovedwife. “FortheLordhathcalledtheeasawomanforsakenandgrievedinspirit,andawifeofyouth,whenthouwastrefused,saiththyGod.ForasmallmomenthaveIforsakenthee;butwithgreatmercieswillIgatherthee.InalittlewrathIhidmyfacefromtheeforamoment;butwitheverlastingkindnesswillIhavemercyonthee,saiththeLord thyRedeemer”(Is.54:6-8). Isaiahevenseesthedaywhenthebetrothedwillbelivingtogetherashusbandandwife:“ThoushaltnomorebetermedForsaken;neither
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 150
shallthylandanymorebetermedDesolate:butthoushaltbecalledHephzibah,andthylandBeulah:fortheLorddelightethinthee,andthylandshallbemarried.Forasayoungmanmarriethavirgin,soshallthysonsmarrythee:andastheBridegroomrejoicethoverthebride,soshallthyGodrejoiceoverthee”(Is.62:4-5). IftheOldTestamentwasatimeofbetrothal,theNewTestamentisthewedding.TheBridegroom,Godintheflesh,comes,andtheweddingisimminent.InunspeakableloveHelaysdownHislifeforher,purchasingher,andcleansingherforHimself. TheinspiredapostlePaulsetsforththisrealityinEphesians5:22-33.ChrististheHusband,andthechurchisthewife.TherelationshipofChristandHischurchisthepatternforthebehaviorofthehusbandandwife.“ThereforeasthechurchissubjectuntoChrist,soletthewivesbetotheirownhusbandsineverything.Husbands,loveyourwives,evenasChristalsolovedthechurch,andgavehimselfforit”(Eph.5:24-25). PaulquotesfromtheinstitutionofmarriageinGenesis1—“Forthiscauseshallamanleavehisfatherandmother,andshallbejoineduntohiswife,andtheytwoshallbeoneflesh”(31).Then,unexpect-edly,headds:“Thisisagreatmystery:butIspeakconcerningChristandthechurch”(32).ThetruemarriageisthatofChristtoHischurch. Beforethemarriagecanbeconsummated,Christiscaughtuptoheaven.ThereHeispreparingaplaceforherinHisFather’shouseofmanymansions.ButHepromisestoreturnforher.AndHedoesnotdesertHisbride.HesendsHisSpirittodwellwithinheruntilHereturns. WhenHereturns,HewilltakeHisbrideuntohimself,accordingtotherevelationofthethingsthatmustshortlycometopass(thebookofRevelation).Theweddingfeastisprepared,andtheannouncementismade:
Letusbegladandrejoice,andgivehonourtohim:forthemarriageoftheLambiscome,andhiswifehathmadeherselfready.Andtoherwasgrantedthatsheshouldbearrayedinfinelinen,cleanandwhite:forthefinelinenistherighteousnessofsaints.Andhesaithuntome,Write,BlessedaretheywhicharecalleduntothemarriagesupperoftheLamb(Rev.19:7-9).
November 2014 51
God’sCovenantofGraceandMarriage
Finally, thebridecomes. “AndI Johnsaw theholycity,newJerusalem,comingdownfromGodoutofheaven,preparedasabrideadornedforherhusband”(Rev.21:2).Andtheannouncementsounds,repletewithcovenantallanguage.“AndIheardagreatvoiceoutofheavensaying,Behold,thetabernacleofGodiswithmen,andhewilldwellwiththem,andtheyshallbehispeople,andGodhimselfshallbewiththem,andbetheirGod”(Rev21:3).AndthebrideandtheBridegroomwillseeeachotherfacetofaceandenjoycovenantloveandfellowshipforeverandever.Themarriageisconsummated.Theeternal,unbreakablecovenantisbroughttothegoal:GoddwellingwithHiseternallybelovedpeople. Thechurchhaslongrecognizedthisreality.SwissReformerHein-richBullingerwrotealargetreatiseinwhichhecomparedmarriagetoacovenant.MartinLutherspokeof“thecovenantofmarriage.”JohnCalvinlikewisesawthattheunionofthehusbandandwifeinmarriagepicturedthechurch’sunionwithChrist.Manybookshavebeenwrittenbasedonthatsamepremise. OneparticularlyinsightfulsecondgenerationReformerwasJe-romeZanchi.2HewroteinhiscommentaryonHoseathattheprophet“isalludingtothecovenantbywhichGod,asahusband,hadpledgedhisfidelitytothepeople,andthepeople,aswife,hadpledgedtheirfidelitytoGod”(157).Wewillhaveoccasiontoreturntothiswritinglaterinthepaper. Wehaveseenthen,thatfrequentlytheBibleestablishesthefirmconnectionbetweenGod’scovenantofgraceandmarriage. SincemarriageisareflectionorpictureofGod’scovenant,theessenceofthecovenantofgraceshouldbe,mustbe,manifestedinwhatthechurchteachesandpracticeswithregardtotheinstitutionofmarriage.
Covenant and Marriage: Compared and Contrasted Thebeautyofthecovenantofgraceisrevealedintheinstitutionofmarriageinmanyways.First,inGod’scovenant,HechoosesHis
2 Zanchididnotwriteatreatiseonthecovenant,butonlyaddressedthe relationship between the covenant andmarriage in severalwritings.John J. Farthing demonstrates the explicit connection thatZanchimadebetweencovenantandmarriage.“FoedusEvangelicum:JeromeZanchiontheCovenant,”Calvin Theological Journal,29(1994),no.1:149-67.AllquotationsofZanchiarefromthisarticle.
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 152
peopleinChrist.HeestablishesHiscovenantwithaspecific,particularpeoplewhomHelovesanddrawstoHimself.TherestoftheraceofmenisrejectedbyGod.Hewillnotliveinfellowshipwiththem.In timeHehates allworkersof iniquity. In eternityHecondemnsanddismissesthem—“Departfromme;Ineverknewyou.”ButHispeoplearetheappleofHiseye.“YouonlyhaveIknownofallthefamiliesoftheearth,”Hetellsthem.And,ineternity,theywillliveinblessed,covenantfellowship,knowingGodmoreandbetter‘eachday,’forever. Similarly,inmarriage,thebridegroomselectshiswifeinlove.Bysodoingherejectsallotherwomenashiswife.Hecommitshimselftoloveheralone,andvowstodoso.Hewilllivewithheraloneinclose,intimateloveandfellowshipaslongastheybothshalllive. Closelyrelatedtotheaboveisasecondsimilarity,namely,thatGodisfirstinHiscovenantrelationship.ThechurchdoesnotchooseGod,norestablisharelationshipwithHim.Rather,GodsovereignlyestablishesHiscovenantwithHispeoplechoseninChrist.Thesameisreflectedintheearthlypictureofmarriage.Themanisfirst,inthatheproposestohisbeloved,andtakeshertohimselftobehiswife. Third,ashasbeendemonstrated,God’scovenantofgrace isarelationshipofloveandfriendship.MarriageislikewiseintendedbyGodtobearelationshipoflove.Bothhusbandandwifearerepeatedlycommandedtolovetheother.Theirunionissoclosethattheyareoneflesh.Itiscloserthantherelationshipofparentstochildren,fortheyleavefatherandmotherandcleavetoeachother.Thehusbandiscalledtodwellwithhiswife.Love,intimacy,andfellowshiparetheheartofthemarriagerelationshipwhenamarriageiswhatGodrequiresittobe. Fourth,inthecovenant,GodinChristiseverythingtothechurch.HeistheHead,thewisdom,consolation,andassistancetoHischurch.ThechurchlookstoHimforallthatsheneeds.ShecriesouttoHimforhelp,forprotection,andforeveryblessing.GodpromisesHispeoplethatHewillbeallofthat.HeisabsolutelyfaithfultoHispromises.HewillnotfailHispeople,forHewillbetheirGodeternally.AndthechurchbyHisgraceresponds—livinguntoGodandforHisglory. Marriageshouldreflectthataswell.Inlove,thehusbandcommitshimselftothelifelongcareofhisbride.Hepromisestoprovidefor
November 2014 53
God’sCovenantofGraceandMarriage
her,protecther,comforther,andassistherinallthingsthatbelongtothislifeandabetter.Thewiferespondstothatwithloveandthank-fulness.Shelivesforanduntoherhusbandandlivesherlifethroughhim. Fifth,theserelationships—boththecovenantandmarriage—growprogressivelybetter.Ayoungcouple,somuchinlove,stilldonotrealizethejoystheywillsharetogether.Theythinktheyknoweachother,butinrealitytheyhavealifetimeoflearningabouttheotheraheadofthem.Themoretheyknoweachother—livinginlove—themoretheycanenjoylivingandsharingtheirlifetogether.Agoodmarriageisoneinwhichhusbandandwifegrowcloseralltheirmarriedlife.Obviously,thisisonlyapicturebecausesinmarsthisgrowthinloveandfellowship.TherealityisGod’scovenantlifewithHispeople.GodknowsHispeoplewithaperfectknowledgeoflove.HehascreatedHisown,andknowstheminalltheiremotions,thoughts,desires, plans, and activities. AndHecausesHispeople toknowHim.ByHisWordandSpiritHecausesthemtoknowHisgreatnessandglory,loveandmercy.HetellsthemHissecrets,includingHiseternalplansforthem.AndGod’speoplegrowinthatknowledgeintimeandeternity.Nowweknowinpart,butthenweshallknowevenasweareknown.Foreverandever,wewillgrowinourknowledgeofourdivineHusband.EverynewdiscoverywillonlymakeustoloveHimmore.Andwewillnot,notinaneternity,cometotheendofthisgrowinginlove.ForGodisinfinite. Sixth,inHiscovenantGodhaseternallychosenHispeopleinlove.Asformarriage,themanandthewomandonotknowthattheywillbehusbandandwifeuntiltheymeetandbecomewellacquainted.Yet,itistruethattheyhavebeencreatedforeachother.Godmadetheman and thewoman, generally speaking, to complement eachother physically, emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually. Inmarriage,Godmakesoneparticularmanforoneparticularwoman.Theycomplementeachotherasnoneotherscan.GodcreatedEveforAdam.Nootherwomanwouldhavebeenfittingforhim.Togethertheybecameonewhole. Inmarriage today this is still true, though sin diminishes anddamagesthisoneness.Marriagebetweentwosinnersisnottheper-fectrelationshipitwasforAdamandEveinthestateofrectitude.
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 154
Nonetheless, that complementary relationship still today reflectsGod’scovenantwithHispeopleinthisway:thechurchischosenandfashionedbyGodtobetheperfectcomplementtoChrist(Eph.1:22,23). Finally,wenotethatGod’scovenantcanbebroken.Thatistosay,itcanbeviolatedbyHiscovenantpeople.TheytransgressagainstGod,rejectHiscovenantdemands,andthusbreakHiscovenant.Asdemonstratedabove,God’scovenantisneverbrokeninthesensethatitisannulled. Soalso,marriagecanbebroken.Infact,bothhusbandandwifebreakthemarriagevowsconstantly.Theydonotperformthedutiesthatarerequiredofahusbandandawife.Theymistreateachother.Theybickerandfight.Theycanbeunfaithfulintherelationshipbyfailingtoliveinclose,intimatelove.Theycanbecometoointimatewithanotherpersonoftheoppositesex.And,mostdamagingofalltothemarriage,theycancommitadultery.They“break,”thatis,violate,themarriagerelationship.Itremainstobedeterminedwhetherthemarriagebondisdissolvedbythisunfaithfulness,orwhetheritabides,though“broken,”asGod’scovenantabides. Amajordifferencebetweenmarriageandthecovenantasfarasbreakingtherelationshipisconcerned,isthatGodiseverfaithful,andneversinsagainstHispeople.However,inamarriage,bothhusbandandwifeareunfaithful,andviolatetheirvows. BrieflywepointouttwootherobviousdifferencesbetweenGod’scovenantofgrace,andtheinstitutionofmarriage.First,God’scov-enantiseternal,andmarriageislimitedtotime.Jesusclearlytaughtthatearthlymarriagesdonotcontinueinheaven(Matt.22:30;Mark12:25).AndRomans7:1-3statesthatdeathdissolvesthemarriagebond. Fromacovenantalpointofview, the reasonwhymarriageceasesatdeath is that the full reality isenjoyed,asdeath takesusimmediatelytoChrist,ourBridegroom.WearemarriedtoHim,andnot to any other. Second,thecovenantisallofGod,forHeisthesovereign,eternalJehovah,whileHispeoplearebutcreatures.HeplannedthecovenantandHechoseHispeople;HeformstheminthewombandrecreatesthemintheimageofHisSon.HegavetheMediator,andHerealizesthecovenantinthecross.HegathersHispeopleintothecovenant.
November 2014 55
God’sCovenantofGraceandMarriage
Mancontributesnothing.Wedonotconsenttoit;wedonotfillcon-ditions.WeonlyliveoutofwhatGodhasdoneforusandcontinuesto do in us. Marriageisquitedifferent,forbothhusbandandwifearecreatures.Godhasgiventhemdifferentpositionsinmarriage,makingthemantheheadandgivinghimauthorityoverthewoman.Butasbelieverstheyarejointheirsofthegraceoflife,equalbeforeGod.Inaddition,themanandthewomanagreetogetmarried.Theyassisteachother.Theybothcontributetothemarriedlifetogether.ThatisobviouslydifferentfromGod’scovenant.
The Broken Bond—Violated or Dissolved? Wereturnnowtothequestionwhetherornotamarriagecanbedissolvedbytheactionsofmen.God’scovenantcannotbedissolved,formancannotaccomplishthat,andGodhaspromisednevertobreakit.Isthesametrueofmarriage? TheReformers had some things to say about this. ReformedtheologiansfromCalvintothepresenthavewrittenthatthemarriagebondisindissoluble. Calvinwrote:“[Christ]states,thatthereasonwhyGoddeclaredmanandwifetobeoneflesh,wastopreventanyonefromviolatingthatindissolubletiebydivorce”(Institutes,2.12.7).3Again,hewrote,“Andashedeclaresthatitisnotinthepowerofthehusbandtodis-solvethemarriage….”4 ZanchiarguesthatGod“promisestoconfirmtheunionbetweenhimselfandthetrueIsrael(i.e.,theelect)insuchawaythattherewillbenopossibilityofitsbeingdissolved.”5Andhemakestheconnec-tion—“Justasmarriageisindissoluble,soisthecovenant.”6
ItisveryimportanttorecognizethatalltheblessingsofGod’scov-enantdependonthisoneessentialelement,namely,thatthecovenantofGodcannotbebroken.Godmakescountlesspromises—loving,assuring,comfortingpromisestoHispeople.Hewillneverleaveor
3 JohnCalvin.Institutes of the Christian Religion.Transl.byHenryBeveridge(GrandRapids:Wm.B.Eerdmans,1986),1:408.
4 JohnCalvin.Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 2(GrandRapids:Wm.B.Eerdmans,1957),380.
5 Farthing,“Zanchionthecovenant,”157.6 Farthing,“Zanchionthecovenant,”156.
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 156
forsakeus.Hewilllivewithuseternally.HeisourGodandweareHispeople. Gloriouspromisestheseare. WeneednotworrythatonedayGodwilltireofus.Norshouldwefearthatwewillonedaycommitasinthatwillendourrelationship.Itisabsolutelysure.God’scovenantcannot be broken(dissolved). Marriagehasmanyofthesameelements.Amanmaytellawomanthathelovesher,thathewillcareforher,protectherandnourishher.Butitisnotuntilheaskshertomarryhimthatshecanbesurethathewillperformwhathehassaid.Whentheyaremarried,hemakeshisvowsbeforeGodandman,promising:
Itakeyou____,tobemyweddedwife,Tohaveandtoholdfromthisdayforward,Forbetter,forworse,Forricher,forpoorer,Insicknessandinhealth,ToloveandtohonorTilldeathdouspart.
Whatabeautiful,assuring,trustingrelationshipisestablished! But,whathappenstoherassurance,comfort,andcompletetrustwhenthewifeknowsthatthemarriagecanbedissolvedifshecom-mitscertainsins,orifthehusbandcommitscertainsins?Isthatnotthelossofallthatmarriageassuresawoman?And,sincemarriageisapicture,whatdoesthistestifyconcerningtheveryheartofGod’severlastingcovenantofgrace?Thatisthemoreimportantconcern. Itmustbepointedoutthatatheologicalconnectionexistsbetweenaconditionalcovenantandtheallowanceofdivorcefornearlyanyreason. And, there is a connectionbetween conditional covenanttheologyandthepracticeofallowingforremarriageafterdivorce,whetherinallcases,orinaselectfew.Allowmetodemonstratethisusingaspecificcaseinpoint. In1985asignificantdefenseof theunbreakablebondofmar-riageappearedinthebookJesus and Divorce: The Problem with the Evangelical Consensus.7 Twocapabletheologians,WilliamA.Heth
7 ThebookwasfirstpublishedbyHodderandStoughtoninLondonin1984,andin1985inNashville,TennesseebyThomasNelson.Anenlargededitionwasprintedin1997,andathirdeditionin2002.
November 2014 57
God’sCovenantofGraceandMarriage
andGordonJ.Wenham,tooktheboldstandthatJesustaughtnore-marriageafterdivorce.Theydemonstratedthatthiswasthevirtuallyunanimouspositionoftheearlychurch.Theyprovidedexegesistosupporttheearlychurch’sconvictionaboutwhatJesustaught.Itwasacourageousifunpopularstandfor truth in thefaceofaswellingtideofapprovalforno-faultdivorceforanyreasonandawide-openremarriagepolicy. Sadtosay,HethandWenhamarenowdividedonthisissue.IntheSpring,2002issueofThe Southern Baptist Journal,Wenhamwroteanexegeticallybasedarticleentitled“DoestheNewTestamentApproveDivorceafterRemarriage?”Hisansweris,“No.”Inthesameissue,Hethwrote“JesusandDivorce,HowMyMindHasChanged.”8HenolongerbelievesthatJesusforbidsremarriageafterdivorce. WhatmadeHeth change hismind? He points out a numberofinfluences.Iwillnotgointoallofthem,butmentiononlyone,namely, the theological justification forhis changeofmind. Thattheologicalbasis,Hethmaintains,isthatthecovenantsoftheBiblemaybebothviolatedanddissolved.AlthoughHethdoesnotinthisarticleexpresslyapplythistoGod’scovenantofgrace,everythinginthearticleindicatesthatallbiblicalcovenantscanbedissolved.Inanycase,Hethinsiststhatthisallowsthemarriagebondtobedissolved. Again,wewillnotdelveextensivelyintoHeth’sreasonsformain-tainingthatGod’scovenantisdissoluble.Theinterestedreadercandiscoverhisreasonsbyconsultingthejournalarticle.HethgainedwhathedescribesasanewunderstandingofNearEasterncovenantsandtheJewishpracticeofdivorce.Hethbecameconvincedthat“intermsofHebrewusagecovenantsmaybebothviolatedanddissolved.”Headdsthatwiththisnewunderstanding,“Iknewimmediatelythatmynoremarriageviewhadbeenplacedinjeopardy”(18). EvenapartfromHeth’sreasons,isitnotplainthatifGod’scov-enantcanbebroken(annulled,dissolved)byman,andmarriageisapictureofGod’sgraciouscovenant,thatthiswillopenthedoortodivorceforeveryreason?Man’ssinscandissolveGod’scovenant.Man’ssinscandissolvethemarriage.Thisisoneoftheevilfruitsofaconditionalcovenant.
8 Theissueisavailableonlineathttp://www.sbts.edu/Resources/Pub-lications/Journal/Spring_2002.aspx.
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 158
Thematterofthesinsofhusbandsandwivesdissolvingthemar-riagebondhassignificantimplicationsalsoforremarriage.Thefirstimplicationisthattheallowanceofremarriageafterdivorceonlyfortheinnocentpartyintheinstancesofadulteryanddesertioncannotbemaintainedconsistently.Ifthesinsofhusbandsandwives(adulteryanddesertion)andthesubsequentdivorcedissolvethemarriagefortheinnocentparty,thenthebondisdissolved.Itcannotbethatthebonddissolvesfortheinnocentparty,whothusmayremarry,butdoesnotdissolvefortheguiltyone.Iftheinnocentpartyisallowedtoremarry,itcanonlybebecausethemarriagebondisnomore.Consequently,nopossiblereasonexistsforprohibitingremarriagefortheguiltyparty.Ifherepentsofhissinsandconfessesthem,thechurchmustallowhimtoremarry,forthebondofmarriageisdissolved. Theconclusion,then,isclear.IfthecovenantofGodisuncondi-tionalandunbreakable,thenmarriageisalifelongbondthatGodforms(“whatGodhathjoinedtogether”)andonlyHecandissolvethroughdeath.And,ontheotherhand,ifGod’scovenantisconditionalandbreakable,thereisgoodtheologicaljustificationfordivorceforanyreason,andforremarriageafterdivorce. IconcludethereforewithapersonalpleatoReformedandPres-byterianbelieverswhoholdtotheWestminsterConfessionofFaith’spositionondivorceandremarriage. TheProtestantReformedChurches are confessional churches.Weknow, love,preach,and liveoutofour threeconfessions. WegreatlyappreciateotherReformedandPresbyterianchurcheswhoareconfessional. Atthesametime,allthechildrenoftheReformationconfessthattheBibleistheonlyauthorityforfaithandlife.Assonsanddaugh-tersoftheReformation,weknowwemustbeReformed,butalwaysreforming—thatistosay,alwaysgoingbacktotheBible,andmakingsurethatweareinharmonywiththeWordindoctrineandlife.InGod’splan,doctrinescometoclearerdevelopmentthoughcontroversyandstudyoftheBible.Partofthatprocessisawillingnesstocheckourconfessions,evaluatingtheminthelightofGod’sWord. AsregardsthedoctrineofGod’scovenantofgrace,confessionallyReformedandPresbyterianchurchesstandunited.WeinsistthatthecovenantisGod’s,thatitiseternal,unconditional,andunbreakable.
November 2014 59
God’sCovenantofGraceandMarriage
Weareadamantthatthecovenantiswiththeelect,andthatChristisboththeHeadandMediatorofthecovenant.WeteachinfantbaptismbasedonthetruththatGodestablishesHiscovenantwithbelieversandtheirseedintheirgenerations.WemaintainthatmarriageisaGod-institutedpictureofthecovenant,andthereforetakeahighviewofmarriage,not lightlyallowingdivorceevenon theone,biblicalgroundofadultery. Now,outofthelovethatIhavefortrulyReformedandPresby-terianbrothers,IurgethosewhoholdtotheWestminster’spositionondivorceandremarriage toconsider thedoctrineandpracticeofmarriageinlightofthecovenantofgrace.Iimploreyoutoreevaluatetheteachingthatadulteryanddesertiondissolvethemarriagebond.Andconsiderthatthisisinconflictwiththepreciousdoctrineofthecovenantasaneternalandunbreakablerelationship. ThegloriousdoctrineofGod’scovenantofgraceisabeautifulfruitofthegreatsixteenth-centuryReformation.MayGodgrantthatthiswarmandcomfortingdoctrineunitesthosewholovetheReformedtruth.AndmaynonebeafraidtoallowthiscardinaltruthofGod’severlastingcovenantofgracetodirectboththeologyandwalkoflife.
l
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 160
Of Such Is the Kingdom of GodMark Shand
But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Mark10:14
ConfusionandignorancereignwithinmanyPresbyterianandRe-formedchurches,astothebiblical,covenantalviewofthechildrenofbelievingparents.Theconfusionhasbecomesogreatthateventhosechurchesthatadministerthesacramentofbaptismtothechildrenofbelievingparents,areatalosstoexplainwhytheydoso.Membersandevenofficebearersinsuchchurchesstruggletoexplainwhytheyadministerthesignandsealofthecovenantofgracetothosewhoaretooyoungtocomprehendthegospelintellectuallyandareunabletoprovidecogentevidenceoftheirrepentanceandfaith. Consequently, inmanyPresbyterian andReformed churchesworldwide, infant baptismhas become simply a ritual that takesplacefollowingthebirthofachild,butthatholdsnorealspiritualsignificance.Asaresult,thesacramentthatisdesignedtobe,inthewordsoftheWestminsterConfessionofFaith,“asignandsealofthecovenantofgrace,ofingraftingintoChrist,ofregeneration,ofremissionofsins,andofgivingupuntoGod,throughJesusChrist,towalk innewnessof life”1hasbeenreduced toanexpressionoffuturehope;ananticipationonthepartofbelievingparentsandthechurchthatsometimeinthefuture,whenthechildcomestoyearsofdiscretion,heorshewillexperienceaworkofGod’sgraceinhisheartandopenlyconfesshisfaithinJesusChrist. InsteadofpropoundingadistinctivelyReformedviewofchildreninthecovenant,manyPresbyterianandReformedchurchesreflectavarietyofviewsthathavebeendistortedbytheerrorsofAnabaptismandArminianism.Thetragedyandpracticalsignificanceofthiscan-
1 The Confession of Faith,ChapterXXVIII.1,“OfBaptism”(Inverness:FreePresbyterianPublications,1981),114.
November 2014 61
OfSuchIstheKingdomofGod
notbeoverstated.Writingnearlytwentyyearsago,RobertRayburnrightlynoted:
OneofthefeaturesofPresbyterianthoughtandlifewhichoughtmostdramaticallytodistinguishitfromtheprevailingevangelicalismisitsviewoftheChurch’schildren.ThatevenevangelicalPresbyterianismisnotclearlydifferentiatedinthiswayis,inmyjudgmentoneofthesaddestandmostdangerousconsequencesofthedebasementofourtheologyinbothpulpitandpew.Idonothesitatetosaythattherehasbeensuchadebasement inrespect to thedoctrineofcovenantsuccession—i.e.,thatsetoftruthsconnectedwiththepurposeofGodthathissavinggraceshouldruninthelinesofgenerations—andthatthisdebasementhasresultedinPresbyterianpeoplebeingrobbedofoneofthemostpreciouspartsoftheirinheritance.2
ThissadstateofaffairsiscompoundedwhenitisrealizedjusthowfarmanyPresbyterianandReformedchurcheshavedepartedfromtheirowncreedalstatementsthataddressclearlyandunambiguouslythesubjectofcovenantchildren.
The Reformed Creeds TakecarefulnoteoftheplainlanguageemployedinsomeofthemajorReformedCreedsof thesixteenthandseventeenthcenturies(allemphasesmine).3
The Belgic Confession (1561)
WebelieveandconfessthatJesusChrist,whoistheendofthelaw,hathmadeanend,bythesheddingofHisblood,ofallothershed-dings of bloodwhichmen couldorwouldmake as a propitiationorsatisfactionforsin;andthatHe,havingabolishedcircumcision,whichwasdonewithblood,hathinstitutedthesacramentofbaptisminsteadthereof;bywhichwearereceivedintothechurchofGod,and
2 RobertS.Rayburn,“ThePresbyterianDoctrinesofCovenantChil-dren,CovenantNurtureandCovenantSuccession,”Presbyterion22,(1996):76.
3 The Psalter (GrandRapids,Michigan: Wm.B.Eerdmans,1998);PhilipSchaff,The Creeds of Christendom, 3 (GrandRapids,MI: BakerBookHouse,1983).
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 162
separatedfromallotherpeopleandstrangereligions, thatwemaywhollybelongtoHimwhoseensignandbannerwebear,andwhichservesasatestimonytousthatHewillforeverbeourgraciousGodandFather....Webelievethateveryman,whoisearnestlystudiousofobtaininglifeeternaloughttobebutoncebaptizedwiththisonlybaptism,without ever repeating the same: ...Thereforewedetest the error of the Anabaptists,whoarenotcontentwiththeoneonlybaptismtheyhaveoncereceived,andmoreover condemn the baptism of the infants of believers, who, we believe, ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant,asthechildreninIsraelformerlywerecircumciseduponthesamepromiseswhicharemadeuntoourchildren.And,indeed, Christ shed his blood no less for the washing of the children of the faithful, than for adult persons; and, therefore, they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that which Christ hath done for them;astheLordcommandedinthelaw,thattheyshouldbemadepartakersofthesacramentofChrist’ssufferinganddeathshortlyaftertheywereborn,byofferingforthemalamb,whichwasasacramentofJesusChrist.Moreover,whatcircumcisionwastotheJews,thatbaptismisforourchildren.AndforthisreasonPaulcallsbaptismthe“circumcisionofChrist”(Art.34,51,52).
The Heidelberg Catechism (1563)
Q. 74. Are infants also to be baptized?Ans: Yes; for since they,aswellas theadult,are included in the covenantandchurchofGod;andsinceredemption from sin by the blood of Christ, andtheHolyGhost,theauthoroffaith,ispromised to them no less than to the adult;theymustthereforebybaptism,asasignofthecovenant,bealsoadmittedintotheChristianchurch,andbedistinguishedfromthechildrenofunbelieversaswasdoneintheoldcovenantortestamentbycircumcision,insteadofwhichbaptismisinstitutedinthenewcovenant(15).
Canons of Dordt (1618-1619)
FirstHead,Article17:TheSalvationoftheInfantsofBelieversSincewemustmake judgments aboutGod’swill fromHisWord,whichtestifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their
November 2014 63
OfSuchIstheKingdomofGod
parents are included,godlyparentsoughtnottodoubttheelectionandsalvationoftheirchildrenwhomGodcallsoutofthislifeininfancy.
Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)
Chapter28:OfHolyBaptismI.Baptismisasacramentofthenewtestament,ordainedbyJesusChrist,notonlyforthesolemnadmissionofthepartybaptizedintothevisibleChurch;butalso,tobeuntohim a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.Whichsacramentis,byChrist’sownappointment,tobecontinuedinHisChurchuntiltheendoftheworld.
IV.Notonlythosethatdoactuallyprofessfaith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.
V.Althoughitbeagreatsintocontemnorneglectthisordinance,yetgraceandsalvationarenotsoinseparablyannexeduntoit,asthatnopersoncanberegenerated,orsaved,withoutit;or,thatallthatarebaptizedareundoubtedly regenerated.
VI.Theefficacy of baptismisnottiedtothatmomentoftimewhereinitisadministered;yet,notwithstanding,bytherightuseofthisor-dinance,the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost,tosuch(whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time.
NotethattheWestminsterConfessionofFaithdoesnotmakeanydistinctionbetweenthosewho“actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ” and “the infants of one, or both, believing parents.” Therefore,baptism,accordingtotheConfession,isasacramentofthenewtestament,ordainedbyJesusChrist,notonlyforthesolemnadmissionofthechildofabelievingparentintothevisiblechurch;butalso,tobeuntothatchildas“a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his/her ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his/her giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.”
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 164
Bytherightuseofbaptism, “the grace promised is not only of-fered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will.” Thegracepromisedinbaptism,thatis,thegraceofsalvationinJesusChrist,isnotonlyofferedorsetforth,butreallyexhibitedandconferred,bytheHolySpirittobothadultsandchildrenalike.Thebasisfortheconferralofsuchgracebeing“the counsel of God’s own will.”
Westminster Larger Catechism
Q165:WhatisBaptism?Ans:BaptismisasacramentoftheNewTestament,whereinChristhathordainedthewashingwithwaterinthenameoftheFather,andoftheSon,andoftheHolyGhost,to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself, of remission of sins by his blood, and regeneration by his Spirit; of adoption, and resurrection unto everlasting life; and wherebythepartiesbaptizedaresolemnlyadmittedintothevisibleChurch,andenterintoanopenandprofessedengagementtobewhollyandonlytheLord’s.
Q166:UntowhomisBaptismtobeadministered?Ans: Baptism isnot tobeadministered toany thatareoutof thevisibleChurch,andsostrangersfromthecovenantofpromise,tilltheyprofesstheirfaithinChrist,andobediencetohim,butinfants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him,areinthatrespectwithin the covenant, and to be baptized.
The Views of the Reformers Notsurprisingly,theReformersofthesixteenthandseventeenthcenturiesheldsimilarviewstothoseenshrinedintheReformedcreeds.
John Calvin Calvinwasclearlyoftheviewthatthecovenantanditspromis-esbelongednotonlytoAbraham,butalsotohischildren.HealsomaintainedthatthesamewastrueforbelieversandtheirchildrenintheNewTestamentage.Consequently,intheNewTestamentage,thecovenantpromises—embracingastheydidGod’sFatherlylove
November 2014 65
OfSuchIstheKingdomofGod
andcareinJesusChrist—belongednotonlytoChristianparents,butalsototheirchildren.
Now, ifwe choose to investigatewhether it is right to administerbaptismtoinfants,shallwenotsaythatamanistalkingnonsenseorindeedravingwhowouldhaltwiththemereelementofwaterandoutwardobservance,butcannotbeartoturnhismindtothespiritualmystery?Ifanyaccountofthisismade,itwillbeevidentthatbap-tismisproperlyadministeredtoinfantsassomethingowedtothem.ForinearlytimestheLorddidnotdeigntohavethemcircumcisedwithoutmakingthemparticipantsinallthosethingswhichwerethensignifiedbycircumcision[cf.Genesis17:12].Otherwise,hewouldhavemockedhispeoplewithmere trickery ifhehadnursed themonmeaninglesssymbols,whichisadreadfulthingeventohearof.Forheexpresslydeclaresthatthecircumcisionofatinyinfantwillbeinlieuofasealtocertifythepromiseofthecovenant.Butifthecovenantstillremainsfirmandsteadfast,itappliesnolesstodaytothechildrenofChristiansthanundertheOldTestamentitpertainedtotheinfantsoftheJews.4
Indeed,itismostevidentthatthecovenantwhichtheLordoncemadewithAbraham[cf.Genesis17:14]isnolessinforcetodayforChris-tiansthanitwasofoldfortheJewishpeople,andthatthiswordrelatesnolesstoChristiansthanitthenrelatedtotheJews....Accordingly,thechildrenoftheJewsalso,becausetheyhadbeenmadeheirsofhiscovenantanddistinguishedfromthechildrenoftheimpious,werecalledaholyseed[Ezra9:2;Isaiah6:18].Forthissamereason,thechildrenofChristiansareconsideredholy;andeventhoughbornwithonlyonebelievingparent,bytheapostle’stestimonytheydifferfromtheuncleanseedofidolators[1Corinthians7:14].5
Calvindidnotviewthechildrenofbelieversasunregenerate;quitethecontrary.Heregardedthechildrenofbelievers,thoughnotheadforhead,asrecipientsofthegraceofGodinJesusChrist.Therefore,hemaintainedthatthechildrenofbelievingparentsbelongedtothe
4 JohnCalvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion.EditedbyJohnT.McNeil;translatedbyFordLewisBattles(Philadelphia:TheWestminsterPress,1960),4.16.5,22.
5 Calvin,Institutes,4.16.6.
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 166
church,evenbeforetheyreceivedthesignandsealofbaptism.In-deed,theyreceivedthesignandsealofbaptismbecausetheyalreadybelongedtothebodyofChrist.
Fromthisitfollows[thatis,thatchildrenwhodieininfancyarenotbarredfromthekingdomofheaven]thatthechildrenofbelieversarebaptizednotinorderthattheywhowerepreviouslystrangerstotheChurchmaythenforthefirsttimebecomechildrenofGod,butratherthat,becausebytheblessingofthepromisetheyalreadybelongedtothebodyofChrist,theyarereceivedintothechurchwiththissolemnsign.6
Theoffspringofbelieversarebornholy,becausetheirchildren,whileyetinthewomb,beforetheybreathethevitalair,havebeenadoptedintothecovenantofeternallife.NoraretheybroughtintotheChurchbybaptismonanyothergroundthanbecausetheybelongedtothebodyoftheChurchbeforetheywereborn.7
Nay,onwhatgrounddoweadmitthemtobaptismunlessthattheyaretheheirsofpromise?Fordidnotthepromiseoflifeapplytothemitwouldbeaprofanationofbaptismtogiveittothem.ButifGodhasadoptedthemintohiskingdom,howgreatinjusticeisdonetohispromise,asifitwerenotofitselfsufficientfortheirsalvation!...ThesalvationofinfantsisincludedinthepromiseinwhichGoddeclarestobelieversthatHewillbeaGodtothemandtotheirseed.8
Calvin’sviewsofcovenantchildrenwereassailedbytheAnabap-tistswhocontendedthatchildrenwereincapableofregenerationandsooughtnottobebaptized.
Theythinkthat theyareputtingforwardaverystrongreasonwhychildrenaretobebarredfrombaptismwhentheyclaimthatchildrenbecauseoftheiragearenotyetabletounderstandthemysterysig-nifiedinit,namely,spiritualregeneration,whichcannottakeplace
6 Calvin,Institutes,4.15.22.7 JohnCalvin, Interim, Adultero - germanum: ciu adiecta est vera
Christianae Pacificationis et Ecclesiae Reformandae Ratio(CorpusRefor-matorum)35.619.
8 JohnCalvin,Selected Works of John Calvin, Tracts and Letters. (GrandRapids,Michigan:BakerBookHouse,1983),3:109.
November 2014 67
OfSuchIstheKingdomofGod
inearliestinfancy.OuropponentsthereforeconcludethatchildrenaretobeconsideredsolelyaschildrenofAdamuntiltheyreachanappropriateageforthesecondbirth.9
Calvin’sresponsewasterse.
ButGod’strutheverywhereopposesallthesearguments….Buthow(theyask)areinfants,unendowedwithknowledgeofgoodorevil,regenerated?WereplythatGod’swork,thoughbeyondourunderstanding,isstillnotannulled.Nowitisperfectlyclearthatthoseinfantswhoaretobesaved(assomearesurelysavedfromthatearlyage)arepreviouslyregeneratedbytheLord.Foriftheybearwiththemaninborncorruptionfromtheirmother’swomb,theymustbecleansedofitbeforetheycanbeadmittedintoGod’sKingdom,fornothingpollutedordefiledmayenterthere[Revelation21:27].Iftheyarebornsinners,asbothDavidandPaulaffirm[Ephesians2:3;Psalm51:5],eithertheyremainunpleasingandhatefultoGod,ortheymustbejustified.Andwhatfurtherdoweseek,whentheJudgehimselfplainlydeclaresthatentryintoheavenlylifeopensonlytomenwhoarebornanew[John3:3]?And to silence suchgainsayers,Godprovidedaproof in John theBaptist,whomhesanctifiedinhismother’swomb[Luke1:15]-some-thinghecoulddoinothers.Andtheydonotgainanythingherebythismockingevasion—thatitwasonlyonce,andthatfromthisoneinstanceitdoesnotimmediatelyfollowthattheLordusuallydealsthuswith infants. Butwearenotarguing in thiswayeither. OurpurposeissolelytoshowthattheyunjustlyandwickedlyshutGod’spowerwithinthesenarrowlimitstowhichitdoesnotpermititselftobeconfined.Theirotherquibblehasnomoreweight.Theyclaimthat,inaccordancewiththeusualmodeofexpressionofScripture,thephrase“fromthewomb”ismerelytheequivalentofsaying“fromchildhood.”Butwecanclearlyseethattheangel,whenhedeclaredthis toZechariah,meantsomethingelse,namely, that Johnwould,whileyetunborn,befilledwiththeHolySpirit.Letusnotattempt,then,toimposealawuponGodtokeephimfromsanctifyingwhomhepleases,justashesanctifiedthischild,inasmuchashispowerisnotlessened.10
9 Calvin,Institutes,4.16.17.10 Calvin,Institutes,4.16.17.
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 168
John Knox TheembracingofcovenantchildrenwithinthechurchandarefusaltoidentifythemwiththechildrenoftheheathenwasnotconfinedtotheSwissReformation.JohnKnox’s“TheOrderofBaptism,”inwhichheindicatesthenatureoftheaddressthattheministeroughttogiveontheoccasionofthebaptismofacovenantchild,isenlightening.
Thenletusconsider,dearlybeloved,howAlmightyGodhasnotonlymadeushischildrenbyadoption,andreceivedusintothefellowshipofhisChurch;butalsohaspromisedthathewillbeourGod,andtheGodofourchildren,untothethousandgeneration.Whichthing,asheconfirmedtohispeopleoftheOldTestamentbythesacramentofCircumcision,sohashealsorenewedthesametousinhisNewTes-tamentbythesacramentofBaptism;doingustherebytoknow,thatour infants appertain to him by covenant, and therefore ought not to be defrauded of those holy signs and badges whereby his children are known from infidels and pagans.Neitherisitrequisite,thatallthosethatreceivethisSacramenthavetheuseofunderstandingandfaith;butchieflythattheybecontainedunderthenameofGod’speople....11
Ulrich Zwingli
ThechildrenofChristiansarenotlessthechildrenofGodthantheirparentsare,orthanthechildrenofOldTestamenttimeswere:butiftheybelongtoGod,whowillrefusethembaptism?12
Peter Martyr Vermigli
ButifthoudemandhowthechildrenoftheChristiansbelonguntotheChurchoruntoChrist,wewillanswer:nootherwise,thanthechildrenoftheHebrews,beingoftheposterityofAbraham,weresaidtobecontained in thecovenantofGod. ForGodpromised (Gen.17:7),untoAbrahamthathewouldnotonlybehisGod,butalsotheGodofhisseed....Forasourownsalvationis,soverilyisaltogetherthesalvationofourchildrenofthemereelectionandmercyofGod,
11 JohnKnox,The Works of John Knox,ed.DavidLaing(Edinburgh,1855),4:187.
12 HuldreichZwingli’sWerke,Zweyten bandes erste Abtheilung (Zurich,1830),245.
November 2014 69
OfSuchIstheKingdomofGod
whichoftentimesgoethtogetherwithnaturalpropagation....Notthatitdothalwayssohappenofnecessity: because thepromise isnotgeneralastouchingalltheseed,butofthatonlyinwhichtheelectiontogetherconsenteth....ThereforewejudgethechildrenoftheSaintstobesaints,solongastheybyreasonoftheirage,shallnotdeclarethemselves strangers fromChrist. We exclude themnot from theChurchbutembracethemasmembersthereof:hopingwell,thatastheybetheseedoftheSaintsaccordingtotheflesh,soalsotheybepartakersofthedivineelection,andthattheyhavetheHolyGhostandgraceofChrist:andforthiscausewebaptizethem.13
Heinrich Bullinger
SincetheyoungbabesandinfantsofthefaithfulareinthenumberofreckoningofGod’speople,andpartakersofthepromisetouchingthepurificationthroughChrist;itfollowethofnecessity,thattheyareaswelltobebaptized,astheythatbeofperfectagewhichprofesstheChristianfaith.14
Zacharias Ursinus InhiscommentaryontheHeidelbergCatechism,Ursinuswrites:
Henceall,andonlythosearetobebaptizedaccordingtothecommandofChrist,whoare,andoughttoberegardedasmembersofthevisiblechurch,whether theybeadultsprofessing repentanceand faith,orinfantsborninthechurch;forallthechildrenofthosethatbelieveareincludedinthecovenant,andchurchofGod,unlesstheyexcludethemselves.Theyare,therefore,alsodisciplesofChrist,becausetheyareborninthechurch,orschoolofChrist;andhencetheHolySpiritteachestheminamanneradaptedtotheircapacityandage. ...TheAnabaptists,therefore,indenyingbaptismtothechildrenofthechurch,donotonlydeprivethemoftheirrights,buttheyalsopreventthegraceofGodfrombeingseeninitsrichness,sinceGodwillsthattheoffspringofthefaithfulshouldbeincludedamongstthemembersofthechurch,evenfromthewomb:yeatheymanifestlydetractfromthegraceoftheNewCovenant,andnarrowdownthatof
13 PeterMartyrVermigli,The Common Places (ThomasVautrollier,1574),115.
14 Fifty Godly and Learned Sermons(London,1587),382.
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 170
theold,inasmuchastheyrefusetoextendbaptismtoinfants,towhomcircumcisionwasformerlyextended;theyweakenthecomfortofthechurch,andoffaithfulparents;theysetasidethesolemnobligationbywhichGodwillhavetheoffspringofhispeopleconsecratedtohimfromtheirveryinfancy,distinguished,andseparatedfromtheworld;theyweakeninparentsandchildrentheirsenseofgratitude,andthedesirewhichtheyshouldhavetoperformtheirobligationstoGod….15
ThenextgenerationofReformersalsoembracedthesesametruths.
Francis Turretin TurretinindefendingthebaptismofcovenantchildrenagainsttheAnabaptistswascalledtorespondtothecontentionthat“infantsarenotcapacious[abletoholdmuch]ofthegraceofregeneration,noroftheotherblessingsofthecovenantwhichareaccustomedtobeconferredbytheSpiritthroughtheword,”16
Butitisgratuitouslysupposedthattheyarenotcapacious[abletoholdmuch]oftheblessingofthecovenant.ForwhodeniesthattheyarecapaciousoftheremissionofsinsandofChrist’sredemption,andoftheotherbenefitswhichdependuponthecovenantintowhichinfantsarereceived?Whocandoubtthatbaptism(withrespecttothese)isabletobeadistinctivesign(introducingintothevisiblechurch)andasealbothofthedivinetruthinthefederalpromisesandofourobli-gationtomutualduty?Foriftheyarenotcapableofobligationinthepresent,theycanbeinthefuture.Astoregeneration,however,whyshouldinfantsnotbecapableofregenerationastheyareofsin(unlesswesaythatguilthasmorepowerthanofgrace)?Andastheyarerational(althoughwedonotputforthanactofreason),whathindersthemfrombeingcalledholyandbelieversbytheHolySpiritgiventothem,althoughtheycannotasyetexertanactoffaith.17
15 ZachariasUrsinus,The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus,transl.byG.W.Williard(Phillipsburg,NewJersey: PresbyterianandReformedPublishingCompany,1985),366-368.
16 FrancisTurretin,Institutes of Elenctic Theology(Phillipsburg,NewJersey:P&RPublishing,1997)3:416.
17 Turretin,Institutes.
November 2014 71
OfSuchIstheKingdomofGod
Herman Witsius
Nowafteraprincipleofspirituallifeisinfusedintotheelectsoulbyregeneration,divinegracedoesnotalwaysproceedthereininthesamemethodandorder.Itispossiblethatforsometime,thespiritofthelifeofChrist,maylie,asitweredormantinsome,(almostinthesamemanner,asvegetativelifeintheseedofaplant,orsensitivelifeintheseedofananimal,orapoeticalgeniusinonebornapoet),soasthatnovitaloperationscanyetproceedtherefrom,thoughsavinglyunitedtoChrist,thefountainoftruelife,bytheSpirit.Thisisthecasewithrespecttoelectandregenerateinfants,whoseisthekingdomofGod,andwhothereforearereckonedamongbelieversandsaints,thoughunqualifiedthroughage,actuallytobelieveandpracticegodliness.... Butwhenthefoundationislaid,divinegracedoesnotalwaysgrowupinthesamemanner.Itoftenhappensthatthisprincipleofspiritual lifewhichhaddiscovered its activity in themost tenderchildhood...growsupbydegreeswiththeperson,aftertheexampleofourLord,who‘increasedinwisdomandstature,andinfavourwithGodandman.’18
WhatisevidentisthatatleastuntilthetimeoftheWestminsterAssemblyinthemid-seventeenthcenturytherewassomevariation,butno substantialdifferenceofviewsamong theReformersas totheplaceofchildreninthecovenant.19 SuchagreementprevailedinPresbyteriancirclesuntiltheeighteenthcentury.20
18 Witsius,Herman.The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man(Escondido,California:ThedenHulkChristianFoundation,1990),1:366,367.
19 LewisBevinsSchenck,The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant(Phillipsburg,NewJersey:P&RPublishing,2003),34-52.
20 ThefocusofthispaperisupontheviewsthatprevailedwithrespecttocovenantchildreninPresbyterianchurches.SimilarviewscanalsobefoundinthehistoryofthecontinentalReformedchurches.However,itoughtalsotobenotedthatotherviewssurfacedinthecontinentalReformedtradition,mostnoticeablythatoftheconditionalcovenant.Thosewhomaintaintheconditionalcovenantholdthatallthechildrenofbelievingparents“withoutexception are in the covenant in this sense, thatGodpromises themallsalvationandextendstothemallhiscovenantgraceinChrist.However,theactualfulfilmentofthepromise,theactualreceptionofcovenantgrace,andtheactualrealizationofthecovenantwiththempersonallydependupon
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 172
The eighteenth century saw a radical change in Presbyteriancirclesregardingtheviewofcovenantchildren.ThiscoincidedwiththeGreatAwakeninginNewEngland.21UndertheministryofmensuchasJonathanEdwardsandGeorgeWhitefieldmanyexperiencedpowerfulconversionexperiences,coupledwithprofoundconvictionofsinandanguishofsoul.Overtime,theseexperiencescametobe
theirbelievinginChristandthustakingholdofthecovenantwhentheygrowup.”DavidJ.Engelsma,The Covenant of God and the Children of Believers (Jenison,Michigan:ReformedFreePublishingAssociation,2005),14.
ItisofinteresttonotethatthedoctrineofaconditionalcovenantliesattherootofthecontemporarydebateconcerningtheFederalvision.“ThedoctrineofaconditionalcovenantnowbeingdevelopedbythefederalvisionistheteachingthatGodonhispartisgracioustoallthebaptizedbabiesofbelievingmembersofthechurchalike.WhetherthisgraceabideswithachildandiseffectivetobringachildtoeverlastingsalvationinAbraham’sbosom,however,dependuponconditionsthatthechildmustperform.Theconditionsarethechild’sfaithandobedience.Somechildrenperformtheconditionsandaresaved.Others—manyothers—failtoperformthecon-ditionsandgolost,despitethefactthatGodwasasgracioustothemashewastothosewhoaresaved.
“Accordingtothefederalvision,Godhasagraciousattitudetowardeverychildofgodlyparents.Hedesirestosaveeverychild.Atthebaptismofthechildrenofbelievers,Godactuallybestowsthegraceofthecovenantuponeverybaptizedchildalike.
“...Thiscovenantgrace,ofwhicheverychildisarecipient,issaving grace,thegraceofGodinthecrucifiedandrisenChrist.Thatitisasavinggracedoesnotmeanthatitirresistiblysaveseverychildor,forthatmatter,anychild.Itdoesnot.Butthemeaningisthatthisgracewouldsave,wouldbringthechildtoheaven,ifthechildperformstheconditions.
“...Bythecovenantpromisetoeverychildatbaptism,Godactuallyestablisheshiscovenantwitheverybaptizedchild.HeuniteseverychildtoChrist.”DavidJ.Engelsma,Federal Vision: Heresy at the Root(Jenison,Michigan:ReformedFreePublishingAssociation,2012),37-8.
21 Theterm“TheGreatAwakening”referstoseveralperiodsofreligiousrevival in Americanreligioushistory.Historiansandtheologiansidentifythreeor fourwavesof increased religiousenthusiasmoccurringbetweentheearlyeighteenthcenturyandthelatenineteenthcentury.Eachofthese“GreatAwakenings”wascharacterizedbywidespreadrevivals,whichsawasharpincreaseofinterestinreligionunderaprofoundsenseofconvictionand sin.
November 2014 73
OfSuchIstheKingdomofGod
acceptedasthenormandthetouchstoneforalltrueconversions.22 Theexcessive,andalmostexclusive,emphasisonaconsciousreligiousexperienceofconvictionandconversion,as theessentialevidenceofgenuinesalvation,ledtoasignificantshiftinthethinkingofmanyleadingPresbyteriantheologiansinNorthAmerica.23MenwithsuchillustriousnamesasArchibaldAlexander,JamesHenleyThornwellandRobertDabney,tonameonlyafew,begantoviewcovenantchildreninadifferentlight.
Archibald Alexander24
Theeducationofchildrenshouldproceedontheprinciplethattheyareinanunregeneratestate,untilevidencesofpietyclearlyappear,in
22 TheGreatAwakeningcameonthebackofthehalf-waycovenant.Thehalf-waycovenanthaditsoriginsinthemid-seventeenthcenturyamongtheCongregationalistsinNewEngland.TheMassachusettsSynodof1662assertedthatbaptizedadultswhohadhadnoconversionexperience,mightbereceivedintochurchmembershipuponconfessionofpietyoflife.Suchconfessionsbecameknownas‘owning the covenant.’Thisartificeresultedinmany,onbecomingparents,‘owningthecovenant’sothattheycouldac-cessfortheirchildrentherightofbaptism,butincircumstanceswheretheythemselvesdemonstratedlittleornoevidenceoftruepiety.Thehalf-waycovenantusheredindeadformalismandanobfuscationofthetruemeaningofbaptism.ThegrowthofdeadorthodoxypavedthewayforandwastheimpetusfortheGreatAwakeninginNewEngland.
23 The impact of the congregational churches is highlighted by thedecisionoftheSynodofNewYorkandPhiladelphiain1788toadoptitsownDirectory for Public WorshipinlieuoftheoneapprovedbytheWest-minsterAssembly. ThedifferencesbetweentheAmericanDirectory and theearlieroneofWestminsterweresignificant.Thewholesectionrelatingtotheadministrationofbaptismwasmuchabbreviated.Thedetailfoundin the Directory oftheWestminsterAssemblydisappeared. AbsentwerethereferencesthatthankedGodforbringingchildrenintothebosomofthechurchtobepartakersoftheinestimablebenefitspurchasedbyChrist.
24 (1772-1851)Presbyteriantheologianandeducator.Ordainedin1794,hebecameearlyin1807theministerofPineStreetChurch,Philadelphia,oneofthelargestcongregationsintheUnitedStates.In1812,theGeneralAssemblyof thePresbyterianChurch establishedPrincetonTheologicalSeminaryandAlexanderwasappointeditsfirstprofessor.
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 174
whichcasetheyshouldbesedulouslycherishedandnurtured.TheseareChrist’slambs—‘littleones,whobelieveinhim’—whomnoneshould offend ormislead upon the peril of a terrible punishment. Butthoughthereligiouseducationofchildrenshouldproceedonthegroundthattheyaredestituteofgrace,itoughtevertobeusedasameansofgrace. ...AlthoughthegraceofGodmaybecommunicatedtoahumansoulatanyperiodofitsexistenceinthisworld;yetthefactmanifestlyis,thatveryfewarerenewedbeforetheexerciseofreasoncommences;andnotmanyinearlychildhood.Mostpersonswithwhomwehavebeenacquaintedgrewupwithoutgivinganydecisiveevidenceofachangeofheart.25
James Henley Thornwell26
“Ifitbeasked,whytheChurchembracesthefamily,andisnotre-strictedtoprofessingindividuals,theanswerisplain.Thechildrenofthefaithfularetheheirsapparentofthepromises.GodhasgraciouslypromisedtoshowmercyuntothousandsofthemthatloveHimandkeepHiscommandments;thedecreeofelectionrunslargelyintheirloins,andthroughtheirfaithfulnessinrearingaholyseed,theChurchisperpetuated,andnewrecruitsareconstantlyaddedtothecommunionofsaints.TheyareallincorporatedintotheChurch,becausemanyofthemhereafteraretobeoftheChurch....ItisclearthatwhiletheyareintheChurchbyexternalunion[bybaptism], inthespiritandtemperoftheirmindstheybelongtotheworld....OftheworldandintheChurch—thisexpressespreciselytheirstatus,anddeterminesthemodeinwhichtheChurchshoulddealwiththem. AsintheChurch,andintheChurchasheirsofpromiseswhichtheyhavenotyetembraced,theyaretobetrainedtoapropersenseoftheirprivileges,tobeinstructedinaknowledgeoftheirduty,andinducedandpersuadedbyeverylawfulinfluencetoacceptthegracewhichhasbeensignifiedandfreelyofferedintheirbaptism.TheyhavebeenexternallyconsecratedtoGod,andtheChurchistoseekthattheymaybelikewiseinwardlysanctified.Herpeculiarobligationsto
25 ArchibaldAlexander,Thoughts on Religious Experience(Edinburgh:TheBannerofTruthTrust,1978),13,14.
26 (1812-1862)SouthernPresbyterian.ProfessorofDidacticandPo-lemicTheologyatthePresbyterianTheologicalSeminary,Columbia,SouthCarolina.
November 2014 75
OfSuchIstheKingdomofGod
teachandpersuadethemgrowoutoftheirvisibleconnectionwithher.Theyarebornuntoheraschildren,andaschildren,thegreatdutysheowestothemistoeducatethem.Butinheartandspirittheyareoftheworld.Inthisaspect,howisshetotreatthem?Preciselyasshetreatsallotherimpenitentandunbelievingmen....”27
Thesemenmadeadistinctionbetweenthesignificanceofadultbaptismandthebaptismofcovenantchildren.Baptisminthecaseofachildwasconsideredonlytobeasignofthespiritualblessingsthathemayreceiveinlateryears,providedhebelieved.Ontheotherhand,foradultswhomadeaprofessionoftheirfaith,baptismwasviewedasspiritualrenewalandaningraftingintoChrist.Thedistinctionwasonewithoutbiblicalsubstance. Theological justification for thispositionwasengineeredbyafallaciousconceptionofthecovenantofgraceandconsequentlyofinfantbaptism.ThornwellandDabneymaintainedthatthereweretwoaspectsorsidestothecovenantofgrace:theoneexternalandtheotherinternal.Theexternalaspectwaspreferabletoapurelylegalrelationship,whiletheinternalconcernedthecovenantasacommu-nionoflife.28 Theirconceptionoftheexternalorlegalaspectofthecovenantwasthatthecovenantwasacompactoranagreementbetweentwoparties,withmutualconditionsandstipulations.Inthatrespect,theyconsideredthecovenanttobeapurelyobjectivearrangement.
Itwasthoughttobepossibleforonenottomeettherequirementsofthecovenant,nottobelieveintheLordJesusChrist,andyettobeincovenantrelationwithGod.Inthissense,thecovenantwasnotmadewithmeninthequalityofbelievers,orasthetruechildrenofGod.Inthisbroaderaspectthecovenantwasconceivedasincludingmanyinwhom thecovenantpromiseswerenever realized. Childrenofbelieversenteredthecovenantasalegalrelationship,butthisdidnotmeanthattheywerealsoatonceinthecovenantasa“communionoflife.”Itdidnotevenmeanthatthecovenantrelationwouldevercometoitsfullrealizationintheirlives.Inotherwords,itwasbelievedthat
27 JamesHenleyThornwell,The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell(Carlisle,PA:BannerofTruth,1986),4:340.
28 LouisBerkhof,Systematic Theology, (Edinburgh: TheBannerofTruthTrust,1976),286-7.
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 176
personswhowerepresumablyunregenerateandunconvertedcouldbeinthecovenantasalegalagreement.29
RobertDabney30adoptedsimilarviews:Whenourstandardssay,“AllbaptizedpersonsaremembersoftheChurch,”thisbynomeansimpliestheirtitletoallsealingordinances,suffrageandoffice.Theyareminor citizens in the ecclesiastical com-monwealth,undertutelage,training,andinstruction,andgovernment;heirs,if they will exercise the graces obligatory on them,ofalltheultimatefranchisesoftheChurch,butnotallowedtoenjoythemuntilqualified31(emphasismine).
Dabney’sconceptionoftheplaceofcovenantchildrenismadeabundantly clearwhen in response to the question, “What are thebenefitsthenthataccruefrombaptism?”,heresponded:
Thebenefitsofinfantbaptism,andofthisformofmembershipforthechildrenofGod’sbelievingpeople,aregreat....ThisrelationtotheChurch,andthisdiscipline,are,first,inexactharmonywiththegreat fact of experience, that the childrenofGod’s people are thegreathopeoftheChurch’sincrease.Thisbeingafact,itisobviouslywisdomtoorganizetheChurchwithreferencetoit,soastoprovideeverypropermeansfortrainingforworkingupthisthemosthopefulmaterialofZion’sincrease.32
ItisappropriatetoobservethattheseviewswerenotuniversallyheldbyPresbyterians.
29 Schenck,The Presbyterian Doctrine,85.30 RobertDabney(1820-1898)SouthernPresbyterian;contemporary
of JohnHenleyThornwell. Professor ofSystematicTheology atUnionTheologicalSeminary,Richmond,Virginia.
31 RobertLewisDabney,Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology taught in Union Theological Seminary, Virginia 6th ed.(Richmond:PresbyterianCommitteeofPublication,1927),794.
32 Dabney,Syllabus and Notes,798.
November 2014 77
OfSuchIstheKingdomofGod
Charles Hodge33
AfterconsecratingthemtoGod,inrelianceuponHiscovenant,westilltakeitforgrantedthattheyarenotHis—thattheyaretogrowupinsin,thechildrenoftheadversary,untilsomefutureanddefinitetime,whentheymaybebroughtunderconvictionforsin,andledtoembracetheSaviour.Hencetheygrowup,notlookingtoGodastheirFather,toJesusastheirRedeemer,totheSpiritofholinessastheirsanctifier,andtotheChurchastheirhome;butwithafeelingthattheyarealiens,andGodanenemy.Inotherwords,weputthemoutsideofthekingdombyourtreatment,whileyetweholdthemtobeinitaccordingtoourtheory.Weconstantlyassumethattheirfirstactionsandemotionsofamoralnaturewillbeevilandonlyevil,insteadofbelievingthatbyDivinegrace,andinthefaithfulnessoftheMostHightoHisownengagements,theywillhavetruespiritualexercisesfromchildhood.Hence,astheycometoyearsofmaturity,theystandaloof,waitingasitwere,forGodtoenlistthem—waitingtogetreligion,asthephrasegoes,insteadoffeelingthattheybelongtoGod,andaretoloveandserveHimfromthebeginning.34
Not surprisingly, thecontentions regarding theviewofcovenantchildrenspreadbeyond thePresbyterianChurch in theUnitedStates.Presbyteriansbecamedividedonthesubject.Forexample,WilliamCun-ningham35adoptedviewsthatessentiallymirroredthoseofThornwellandDabney.Writingagainstbaptismalregeneration,Cunninghamstates:
Thereisagreatdifficultyfelt,—adifficultywhichScripturedoesnotaffordusadequatematerialsforremoving,inlayingdownanydistinct
33 CharlesHodge(1797-1878);HodgewastheleadingAmericanPres-byteriantheologianofthenineteenthcentury.HegraduatedfromPrincetonTheologicalSeminaryin1819andstudiedunderArchibaldAlexander.HewasappointedtotheFacultyatPrincetonin1820andremainedtherefortherestofhislife,exceptfortwoyears’studyinGermanyandFrance.
34 CharlesHodge,The Mode and Subjects of Baptism With a Practical View of Infant Baptism(Belfast:TheEvangelicalBookshop,1966),41.
35 WilliamCunningham(1805-1861);Scottishtheologian;oneoftheleadersintheDisruptionof1843;alsoinstrumentalintheestablishmentoftheFreeChurchofScotland. ProfessorandprincipaloftheFreeChurchCollege,Edinburgh.
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 178
anddefinitedoctrineastothebearingandefficacyofbaptisminthecaseof infants, towhomalone,ordinarily,we see it administered. ...Andyetisquiteplaintoanyonewhoiscapableofreflectinguponthesubject,thatitisadultbaptismalonewhichembodiesandbringsoutthefullideaoftheordinance,andshouldberegardedastheprimarytypeofit,—thatfromwhichmainlyandprincipallyweshouldformourconceptionsofwhatbaptismisandmeans,andwasintendedtoaccomplish.36
The resultwas confusion inPresbyterian churches around theglobe;aconfusionthatcontinuestothepresentday.37TheresultofthisisthatthegenerallyheldviewofPresbyterianstodayasregardsthesignificanceofthebaptismofcovenantchildrenisofthisorder:“[Baptized children] are different fromchildrenwho are not frombelievingparents.Theyarecovenantmembers,andassucharemoreprivileged(inviewoftheirlifeinsidethecovenant),buttheyarenotautomaticallysavedbytheircovenantmembership.”38 Theresultisthatthesacramentofbaptismwithrespecttocovenantchildrenhas,ineffect,becomeabareritual,withoutanyrealmeaningorsignificance.Suchaconceptionofinfantbaptismisnotfundamen-tallydifferentfromthatespousedbythosewhorejectpaedo-baptism.
The Biblical and Reformed Position ItisevidentfromScriptureandfromtheReformedcreedsthatthechildrenofbelieversareincludedinthecovenant,andtheyaretobeincludedinthecovenant,as children. Therefore,theyaretoreceivethesignandthesealofthecovenantofgrace,as children. TheyaremembersofChrist’schurch.GodistheirGodandtheyareHischildrenfromconceptionandbirth.Aschildren,theyarecalled
36 WilliamCunningham,The Reformers and the Theology of the Refor-mation(Edinburgh:TheBannerofTruthTrust,1967),246.
37 Theconfusionhasevenextendedtothequestioningofwhethercov-enantchildrencanberegeneratedinthewomb,despiteexplicitscripturalexamples. It has led to a fundamentalmisconceptionof the relationshipbetweenregenerationandtotaldepravityasregardscovenantchildren,thecontentionbeingthatacovenantchildwhoisregeneratedinthewombcannotbesaidtobeborntotallydepraved.
38 GregStrawbridgeed.,The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism(Phil-lipsburg,NewJersey:P&RPublishing,2003),107.
November 2014 79
OfSuchIstheKingdomofGod
upontoloveandobeytheLord.TheLordrequiresthisofthem,andHerequiresthisofthem,aschildren,andnotonlywhentheycometoyearsofdiscretion. Thisisthecase,notwithstandingthatitisindisputablethatnot every childofbelievingparentsisatruechildofGod.Esauwasthesonofbelievingparentsandreceivedthesignofcircumcision,buthewasunregenerateandreprobate.Therefore,itisunbiblicaltopresume thateverychildofbelievingparentsisregenerateandelect.Thatissimplynottrue.Butthatisquiteadifferentthingfrommaintainingthatthechildrenofbelieversarechildrenofthepromiseandaretobeviewedandtreatedassuch.Suchapositionrequiresnopresumptionastotheregenerationorotherwiseofthechildinquestion. But the question remains,whybaptize covenant children? Isbaptism,assomanyasserttoday,simplyaprovisionofGodwherebycovenantchildrenareprivilegedaboveotherchildren, in that theygrowupinhomeswhereGodishonoredandwheretheyaretaughtthethingsofGod? Thoughthisisaverycommonview,itdoesnotdojusticetotheWordofGod,nordoesitaccordwiththeReformedcreeds.Rather,itcreatesanunfoundeddistinctionbetweenadultsandchildrenasre-gardsthecovenantthatisnotfoundinScripture,norintheReformedcreeds. Goddoesnotmerelyplace thechildrenofbelievers inamorespirituallyadvantageouspositionthanthechildrenofunbelievers,sothattheyhaveagreaterprospectofcomingtoasavingknowledgeofJesusChrist.Thisisnottosaythatcovenantchildrendonotenjoyaspirituallyprivilegedposition;theyundoubtedlydo. GodestablishesHiscovenantwiththechildrenofbelievers,as children.ThisistheplainteachingofGenesis17:7:“AndIwilles-tablishmycovenantbetweenmeandtheeandthy seed after thee in their generationsforaneverlastingcovenant,to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee” (emphasismine). GodpromisestoestablishHiscovenant,Hisrelationshipoffel-lowshipandfriendshipwiththechildrenofbelieversinandthroughJesusChristinthelineofbelievingfamilies.Accordingly,thechurchoughtnottoregardthechildrenofbelieversasheathens,orevenas
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 180
heathenswithanedgeoverotherheathens.39Theyarethechildrenofthecovenant. Buthowdoesthisviewaccordwiththeindisputabletruththatnotallcovenantchildrenaresaved?Theansweristhat,althoughallthechildrenofbelievingparentsareof the covenant,thatis,areinthesphereofortheoutwardadministrationofthecovenant,andsoreceivethesignandsealofthecovenantandareraisedascovenantchildren,notallarein the covenant.NotallarethespiritualseedofAbraham.Thecovenantisnotestablishedwitheverychildofbelievingparents,headforhead,justasthecovenantwasnotestablishedwitheverysonanddaughterofAbraham,headforhead.“InIsaacshallthyseedbecalled.” Amongthechildrenofbelievers,therearethosewhoareelectandthosewhoarereprobate.Thoughthereprobate,suchasEsau,comeundertheoutwardadministrationofthecovenantandsoreceivethesignandsealofthecovenantofgrace,theyarenotthetruechildrenofGod.Noraretheythetruechildrenofthecovenant.40Thecovenant,God’srelationshipoffriendshipinandthroughJesusChrist,isonlyestablishedwiththeelectchildrenofbelievers.41 Butthencomestheobjection:Well,doesn’tthatmeanthatsome,ifnotmanychildrenofbelievers,receivethesignandsealofthecov-enantthatdoesnottrulybelongtothem?Theansweris,“yes.”Butbeforeanyonebecomestooalarmed,heshouldalsoaskhimself,Isitnotalsotrueofthosewhoarebaptizedafterhavingcometoyearsofdiscretion?Isitnottruethatsomeofthosealsoreceivethesignandsealofthecovenant,when,inreality,itdoesnotbelongtothem?Thatisundeniablythecase. Weought also to ask,whydoesGod allow that unregenerate,reprobatechildrenshouldreceivethesignandsealofHiscovenant.Indeed,moresignificantly,whydoesHecommandthat?Atthesametime,weoughtalsoconsiderwhether theprospectofsucha thingoccurringisunheardofinScripture?Theansweristhatitisnot.In
39 Engelsma,The Covenant of God,12.40 WestminsterLargerCatechism,Q31: Withwhomwasthecovenant
ofgracemade?Ans:ThecovenantofgracewasmadewithChristasthesecondAdam,andinhimwithalltheelectashisseed.
41 Engelsma,The Covenant of God,16.
November 2014 81
OfSuchIstheKingdomofGod
fact,itaccordswiththewayinwhichGoddealswiththeelectandreprobateinthemidstofthechurch. Considertheparableofthewheatandthetares(cf.Matt.13:24-30,36-43):
Theservantssaiduntohim,Wiltthouthenthatwegoandgatherthemup?Buthesaid,Nay;lestwhileyegatherupthetares,yerootupalsothewheatwiththem.Let both grow together until the harvest: andinthetimeofharvestIwillsaytothereapers,Gatheryetogetherfirstthetares,andbindtheminbundlestoburnthem:butgatherthewheatintomybarn(emphasismine).
Consideralsotheparableofthenetcastintothesea(cf.Matt.13:47-50):“Again,thekingdomofheavenislikeuntoanet,thatwascastintothesea,and gathered of every kind”(emphasismine). Considertheadministrationofcircumcision,thesignandsealofthecovenantintheOldTestamentdispensation(cf.Gen.17:11-13):
Andyeshallcircumcisethefleshofyourforeskin;anditshallbeatokenofthecovenantbetwixtmeandyou.Andhethatiseightdaysoldshallbecircumcisedamongyou,everymanchildinyourgenerations,hethatisborninthehouse,orboughtwithmoneyofanystranger,whichisnotofthyseed.Hethatisborninthyhouse,andhethatisboughtwiththymoney,mustneedsbecircumcised:andmycovenantshallbeinyourfleshforaneverlastingcovenant.
AccordingtothecommandofGod,everymalechildwastoreceivethesignofcircumcisionontheeighthdayoflife.Theapplicationofthesigndidnotrequireanycognitiononthepartofthechild.TheseriousnesswithwhichGodviewedthismatterisindicatedinGenesis17:14.“Andtheuncircumcisedmanchildwhosefleshofhisforeskinisnotcircumcised,thatsoulshallbecutofffromhispeople;hehathbrokenmycovenant.”42
42 Cf.Exodus4:24-26.“Anditcametopassbythewayintheinn,thattheLordmethim,andsoughttokillhim.ThenZipporahtookasharpstone,andcutofftheforeskinofherson,andcastitathisfeet,andsaid,Surelyabloodyhusbandartthoutome.Sohelethimgo:thenshesaid,Abloodyhusbandthouart,becauseofthecircumcision.”
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 182
Itisalsonoteworthythatcircumcisionwastobeadministeredalsotothosewhowere“boughtwithmoneyofanystranger.”Nomentionismadeoftherepentanceandfaithofthosemenorboys. TheimportantplacethatchildrenoccupyinthecovenantisevidentfromJesusChrist’scommandtoHisdisciples,“Sufferlittlechildrentocomeuntome,andforbidthemnotforofsuchisthekingdomofheaven”(Mark10:14). Consideralso thecommandofGodconcerning the trainingofchildren(cf.Deut.4:9,10andDeut.6:6,7):
Onlytakeheedtothyself,andkeepthysouldiligently,lestthouforgetthethingswhichthineeyeshaveseen,andlesttheydepartfromthyheartallthedaysofthylife:butteachthemthysons,andthysons’sons;SpeciallythedaythatthoustoodestbeforetheLordthyGodinHoreb,whentheLordsaiduntome,Gathermethepeopletogether,andIwillmakethemhearmywords,thattheymaylearntofearmeallthedaysthattheyshallliveupontheearth,andthattheymayteachtheirchildren.
Andthesewords,whichIcommandtheethisday,shallbeinthineheart:Andthoushaltteachthemdiligentlyuntothychildren,andshalttalkofthemwhenthousittestinthinehouse,andwhenthouwalkestbytheway,andwhenthouliestdown,andwhenthourisestup.
WhydoesGodallowthosewhoarereprobatetoreceivethesignandsealofthecovenantofgrace?WhyaretheygivenaplacewithinthechurchofJesusChrist?WhyaretheytobetaughtthewaysoftheLord?Theansweris,becauseofGod’sloveforthosewhomHehaschoseninJesusChristfrombeforethefoundationoftheworld.Fortheirsake,GodpermitsthereprobateseedtoreceivethesignandsealofHiscovenantofgrace. Theelect,notthereprobate,aretheoneswhoarethefocusofGod.ItisfortheirsakethatJesusChristdelaysHisreturnuponthecloudsofglory.“TheLordisnotslackconcerninghispromise,assomemencountslackness;butislongsufferingtous-ward,notwillingthatanyshouldperish,butthatallshouldcometorepentance”(IIPet.3:9).Whythedelay?BecausetheLordisnotwillingthatanyofHiselectshouldperish,butthateverylastoneforwhomJesusChristhasdied
November 2014 83
OfSuchIstheKingdomofGod
shouldcometorepentanceandfaith.God’sconcerniswiththeelectinJesusChrist. Whybaptizeallof thechildrenofbelievers, ifnotallof themare actually true childrenof the covenant? Why treat themall ascovenantchildren,whenit isknownthatsomeof themarealmostcertainlyreprobate?Theansweris,Godcommandsit.GodgathersHischildren,inthelineofbelievingfamilies.Butwearenotprivytotheidentityofthosechildrenofbelievers,whoareinrealityGod’schildren.Therefore,wearetotreatallofthechildrenofbelieversasthechildrenofGod,untiltheymanifestthemselvestobeotherwise. But,isthisnotreallypresumptiveregenerationdressedupinaslightlydifferentmanner?Theansweris,no.Thereisnopresump-tionbeingmadehereconcerningregeneration.Thisviewsimplyrecognizes thatGodhaspromisedtodrawsomeofHischildrenfromthesucceedinggenerationsofbelievers.YetbecausewedonotknowwhoamongthemarethetruechildrenofGod,andsoforthesakeoftheelectchildren,Godcommandsthatallthechildrenof believers be raised asHis children. Election determines theapproachthatthechurchandparentsaretoadoptwithrespecttocovenantchildren. Thisorganicviewofthecovenantisillustratedbyafarmerwhoplantshisfieldwithwheat.Asthewheatgrows,sotoodotheweeds.Evenifeventuallytherearemoreweedsthanwheatinthefield,thefarmerviewsanddealswithhisfieldasawheatfield.Hisviewofthefieldasawheatfielddictateshisapproach.Hecultivates,waters,andfertilizesthefieldforthesakeofthewheat.Althoughtheweedswill receive the same treatment, nonetheless, the farmer persistsbecauseofthewheat.Hedoesnotallowthepresenceoftheweedstodictatehisapproach.Nordoesthepresenceoftheweedsleadhimtodoubttheexistenceofthewheat.Inthesameway,neitherdoesthepossiblepresenceofthereprobateamongthechildrenofbelieversdeterparentsorthechurchfromviewingandtreatingthemasthechildrenofGod. JohnMurrayisontargetwhenhestates:
Thebaptismofchildren,then,meansthatthegraceofGodtakesholdofchildrenataveryearlyage,evenfromthewomb.Thatistosay,in
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 184
otherwords,wemustnotexcludetheoperationsofGod’sefficaciousandsavinggracefromthesphereorrealmofearliestinfanthood.ItisthistruthourLordgavehismostinsistentandemphatictestimonywhenHesaid,“Sufferthelittlechildrentocomeuntome,andforbidthemnot,forofsuchisthekingdomofGod.” Wewouldnot,ofcourse,bemisunderstoodwhenweassertthisprinciple.WedonotsaythattheoperationsofGod’ssavinggracearepresentintheheartofeveryinfant.ThefactisonlytooapparentthatmultitudesgrowuptoyearsofdiscretionandintelligenceandshowthatthesavinggraceofGoddidnottakeholdoftheirheartsandmindsinthedaysoftheirinfancy....Butitisneverthelesstrue...thatthegraceofGodisoperativeintherealmoftheinfantheartandmind.“Outofthemouthofbabesandsucklingsthouhastperfectedpraise.”43
An Important Issue Doesitmatter?Doesitmatterwhatview,wetakeofcovenantchildren?Doesitmattersofarasbelievingparentsareconcerned?Doesitmattersofarasthechurchisconcerned?Doesitmatterfromtheperspectiveoftheministry?Absolutely!Theviewthatistakenofcovenantchildrenhassignificantpracticalimplicationsattachedtoitforbothparentsandthechurchalike.AsJohnMurraywrites:
What a blessed thought and hope and confidence is extended tobelievingparentswheninbaptismtheycommittheirchildrentotheregeneratingandsanctifyinggraceoftheHolySpiritandtothepurgingefficacyofthebloodofChrist,sothat,ifperchancetheLordispleasedtoremovethemininfancy,they—believingparents—canpleadandrestuponthepromisesoftheCovenantofGraceontheirbehalf. ...WeshouldappreciatethepreciousnessofthesetruthsforthereasonthatchildrendonotneedtogrowuptotheyearsofdiscretionandintelligencebeforetheybecometheLord’s.Justaschildrenaresinfulbeforetheycometotheyearsofdiscretionandunderstanding,sobythesovereigngraceofGodtheydonotneedtogrowupbeforetheybecomepartakersofsavinggrace.TheymaygrowupnotonlyinthenurtureandadmonitionoftheLord,butalsoinHisfavorandsanctifyinggrace.Theymayintheirtenderestyearsbeintroduced
43 JohnMurray,“WhyWeBaptizeInfants,”The Presbyterian Reformed Magazine 11(1997),165.
November 2014 85
OfSuchIstheKingdomofGod
intothefamilyandhouseholdoftheheavenlyFather.44
Theviewthatonetakesofcovenantchildrenclearlydictatestheapproachofthechurchandparentstowardtheirupbringing.ViewingourchildrenasthechildrenofGoddemandsthatparentstraintheirchildreninthewaysoftheLord.Butnotonlymusttheytrainthemin thoseways, but theymust approach them in their teaching anddisciplineasthosewhoareregenerate. Ourchildrenmustbetaughttounderstandthattheirfeelings,acts,habits,andmannersmustaccordwiththewillofGod.TheexpectationandtheanticipationofparentsmustbethattheirchildrenwillconductthemselvesasthechildrenofGod.Theymustbeaddressedinthoseterms,andnotsimplyfromaperspectiveofthelawofGod.Covenantchildrenaretobeapproachedastrue,spiritualfriendsofGod.TheremustbearecognitionthatchildrenareempoweredbytheHolySpirittoloveGodandtheneighbor. Notonlydoparentsneedtobearsuchmatters inmind,butsotoodoesthechurch.Childrenneedtobenurturedandcaredforbythechurch. JesusChristwasserious,whenHecommandedPeter,“Feed my lambs.”Failuretonurtureandcareforourcovenantyouththroughthepreachingandthroughcatecheticalinstructionisadere-lictionofdutyonthepartofthechurchandinparticulartheministerof theWord. Theministermustrecognize thatwhenheaddressesthecongregation,as“BelovedinJesusChrist,”heisaddressingalsothecovenantchildren.Ifsuchissuesarenotclearinthemindoftheminister,howwillhebeableproperlytoministertosuchchildren?“Aretheselittleoneslivingplantsoraretheypoisonousweeds?If[aminister]cannotanswerthequestion,howshallhegotowork?Thequestionliesattheverythresholdofthepastor’soffice.”45 Eldersneedtocarespirituallyforcovenantchildren.ThechurchalsoneedstobusyitselfwithdisciplineofcovenantchildrenincaseswheretheyshowadeliberateandwillfuldisregardforthelawofGod. This a far cry from the approach thatflows from theposition
44 JohnMurray,“WhyWeBaptizeInfants,”The Presbyterian Guardian 5(1938),144.
45 E.V.Gerhart,“TheEfficacyofBaptism,”Mercersburg Review X,Art.1(January,1858),6.
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 186
adoptedbyThornwell. Hisapproachdemandsadifferentviewofthecongregation.Consequently,thatiswhyministerswhoadoptasimilarpositiontodayaddresstheircongregationsas“friends”orsomesimilarterm,butnotas“belovedinJesusChrist.” Thornwell’sapproachdemandsthatchildrenbetreatedasspiritualstrangersandoutcasts.TherecanbenosenseofparentsandtheirchildrenservingtheLordtogether.ParentscannotsaywithJoshua,“As for me and my house we will serve the Lord.”ChildrencannotbeaddressedasthosewholoveGodandwhoseektolivetheirlivesoutofthankfulnessofhearttoGod.Rather,theemphasishastobeplacedupontherequire-mentsofthelaw;alawthattheyhavenodesiretokeepbecausetheyareapparentlyunregenerate.Theinsurmountablerequirementsanddemandsofthelawarebroughttobear,withoutthegospel. CovenantchildrenaretaughtthattheyarelostsinnersunderthewrathofGodandthattheironlyhopeisthatonedaytheymaybebornagain.Withthisapproach,thereisarealdangerthatparentsandthechurchalikearecalling“common”thatwhichGodHimselfhascleansed. Underthatview,howcanchildrenbeencouragedtopray?Howcanonewhoisunregeneratepray?Howcanachildbeencouragedto recite theLord’s prayer? How can children be encouraged toparticipateinworship?Howcantheysingthepsalms?Howcanachildbeexhortedtokeepthefifthcommandment?Itisbeyondtheunregeneratechild.Consequently,orderinthehomemaybesoughtbyvirtueoftheirfearofdiscipline,butnotbyvirtueofthechild’sloveforGod. Theeffectofsuchteachingcanbespirituallynumbing.ChildrenraisedundersucharegimeareoftenconfusedastotheirstatebeforeGod.Taughtthattheyareunregenerateandhell-deservingsinners,theyseekassuranceoftheirsalvation,butsuchassuranceoftenproveselusive.Theyconcludethattheirconversionexperiencesareinsuffi-cient,andsotheyarerepeatedlycausedtodoubttheirsalvation.Whataspirituallydebilitatingcondition! Doesthismeanthatcovenantchildrenoughtnotbeencouragedtoseekconversion?Thisisanimportantissueforbothministersandparentsalike.Shouldministerspreachthatcovenantchildrenneedtobeconverted?Shouldparentsprayforsuchathing?Shouldchildrenbeurgentlycalledtoconversion?
November 2014 87
OfSuchIstheKingdomofGod
Theansweris,yes.JesussaysinMatthew18:3,“Exceptyebeconvertedandbecomeaslittlechildren,yeshallnotenterintothekingdomofheaven.”Covenantchildrenmustberecipientsofthegiftoffaith.Theymustknowoftruerepentance.TheymustbeconvertedandturntoGodastheirheavenlyFather. Therefore,covenantchildrenaretobecalledtorepentoftheirsinsandtoturnfromthem.TheymustknowofheartfeltsorrowforsinandtheymustexperiencetruefaithinJesusChrist.Thatisthebiblicalcallingofbothministerandparents.CovenantchildrenmustnotbeallowedtocoastalongasthoughtheyhavenoneedtoconsidertheirstatebeforeGod. Itisimperativethatthedoctrineofcovenantchildrenberightlyunderstoodforthespirituallifeofthechurch.ThetrackrecordofthePresbyterianChurchsincethemid-nineteenthcenturyhasnotbeenoverlyencouraging.Withoutaproperviewofcovenantchildren,thechurchwilldriveherchildrenintotheworld. PresbyterianchurchesneedtopaycarefulattentiontotheirCon-fessionalStandardsandtotheWordofGod.Theinroadsmadebyfalseconceptionsofthecovenantandconsequentlyofinfantbaptismneedtobeaddressedurgently.
Toour apprehension there is a practical error here of great perni-ciousness. Havinggivenourchildren toGod, inaccordancewithHis appointment,weoughtnot to feelor to act as though itwereanullity.Toourfaith,thepresumptionshouldbethattheyaretheLord’s,andthatastheycometomaturitytheywilldevelopalifeofpiety.Insteadofwaiting,therefore,foraperiodofdefiniteconvictionandconversion,weshouldratherlookfor,andendeavourtocallout,fromthecommencementofmoralaction,themotionsandexercisesoftherenewedheart.Teachthemtohatesin,tothinkandspeakofGodasafather,andofChristasasaviour.Letthembetaughttosay,WelovetheLord,weloveandtrustJesus,weloveHispeople,welovetheChurchwithallherdoctrinesandordinances,wehatesininallitsforms,andaredetermined,byGod’shelp,thatwewillnotbeitsslaves.Andletusexpectthat,astheycometoyearsofdeliberateaction,theirlifewillcorrespondtothisteaching.IsthistoomuchtoexpectofourcovenantGod?Isthispresumption?IsthislesspleasingtoGod,thanaspiritofunbelief,whichnullifiesHisword?Wethinknot.Itmaybeastrongfaithisrequiredforsuchacourse,butitisa
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 188
legitimatefaith,wellpleasingtoGod,comfortingtoourselves,andmostblessedinitsbearinguponourchildren.Ifwecanbutexerciseit,byHishelp,vastnumbersofourchildrenwillbesanctifiedfromthewomb,andwillindeedgrowup‘inthenurtureandadmonitionoftheLord’,andwillstandlikeoliveplantsaroundourtableandourdwelling.46
WhatHodgeassertsisPresbyteriananditisReformed.Itisalsoconfessionalandcovenantal. Andmoreover, it isbiblicalandit ispleasingtoGod. “Sufferthelittlechildrentocomeuntome,andforbidthemnot:forofsuchisthekingdomofGod.”l
46 Hodge,The Mode,42-3.
November 2014 89
BookReviews
Book ReviewsGrace, Not Law! The Answer to Antinomianism,DavidH.J.Gay,(n.p.:Brachus,2013).Pp.98.$5.38(paper).[ReviewedbyDavidJ.Engelsma.]
Introduction In theprovidenceofGod, Ihavethroughoutmyministryhadaspecialinterestintheheresyofantinomism, or antinomianism.This is not only because antin-omism is one of the twomainheresiesbywhich thegospelofgrace is always bedeviled. AsAugustusM.Topladyremarked,“Christ is always crucified be-tweentwothieves:Arminianismandantinomism.” Butmy special interest intheheresyisduealsotothecir-cumstancesinmyfirstcongrega-tion.ThememberscamefromaGermanReformedtraditionthatwas influenced by theDutch/Germantheologian,HermannF.Kohlbrugge.IfKohlbruggewasnotanantinomian,hewasdecid-edlyweakregardingtheplaceofthe law in theChristian life ofsanctification.HeindicatedthisweaknessinhiscommentaryontheHeidelbergCatechism.AttheverybeginningofhistreatmentofthethirdsectionoftheCatechism,Kohlbrugge posed the question,“Whatisthemostthankfulcrea-tureofGod?”Hisanswerwasthe
pathetic,sanctification-disparag-ing,“Adog.” MinistersinfluencedbyKohl-bruggeexplainedthe“must”ofQ.86oftheCatechismasexpressingcertainty, not obligation. ThesavedChristianwill necessarilydo goodworks. But theKohl-bruggiansshiedfromapplyingthe“must”totheircongregationsasconfrontingthemwiththeirduty. The “Du sollst” (the “Thoushalt,” inGerman) of the com-mandmentsmeans only, “Youwill,”not,“Yououghtto.”Thepracticalconsequenceofthisex-planationofthe“thoushalt”ofthecommandmentsisthatthechurchhas nothing to say, andnothingto do in theway of discipline,regarding amemberwhose lifeplainlyshowstheresponsetothelaw’s“youwill”—“Iwillnot.” Themembersofthecongre-gationhadbeenseparatedfromaGermanReformedchurchinNe-braskabythatchurch’sdisciplineofaleadingelderforhisteachinga class that salvation includessanctification and that a sancti-fiedlifeisalifeofobediencetothelawofGod.Hisoffensewas
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 190
teaching thatwe “must” do thegoodworksrequiredbythelawofGod,astaughtbyQ.86oftheCatechism. That is, hisoffensewashis repudiationofantinom-ism.
An Antinomian Book Grace, Not Law!isevidencethatantinomismcontinuestobeathreattoprofessingChristiansandtotheChristianreligion.Thisisthesolevalueofthebook.Thisisnotmuch.Butitissomething.Especiallyisthelittlebookvalu-ableforitsdemonstrationofthedeceptivenessofantinomism. Alwaysantinomismpromotesitself by extolling salvation bygrace and bymisrepresentingwhattheReformedfaithdescribesasthe“thirduseofthelaw,”thatis,theuseofthelawasteachingthestandardorruleofthethank-fulChristian life. Antinomismportrays this use of the law asa falling away from grace intolegalism,orworks-righteousness.Theantinomianisthepreacherofgrace;theteacherofthelawasitisconfessedinthethirdpartoftheCatechismisa“law-preacher,”ateacherofrighteousnessandsal-vationbythesinner’sownworks.This, of course, is a damningcharge,ifitcanbemadetostick. Gayisamasterofthetypicalantinomian slander. “Believ-
ers…shouldnotpreach the law;we should preachChrist!…Weshouldnot begoing to the law;weshouldbegoingtoChrist”(8,9).“LooktoChrist!…nottothelaw! Look toChrist! Christ isyourdeliver(sic)!”(63). In addition, the author dis-tinguisheshimselfbyadditionaldeception in the controversybetweentheReformedfaithandantinomismwith regard to thelaw. Whether this deception isdeliberate or due to ignorance,Godwilljudge.Butdeceptionitis. Gaywould have the readerbelievethatheopposesantinom-ism. Hence, thesub-titleof thebook. Oddly, however, he op-posesantinomismbyadvocatingtheheresy.Thewaytowardoffthe lawlessness of antinomisminthechurch,accordingtoGay,is by repudiating and banishing the ten commandments, that is,by vigorously promoting antin-omism. Gay proposes thatweoutlawopposition to the lawbyoutlawingthelaw.Itisasthoughinthefieldofmedicineadoctorwouldcombatcancerbyadvocat-ingtheadministrationtopersonsofcancerouscells. Gayvehemently affirmshisoppositiontoanunrighteouslifeon the part ofChristians. Hissolutionistheequallyvehement
November 2014 91
BookReviews
repudiationoftheuseofthelawofGodbypreacherorbelieverasthestandardofarighteouslife. TheoutstandingfoesofGay’santinomism, asGay repeatedlynotes, are JohnCalvin and theReformedfaith. Gaycondemns“thevastmajorityof…Reformedand evangelical believers….TheyfollowJohnCalvin.AndhetaughtthatitisthelawofGod—the ten commandments…that’sthe standard” (53). Contrary toGay’sintention,thisishighpraiseofCalvin and his “followers.”Indeed,higherpraise,especiallyintheselawlesslastdays,ishardtoimagine.
What Antinomism Truly Is Gay’s deceptive attack onthe law ofGod is exposed byexamining his definition of theheresyofantinomism.HedefinesantinomismasoppositionintheChristian church to any and alllaw, virtually as open, avowed,immoralliving.“Anantinomianisonewhowillnothaveanylawtogovernhim.Ifyoulike,heisalawuntohimself.Heislawless”(68).SinceGaydeploresandde-nouncessuchanimmorallife,hewouldhavethereaderbelievethathe—Gay—isnotanantinomian. Thedeceptioninthisdescrip-tion of antinomism is twofold.First, an antinomian is not one
whoopposes “any and all law”ingeneral.Anantinomianisonewho specifically opposes andrejects the ten commandmentsofExodus 20 as the authorita-tive guide and rule of the holy,Christianlife.Accordingtothis(accurate) definition,Gay is aragingantinomian.Gaydefinesantinomism as he does so thathemay escape detection. Forhe does profess allegiance to acertainlaw.Thisisthe“lawofChrist,”which, although unde-fined, is evidently not the tencommandmentsofExodus20. ThesecondmistakeofGay’sdescriptionofantinomismishisidentificationoftheheresywithflagrantlyimmoralbehavior.An-tinomismisnotblatantlyworldlyliving,althoughtheerrorinvari-ablyleadstothisiniquity.Antin-omismisthedoctrinaldenialthattheChristianlifeisregulatedbythetencommandments,andthattheChristian is commandedbyGod to obey the ten command-ments. Gay repeatedly, clearly,andemphaticallydeniesthatthetencommandmentsaretheguideandruleoftheChristianlife.HecriticizesCalvinforteachingthat“the law is the everlasting ruleof a good and holy life” (18).Therefore,Gayisanantinomianheretic,andhisbookisantinomi-an heresy.
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 192
“Under the Law” Damning as this deceptionis,Gay’sdeceptioninthematterofantinomismgoesfurther. HeinsistsonpresentingCalvin’sandtheReformedfaith’sdoctrineofthe lawas the teaching that theChristianis“underthelaw.”Gaychargesthat“Reformedteachers”proclaim that “believers are…under the law ofMoses” (7).Since theBible plainly teachesthatbelieversarenot“underthelaw,”Gaycantriumphantlycon-cludethattheBiblecondemnstheReformedfaith’steachingthattheChristian life is required to belivedaccordingtothelawasitsstandard,orguide. But“underthelaw”isnotthesameas “according to the law.”Tobeunderthelaw,astheBibleteaches being under the law, isto be required to keep the lawfor righteousnesswithGodand,therefore,tobesubjecttothelaw’scurse. The elect believer is not“under the law.” TheReformedfaithdoesnotteachsuchathing.TheReformedfaith,asthegospelof grace, has always been themain opponent of the doctrinethatbelieversare“underthelaw.”TheReformed faith has alwaysbeentheoutstandingchampionofthetruththatbelieversare“undergrace.” But theBible’s teaching that
thebelieverisnot“underthelaw”neithermeansnorimpliesthatthebeliever isnotcalled to live“ac-cording tothelaw,”thelawbeingtheauthoritativeguideofhislife.Gayproclaimsthatgracioussalva-tionfreesthebelieverfromthelaw:“Everybeliever is liberated fromlaw,”bywhichismeantthelawofthe tencommandments(11). OnthebasisofScripture,theReformedfaithproclaimsthatgracioussalva-tionliberatesthebelieverfromsin,sothatheisfreetoobeythelaw,whichistheauthoritativeruleofaholy,thankfullife.
Law and Sanctification Asifallthiserrorintheim-portantmatterofGod’sworkofsanctification and the believer’scallingtoliveathankfullifewerenot enough,Gay alsomisrep-resentstheReformeddoctrineofthe law, andmisstates the issuebetweenhisantinomismandtheReformeduse of the law in theChristian life. He does this bycondemning theReformeddoc-trineasteachingthatsinnersaresanctifiedbythelaw.ThischargebyGay isan importantelementin his assault on theReformeddoctrineandinhisdefenseofhisownantinomism. GaydescribestheReformedfaithasteachingthat,althoughwearejustifiedbyfaith,wearesanc-
November 2014 93
BookReviews
tifiedbythelaw.Thisenableshimtodistinguishhimselfasaconsis-tent preacher of grace,whereastheReformed, allegedly, teachjustificationbygraceandsancti-ficationbyworksofobediencetothelaw.“TheReformed…arguethatthewaytogetbelieverssanc-tified…istoteachandpreachthelawtothem;andby‘thelaw,’theymean the ten commandments”(8).WhereastheReformedfaithcallspeopletoChristforjustifi-cation,accordingtoGay,ittellsbelievers,“Youmustgotothelawforsanctification”(63). Supposedly in distinctionfromCalvin and theReformedfaith,Gay proclaims that “thenew-covenantway of sanctifi-cation…isnotbythelawbutbygrace”(10). Totheproclamationthatwearesanctifiedbygrace,notbythelaw,theReformedfaithrespondswith theDutch proverb: “Een waarheid als een koe”(English:“atruthas[obviousas]acow”).Of course, sanctification, likejustification,indeed,likeallsal-vation,isbyfaithinJesusChrist,andnot by the law. Of course,gracemakesusholy,asgracealsojustifiesus.Ofcourse,thelaw,aslawonitsown,thelawaslaw,cannomoremakeusholythanitcanpronounceusrighteous.
But theReformed doctrineof the thirduseof the lawdoesnot teach that the lawmakesusholy.NoristheissuebetweentheReformedfaithandantinomianssuchasDavidGayatallthattheReformedfaithaffirms,whereastheantinomiansdeny,thatthelawsanctifies.Byraisingthisastheissue,Gayfightsastrawman. The issue is not that gracesanctifiestheelectbyfaithaloneinJesusChrist.Theissueisnotthat the law cannotmake thesinnerholy,anymorethanitcanpronounceusjust. But the issue is this: WhenChristsanctifiestheelectbelieverbyfaithaloneinHim,doesHelib-eratethebelieverfromthelaw,asisthehereticaldoctrineofDavidGayandofallhisantinomianco-hortsinthehistoryofthechurch?Or,doesHeliberatethebelieverfrom the power of sin in orderthatthebelievercanandwillnowobey the ten commandments ofthelawofGod,whichtencom-mandmentsChrist continues topropose to theNewTestamentIsraelofGodasthewillofGodfortheirthankfullife?ThisistheReformeddoctrine.Thisdoctrineincludesthatthelawbepreached,notonlytoexposetothebelieverhis sinfulness and sins, so thathemay flee toChrist crucified
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 194
end,nolawatallgovernsthelifeofoneprofessingChristianity. Antinomism is essentiallylawlessness,thoughitmayforawhilebefoolboththeantinomianand his disciples by professingconcernforholiness.Thenameoftheheresyperfectlycapturesitsanti-Christianteaching:“againstthe law” (of the ten command-ments). It isworse, therefore,thanthelawlessnessoftheungod-lywhoselivesaresimplylackingthelaw.Antinomismishostility,andactiveopposition,tothelawofthetencommandments.Antin-omismis“anti”thelawofthetencommandments. ContrarytoGay’sprofession,how can antinomism truly bezealousforholinessoflifewhenholiness of life beginswith theinscribingof the lawofGodontheheartofthechildofGod(Jer.31:33)—thelawthatantinomismdespisesandrejects? Itshouldnotbeoverlooked,in light of Jeremiah 31:33, thatGod’s estimation ofHis law inthematterofsalvationisradicallydifferent from the estimationofDavidGayandofallantinomians.Gaydoesawaywiththelaw.God,onthecontrary,writesthelawonthe hearts ofHis new covenantpeople. Evidentlysensingtheweak-
forpardonandpeace,butalsotoinstruct himhowhe is to thankGodforhisgracioussalvation. Gay’s presentation of theReformed doctrine of sanctifi-cation is false. But somethingimportantbecomesunmistakablyplainfromthemisrepresentation.Gay refuses to teachconfessingChristians toobey the ten com-mandments as the rule of theirsaved,gratefullives.Herejectsthelawasthenecessaryguideofthelifeofholiness.Gayis“anti (against)-nomian(thelawofthetencommandments).”
The Lawlessness of Antinomism And this points out anotherfatal flaw in antinomism. Itgives theChristiannoguidefortherealizingofhisferventdesiretoliveacceptablyandthankfullytoGodhisSavior. Antinomism“liberates”thebelieverfromthelaw. And now the believer isonhisown. No law,nodivine,trustworthy, authoritative lawregulateshislife. Thus does antinomism in-variably result in careless, un-righteous,and,finally,profligateliving.IfGod’slawisnottheruleofone’s life, thebeliever’sowndesires, or the ungodlyway oftheworld,orthecarelessnessofnominalChristianity,and,inthe
November 2014 95
BookReviews
nessofhistheologyinleavingthebelieverwithoutanauthoritativeguide or rule for his life,Gayproposes instead that the saved ChristiantakeJesusashisexam-ple,thatis,thatheimitateJesus.Having rejected the law as theguideof theChristian life,Gayraises thequestion,“Howcan Ilive as aChristian should live?WhatistheChristianlife?”Hisansweris:“LiveasJesuswouldlive!”(69) ToexclaimthattheChristianlifemustbe an imitationof thelife ofChrist has its emotionalappeal.ButwhenthisimitationofJesusisstrippedofobedienceto the tencommandments,as isthecaseinthetheologyofantino-mianGay,itlacksalldefiniteness,concreteness,and,well,down-to-earthreality.Theemotionalcall,“LiveasJesuswould!,”likethetrivial,superficial,popsloganofa few years ago, “WhatwouldJesusdo?”isuseless,andindeeddestructiveoftheChristianlife. Everyone has his own con-ception of the life of Christ.“Liberated”fromthelaw,humansinvariablycastChristintheim-ageof themselves andmakeofthe lifeofChristwhateversuitsthem.LiberalslivelikeJesusbytoleratingsin,refusingtopunishcriminals, approving homosex-uality and rampant divorce and
remarriage, robbing the rich tosupportthehave-nots,andreliev-inghumansoftheirmaterialdis-tressesinsuchawayastocausewidespread economic disaster.So-calledChristianMarxists inSouthAmerica imitate Jesus byforcibleredistributionofwealth.Charismatics imitate Jesus bydancingwildlytoraucousmusic,wavingtheirarms,andspeakingin tongues. “Christian”hippiesimitatedJesusbygettinghighonpotand living freely in fornica-tion. Having dispensedwith thelaw,antinomianGayasks,“Howthenshouldwelive?” Hisanswer? “ImitateJesus!” Butnowarisesanotherques-tion:“HowshallIimitateJesus?”Bynotmarrying? Byspendingfortydaysandnightsinadesert,withoutfoodordrink?Bycleans-ingthetemple?Bychangingwa-terintowine?Byexcoriatingthemoney-changers in the temple?Bywalkingonwater?Bydyingonacross? WhomdoesGaythinkheisfoolingwith his replacement ofthelawofGodbyavague,unde-fined“imitationofJesus?” This is not to deny that theChristianlifeincertain,carefullyprescribed respects is tobepat-ternedafterthebehaviorofJesus
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 196
(seeIPet.2:21).ButitistodenythattheChristianlifeisanimita-tionofJesusfromwhichthetencommandmentsarebanished. Howshallwenowlive?Howshallwesavedbelieversnowlivea completeChristian life in allareasofhumanlife?HowshallwelivesoastopleaseandglorifyGod?Howshallwelivesothatwehavecertainty,absolute cer-tainty, thatwearepleasingGodandwillberewardedwitheternallife? These are not insignificantquestions. Thesearequestionsaboutlife,about the Christian life. Theyconcernnosmallaspectof the salvation that is in JesusChrist.
God’sanswertothequestionsis,“Tothelawandtothetestimo-ny”(Is.8:20). Such is also the answer oftheReformed faith, as the thirdpartoftheHeidelbergCatechismshows.Alifeofgoodworksisthelifelived“accordingtothelawofGod.”Itisnotalife“foundedonour imaginations or the institu-tionsofmen”(Heid.Cat.,Q.91). Gayhasnopositiveanswertothequestion,otherthanthevagueanduseless,“ImitateJesus!”Buthedoeshaveanegativeanswer:“Away fromthelawandthetesti-mony!” AndGod’sjudgmentonhim,asonallantinomians,is:“Thereisnolightinthem”(Is.8:20).l
By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification, ed.GaryL.W.JohnsonandGuyP.Waters.ForewordbyDavidF.Wells.Wheaton,IL:Crossway,2006.Pp.213.$17.99(paper).[ReviewedbyDavidJ.Engelsma.]
For the Book:Defense of Justification Thereissomethingtobesaidforthisbook:Itisadefenseofjustificationbyfaithaloneagainstthe denial of this cardinal truthbytheNewPerspectiveonPaul(NPP)andbytheFederalVision(FV). Thebookcontendsthatjusti-
ficationinRomansreferstoone’slegal standing beforeGod thejudge,ratherthantoone’sinclu-sionamongthecovenantpeopleofGod,asN.T.Wrightwronglyargues.Justificationistheimpu-tation of righteousness, not thedivine declaration concerningGod’scovenantfaithfulness.Jus-tificationisnotonlyforgiveness
November 2014 97
BookReviews
ofsins;itisalsotheimputationtothebelievingsinneroftheactiveobedienceofJesusChristintheelectbeliever’sstead. ThecontributionbyC.Fitz-SimonsAllison (several differ-ent authors contribute variousessays related to the subject ofthebook’stitle)isdelightful,andperceptive.Allisonobservesthatdenial of imputation is possibletoday (in ostensibly conserva-tiveReformedandPresbyteriancircles!)inasmuchasweliveina“climatebereftofbiblicalaweofGod’s justice, transcendence,andawesomeness”(110). The book does not hesitateto name names, or to skewertheenemiesofthetruthofrigh-teousnessbyfaithalone.Inhisessay, “Reflection onAuburnTheology,” that is, the theologyofChristianReconstructionandtheFV,T.DavidGordonsuggeststhat “Pastor Steven Schlisselembodies the best andworst ofAuburnTheology [that is, theFV—DJE]: a great, bombasticprovocateurwhomay be tem-peramentally unsuited to be atheologian”(114).Schlisselistheindependent,whohaslongbeenthe darling of the conservativeChristian ReformedministersandmembersandwhosetheologythemenoftheUnitedReformed
Churcheshaveneverforthrightlydenounced and repudiated, al-though shrewd self-interest hasmoved them to distance them-selves from “bombastic, provo-cateur”Schlisselinpublic,afterusinghim.
Bolt on HH Of special interest to theProtestant Reformed reader isthe article by Prof. JohnBolt,ChristianReformed theologianatCalvinTheologicalSeminary.Bolt’sarticleistitled,“WhytheCovenantofWorksisaNecessaryDoctrine:RevisitingtheObjec-tions to aVenerableReformedDoctrine”(171-189).Boltreex-aminesthecovenantwithAdaminParadiseinlightofthedenialbythemenoftheFVandothersthatthatcovenantwasacovenantofworks.InthisreexaminationofthenatureofthecovenantwithAdam,Bolt considersHermanHoeksema’s rejection of thedoctrineof that covenant as thedoctrine thatwas current in his(ChristianReformed) circles inhis day. AlthoughjudgingHoeksemato be “wrong about covenantconditionality,”which covenantconditionalityHoeksemadenied(186), Bolt is appreciative ofmuchofHoeksema’sexplanation
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 198
oftheAdamiccovenant.“Hoek-semaisrightabouttherelationaldimensionof theAdamic cove-nant….Hoeksema’stheologicalinstincts…are right on targethereandreflectsomeofthepro-foundestconvictionsandinsightsintheReformedtheologicalandconfessionaltradition”(186). The conclusion of Bolt’sarticleiscommendationofHoek-sema’sunderstandingofthecov-enantwithAdam:
Hoeksema’sbriefandcrypticcomments in his discussionon the covenantwithAdamincreationcarryallthemoreweight. ForHoeksema thecovenant relation is not “in-cidental,ameanstoanend,”but rather “a fundamentalrelationship inwhichAdamstood to God by virtue ofhis creation; [it was] a re-lation of living fellowshipand friendship…. From theveryfirstmomentof his ex-istence…Adamstood in thatcovenantrelationtoGodandwas conscious of that livingfellowship and friendshipwhichisessentialtothatrela-tionship.”…AsGod’scove-nantfriendandrepresentative“office-bearerinallcreation”Adamwas given a task asGod’sco-workerforwhichhisrewardwas theSabbath-like
“puredelightofitinthefavorofGod”(188,189).
Having quotedHoeksema’sdeclaration that “all Scripturepresents the covenant relationas fundamental and essential….TherecanbenodoubtthatAdaminthisstateofintegritystoodincovenant relation toGod,”Boltconcludeshispiecewithahearty,“Yes.Indeed!”(189) In light of this approval ofHoeksema’s conception of thecovenantwithAdam, Bolt, de-spite his disavowal ofHoekse-ma’srepudiationofaconditionalcovenantwithAdam,cannotpos-siblyfind himself in agreementwiththedoctrinethatpositsthatcovenantasaconditionalcontractproposed byGod and acceptedbyAdamsometimeafterAdam’screation,whichwasthedoctrineof a conditional covenant thatHoeksemawasrejecting.
Against the Book:Defense of Justification Thereis,however,alsosome-thing to be said againstthisbook:Itisadefenseofjustificationbyfaithaloneagainst thedenialofthiscardinaltruthbytheNPPandbytheFV. By the present time, somefourteen years after Norman
November 2014 99
BookReviews
Shepherd’s public proclamationofthetheologyoftheFVinRe-formedcirclesbyhispublicationofthebook,The Call of Grace: How the Covenant Illuminates Salvation and Evangelism, itoughttobeabundantlyevidenttoeveryReformedChristian,muchmoretoeveryReformedtheolo-gian,thatdefenseofjustificationbyfaithaloneagainstthefrontalattackontheReformedfaithbytheFVisbothdesperatelyinade-quateandgrievouslywrong. TheengineoftheFVassaultontheheartandcoreoftheRe-formedfaith,whichisthegospelofgraceofHolyScripture,istheFV’sdoctrineofthecovenantasagracious,butconditional,rela-tionshipwithallbaptizedpersons,especiallyallbaptizedbabiesofbelievingparents,alike.The issue in the lifeanddeathstruggleofReformedorthodoxywiththethe-ologyoftheFVistheFV’sdoc-trineofauniversal,gracious,sav-ing,butconditionalcovenantofgraceinJesusChrist.(Inotethat“conditionalcovenantofgrace”isanoxymoron.)Theadvocatesof theFV thusopenlyadvertisetheirteaching(seeShepherd’sThe Call of Grace).Thenameofthetheologybetrays the covenantalessenceofthetheology:“federal”means“covenant.”Justification
in the covenant by faith andbyworksisonlytheimplicationofthemorebasic falsedoctrineofaconditionalcovenantofgrace.Thesourceandforceoftheher-esyof theFVis theconditionalcovenantofsavinggrace,whichcovenant isdeliberately,openly,and thoroughly cut loose fromtheeternaldecreeofelection,thesolesourceandfoundationofallsalvationthatisgracious,thatis,oftheonlysalvationthereis. As long as the self-pro-claimedadversariesoftheFVandself-proclaimeddefendersoftheReformedfaithinitshourofcri-sis—andthisisthehourofitscri-sis—dancearoundtheissueoftheunconditionalityorconditionalityofthecovenantof(saving)grace,theFVremainsfirmlyembeddedin theReformed churches, andwill,likeeveryfataldiseasethatistoleratedinthebody,eventuallydestroytheconfessionofthetruthof salvationby sovereigngracealone.Thus,theFVwilldestroytheReformed andPresbyterianchurchesthattoleratethedoctrineofaconditionalcovenantasener-geticallyspreadbytheFV.
Mere Dialogue Second, against the book isthat it engages indialoguewiththeFVandtheNPP.Thedialogue
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 1100
isargumentative.Butitismeredialogue.Allthecontributorstothebookrespondtotheadvocatesof the FV and of theNPP, asthoughthesehereticswerelegit-imatedisputantsinthechurches.They are not. The Reformedcreeds clearly confess justifica-tionbyfaithalone.Justasclearly,and sharply, they condemn thetheologyofjustificationbyworksasheresy,asateachingofficiallycondemnedbyandbannedfromallReformedchurches. Reformedmenmustnot,in-deed maynot,perpetuallydebatetheproponentsoftheFVandoftheNPP. Whether justificationisbyfaithaloneorbyfaithandworks,whether themeaning ofRomansandGalatiansisthedoc-trineofsalvation(soteriology)oradoctrineofmembershipinthechurch (ecclesiology), are notdebatablemattersinaReformedchurch.Theseissueshavebeendecided. The creeds plainlyconfess the decisions on thesematters. Theologiansmustnot,indeedmaynot,debatethehereticswith-intheirchurches.Thechurchesmustdisciplinetheheretics,andthen as heretics of thefirstwa-ter—menwho deny the gospelofgraceatitsheart,andwhoareintroducing the false gospel of
Rome,Arminius, and PelagiusintothechurchesoftheReforma-tion. AbookagainsttheFVsurfac-inginaReformedchurchmustbeverybrief,indeed,onlyoneline:“Thedoctrineofjustificationbyworks iscondemnedby theRe-formed creeds, and I, therefore,chargeyou—theauthor,preacher,or lectureradvocatingtheFV—before your consistorywith thepublicsinofheresy.” Not one of the contributorsto By Faith AloneappealstotheReformedconfessions,forexam-ple,Lord’sDays23and24oftheHeidelbergCatechism.Notonecalls for,much less announces,the discipline of the heretics intheReformedchurches. CornelisP.Venemaexplicitlynotes thatN.T.Wright’sNPPrejectsasan“encumbrance”the“traditional formulations andconfessional…positions of thesixteenth-centuryReformation”(34). Venema then calmlypro-ceeds to debateWright, ratherthan condemn the popular, in-fluentialhereticascontradictingtheReformed creeds, includingtheThirty-NineArticles of theChurchofEngland(seeArticles11 and 12), and as violatinghis commitment to uphold hischurch’s, and all theReforma-tion’s,confessions.
November 2014 101
BookReviews
TheimpressionisleftthatthecontroversywiththeFVandwiththeNPPismerelyaninteresting,largely amiable theological dis-cussion,which enables learnedtheologians to put their theo-logical acumen on display, andpublishingcompaniestosellonebookafteranother. Indeed,thechurchesofmostofthecontributorstothevolumehavedistinguishedthemselvesei-therbyproducingtheheretics,orbyexoneratingtheleadingteach-ersoftheFVattheirecclesiasticalassemblies,orbyharboringandprotectingthemwithintheirfel-lowship.
“Nothing GenuinelyEvangelical Will Remain” R.AlbertMohler,Jr.ismis-takenwhen in his “Afterword,”reflecting on the content of thebook, he lauds the book as “anarsenaloftheologicalargumentsindefenseof thegospel” (207).The only theological weaponthatwilldestroytheFVandthusdefend thegospelagainst itsat-tackismissing:proclamationofsovereign,efficacious,particulargraceinthecovenant. Inaddition,thebook’sarse-nalofweaponsdoesnotincludethe imperious call to exercise
Christian discipline against theheretics. Wheredisciplineisnotexer-cised,heresyinevitablywinstheday—and the churches. Wheredisciplineisnotexercised,theo-logiansandchurchesalikeshowthat they do not take the issue,whichisthetruthofthegospel,seriously. An“arsenal”lackingtheonlytwoweaponsthatwilldefeatthefoe and safeguard the kingdomleavessomethingtobedesired. “Byfaithalone”is,therefore,doomed in the churches of thedefenders of this fundamentaltruth.Theverylastwordinthebookitselfisthedreadfulwarn-ing.Inlight,notsomuchofthefalsedoctrineoftheFVandoftheNPP, asof the fatalweaknessesofthedefendersofthetruththatLuther rightly described as thearticle of a standing or fallingchurch, thewarning,which thewriter intendedonly as awarn-ing against a possibility, in factannouncesacertainty:“Nothinggenuinelyevangelicalwillremainofevangelicalism”(208). That is, nothingof thegen-uine gospelwill remain of thatwhichclaimstobethepreachingandconfessingofthegospel.l
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 1102
1834: Hendrik de Cock’s Return to the True Church, MarvinKamps.(Jenison,Michigan: ReformedFreePublishingAssociation,2014)Pp.xx+491(cloth).[ReviewedbyDr.EugeneP.Heideman,professoremeritus,WesternTheologicalSeminary,Holland,MI.]
as a leader of theSecession of1834. It is especially valuablebecauseapproximatelyonehalfof its pages consist ofKamps’translationsofkeywritingsbydeCockandseveralofhisdefendersandopponents.Hewritesthatthetranslationsareincludedbecause“theywillgivetheflavorofthecontroversy and testify to theseriousnatureoftheapostasyinthestatechurch,whiledescribingthedetermined,godlywitnessandpleas of the humbleSecession-ists”(xvii). Inhis“Preface”Kampseval-uatestheplaceofdeCockandtheSecessionof1834inthevariousDutchReformeddenominationssince1834andthepresent. Hewrites that each of his readerswill have to answer for him-self thequestion,“AmI trulyaspiritualsonof this reformerofthe Reformed Church?” (xii).AlthoughthisbookispublishedbytheReformedFreePublishingAssociation,Kampsintendsittobereadbyallthosewhoinonewayoranother trace their rootsbacktodeCockastheirspiritualfather(xii).
Asthe“FatheroftheSeces-sionof1834”intheNetherlands,Hendrik de Cock is a crucialfigurenotonly in thehistoryofReformedchurchesintheNeth-erlands,butalsointhehistoryofDutchReformeddenominationsinNorthAmerica.MarvinKampswrites that “The significanceoftheSecession is that it restoredto the Reformed believers intheNetherlands the gospel ofsalvationinChristJesusbyfaiththroughgracealone.Thesignif-icance for us inNorthAmericais that through our fatherswhoimmigratedtothiscontinent,weareinstructedinthesameconfes-sionoffaithonthebasisofGod’sword.AlltrueReformedbeliev-ers [inNorthAmerica—EPH]aretheheirsofthesaintsoftheSecessionof1834”(231-2). BecauseHendrikdeCockandhiswritingsarelargelyunknowntoday by the majority of themembersoftheDutchReformeddenominations in the Englishspeakingworld,thisbookisim-portant formaking available toEnglishreadersabriefbiographyofHendrikdeCockandhisrole
November 2014 103
BookReviews
ThisbookishelpfulintracingdeCock’s conversion from theliberalism of the the faculty intheUniversity ofGroningen totheReformed orthodoxy of theHeidelbergCatechism,theBelgicConfession, and theCanons ofDordt.Inclusionofatranslationof the text of “ReformedDoc-trine” by C. Baron van Zylenof Nyevelt frames de Cock’sconversion in thecontextof thetheologicaldefenseofReformedorthodoxy that others in the nationalReformed churchwerefightingforafterKingWilliamIpromulgatedthenewchurchorderin1816(82-93). Kampsmust also be com-mended for informinghis read-ersabout thecircumstancesthatbroughtdeCocktorepublishin1833 theCanons ofDordt andtheCompendiumthatwerebeingsuppressed by theDirectorateof the Netherlands ReformedChurch.Inthesameyearhepro-ducedhisnotoriousattackontheunorthodoxteachingsofthe“twowolves,”G.BenthemReddingiusandL.MeijerBrouwer, pastorswho had departed far from thefaith as defended by the 1618-1619SynodofDordt.InclusionofdeCock’sintroductionstothe“DecisionsoftheNationalSynodofDordrecht”(117-126)andthe
“Compendiumof theChristianReligion”areconvenientlyavail-ableforthefirsttimetoEnglishreaders(129-133).Equallyvalu-ableforanunderstandingofthesignificanceof theSecessionof1834isKamps’translationofhisdefense of Reformed doctrineagainsttheteachingsofReddin-giusandBrouwer(313-365). TheleadersoftheSecessionof1834maintainedthattheFormulaofSubscriptionsignedbyminis-tersintheNetherlandsReformedChurch had to be interpreted tomeanthat theywere loyal to thedoctrinesinthethreeConfessionsbecause theyare fully in accordwithScripture,notin so far as they areinaccord. DeCockchargedthat pastorswere breaking theiroathwhen theyopenlydeviatedfrom thedoctrinesof theTrinityororiginalsinand taughtanAr-ianChristology in place of theChristologyoftheNiceneCreed.Kamps enables his readers tojudgewhetherdeCockwas fairto thepastorswhenhe includesboth his translation ofGronin-genprofessorPieterHofstededeGroot’sdefenseofthepastorsandtheReveilattorneyC.M.vanderKemp’s response toHofstededeGroot(366-450).AlongwiththeinclusionofHofstededeGroot’sdefense of the pastors,Kamps’
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 1104
translationofthecorrespondencebetween deCock andHofstededeGroot,whowereclosefriendsin theUniversity and thereafter(deCocksucceededHofstededeGrootaspastorinUlrum)untildeCock’sconversion,addsmuchtothevalueofthisbook. Kamps traces thegrowthoftension between de Cock andHendrik Scholte aboutmattersof church order, the baptismofchildren of non-communicantmembersof thechurch,and therelationofchurchandstate.Hesideswith deCock for being astrongdefenderoftheoldChurchOrderofDordt inopposition toScholtewho proposed amoreradically congregational polity.DeCock opposedScholtewhoinsistedonrestrictinginfantbap-tism to children of parentswhohadopenlyconfessedtheirfaithbefore the elders of the church.On this issueof infant baptism,Kamps sideswith Scholte andVanVelzenagainstdeCock.Healso takes the side of ScholteagainstdeCockontheseparationofchurchandstate.HecriticizesdeCockforstillholdingtorem-nantsofa“Volkskerk” traditionof church-state relationships,whileScholteiscommendedforhis acceptance of theAmericandistinction as understood at thetimeoftheSecession.
IncontrasttoHendrikScholtewhohad secession in his bloodandlefttheNetherlandsReformedChurchwithoutlookingback,deCockwithdrew from it reluc-tantly.His“ActofSecessionorReturn”waswritteninthehopethat theNetherlandsReformedChurch,eventhoughitwasafalsechurch,couldstillbebroughttorepentanceand“returntothetrueserviceof theLord” (246). Onthis point,Kamps stands closertoScholte than todeCock. AsMiskottepointedoutinhis1934centennialaddressondeCock’sroleintheSecessionof1834,(K.Miskotte,Korte Nabetrachting, 1834, p. 83), deCock still heldhighregardforGod’sfaithfulnesstoHispeopleuntothethirdandfourthgeneration,withtheresulthewasreadytobaptizechildrenof non-communicantmembers.Hestillretainedremnantsofhopethattheterm“falsechurch”wasnotthelastwordforthenational“volkskerk.” KampsrecognizesthattherewereministersintheNetherlandsReformedChurchwhoremainedtrue to the faith andmanifestedtrue faith and godliness. OnesuchwasDirkMolenaar,whosecorrespondencewith de Cockis translatedandincludedinthebook.ScholterecognizedthetruewitnessofMolenaar,butaccused
November 2014 105
BookReviews
himofcowardicewhenhebowedto thepressureofKingWilliamandthechurchDirectoratetokeepsilent.KampsusesaharshertermwhenhewritesthatMolenaarwas“disobedient”byremainingintheNetherlandsReformedChurch(251). Kamps ismore positivetoward the “SevenGentlemen”in theHague, includingC.M.vanderKemp,whodidnotwith-drawfromthenationalchurchbutremainedwithin its fellowshipand fought fromwithin for thereformofthechurch(407-409). WeoweagreatdebttoMar-
vinKampsformakingavailabletoEnglishreadershisbiographyofHendrikdeCockinthecontextof theSeparation of 1834. Wehave here inEnglish a numberof translations pertaining to theSecession that are essential forunderstanding what happenedin theNetherlands in 1834 andintheemigrationmovementledbyHendrikScholteandAlbertusChristiaanVanRaaltebeginningin1847.Itisunfortunatethatnoindexisincludedinthisimportantbook.l
Old Testament Commentary Survey,5thedition,byTremperLong-manIII.GrandRapids,MI:BakerAcademic,2013.Pp.159.$26.99(paper).[ReviewedbyDouglasJ.Kuiper.]
Inthisbook,Longmaneval-uatesmanyOldTestamentcom-mentaries.Firstheevaluatesfiveone-volumecommentaries.Nextheevaluatesforty-onecommen-tary sets and series, includingthose ofCalvin,Keil-Delitzsch,Leupold, and theNew Interna-tionalCommentary on theOldTestament. Then, taking eachbookof theOldTestament at atime, he evaluates a dozen ormore individual commentarieson that book. In each section,the commentaries are listed in
alphabeticalorderoftheirauthoror editor. Each commentary gets aone paragraph description, andthenatwofoldevaluation.First,Longman evaluateswhowouldbestbenefitfromit.Ifalayman,theevaluationisgivenan“L”;ifaminister or seminary student,an“M”;andifascholar,an“S.”Second,hegiveseachcommen-taryastarrating,withfivestarsbeingexcellent, andoneor twostars being poor. The book’s introduction
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 1106
makesclearthat“thisguideisforanyone, layperson orministers,who desires to buy a commen-tary”(2). Onpage3,Longmansets forth thewrong and rightwaystouseacommentary.Twowrongwaysare“toignorecom-pletelytheuseofcommentaries”and“tobecomeoverlydependentoncommentaries.”Ontheotherhand, “the right way to use acommentaryisasahelp.”Long-mangivesexcellentadvicehere,whether toministers or layper-sons:firststudythetextonyourown,discoveritsrichesforyour-self,andthenuseacommentarytohelpyouunderstanditmorefully. AppendixA contains a listof those commentaries that re-ceivedafivestarrating.Thisishelpful.Onecangoimmediatelyto this appendix to look for thebest.AndonefindsthatCalvin’sCommentariesmadethefivestarlist! AppendixBcontainsalistofcommentarieswhichLongmanhimselfwrote.Whileheincludeshis own commentaries in hisevaluations,hegivesonlyan“L,”“M,”or“S”ratingtothem,anddoesnotratethembystars.
***** Thisformatisthesamethathe used in the fourth editionofthis book, which appeared in2007; andpresumably the samethat he used in the first three
editions as well (1991, 1995,2003). Themajor difference inthevariouseditionsisthatLong-manreviewedcommentariesthatwerewritten since his previousedition.Judgingfromhislistofabbreviationsatthebeginningofhiswork,severalofthenewcom-mentaries reviewed in this fiftheditionincludethoseintheBra-zosTheologicalCommentaryontheBible(recentlypublishedbyBaker)andtheTwoHorizonsOldTestamentCommentary(recentlypublishedbyEerdmans).WhileLongmangivesgoodreviewstosomeof the individual volumesin the Brazos series, he givestheseriesasawholethreestars,while theTwoHorizons seriesgetsfourandahalfstars.I’llcallthatobjectivenessonLongman’spart, if you consider thatBakeris the publisher of Longman’scommentary surveywhich I amreviewing. Of course, not every com-mentary is mentioned in thisbook.Norwouldweexpectittobe. TheReformedFreePublish-ingAssociationcurrentlypublish-esonlythreeworksdevotedtoaversebyverseexplanationofOldTestamentbooksof theBible—RobertC.Harbach’scommentaryonGenesis,HomerC.Hoekse-ma’ssermonsonIsaiah,andRev.
November 2014 107
BookReviews
isabitsteepforwhatthereadergets—a book of advice aboutcommentaries,which becomesoutdatedastheyearsgoby.SoIwouldrecommendabooklikethis to a personwhouses com-mentariesfrequentlyorbuysnewonesoften.Fortherest,Iwouldencourage the church library tobuyacopyofthisbook,andletallshareit. Second, onemerely has totype“recommendedcommentar-ies” into the searchbar of one’sinternetbrowser,inordertofindrecommendations of othermen,givenfreeofcharge.Twonote-worthywebsitesarehttp://www.challies.com/recommendations/commentariesand http://www.ligonier.org/blog/top-commentar-ies-on-every-book-of-the-bible.
l
RonaldHanko’scommentaryonHaggai,Zechariah,andMalachi.(I exclude theUnfoldingCove-nantHistoryseriesfromthislistbecause,thoughofgreatvalue,itisnotasystematicexpositionofversesandchaptersasmostcom-mentariesare).NoneoftheRFPAcommentariesaretreated—andIdidnotexpecttheywouldbe.Ofcourse, a bookof recorded ser-monsdoesnottechnicallyqualifyasacommentary. Also of interest tomewaswhether any of the volumes oftheEvangelicalPressStudyCom-mentarieswerereviewed.UnlessIoverlookedit,nonewere.
***** Anyone searching for com-mentarieswill immediately rec-ognizethebook’svalue. However, I have two cave-ats. First, I think that theprice
Journeys of Faith: Evangelicalism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholi-cism, and Anglicanism,ed.RobertL.Plummer.GrandRapids,MI:Zondervan,2012.Pp.256.$18.99(paper).[ReviewedbyDouglasJ.Kuiper.]
Journeys of Faith recordsthejourneys of four differentmenfrom one “liturgical tradition”(14)or“ecclesiasticalallegiance”(15)toanother.ThefirstisWilburEllsworth, who pastored three
Baptistchurchesoveraforty-yearperiod, but converted to East-ernOrthodoxy. Next isFrancisBeckwith, born and rearedRo-manCatholic,butbecoming“attheageoftwentythree...afirmly
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 1108
committedProtestant”(82),wholater found himself back in theRomanCatholicchurchforgood.By contrast,ChrisCastaldo re-cordshisconversionfromRomanCatholicism to evangelicalism.Finally,LyleDorsett tells us ofhisjourneyfromLutheranismtoAnglicanism,with stops in theBaptist andUnitedMethodisttraditionsalongtheway. Aftereachmantellshisstory,anotherman(notoneoftheothermaincontributors)respondstoit.CraigBlaising responds toWil-burEllsworth;GreggAllison toFrancisBeckwith;BradGregorytoChrisCastaldo;andRobertPe-tersontoLyleDorsett.Aftereachresponse,theonetellinghisstorygetsthefinalword—achancetorespondtotheonewhorespondedtohim. All of this is sandwichedbetweenanintroductionandcon-clusion, bothwritten byRobertPlummer,theeditor.
Ecumenically motivated OneisnotsurprisedtolearnthatPlummerhasanecumenicalmotiveinwritingthebook. Notthatthisishisonly mo-tive;healsodesiresto“help.”Intheintroduction,Plummergiveshisgoalsforthebook(p.14):
1. To help Evangelicals
understandwhy persons areleaving their churches forChristiantraditionswhicharemoreliturgical.2. TohelpEvangelicallead-ersinrespondingtoquestionsfromchurchmemberswhoareattractedtoliturgicalChristiantraditions.3. To help non-Evangel-icals, such as Catholic andOrthodoxChristians, in un-derstandingwhypersonshavedeparted their traditions forEvangelicalism,why someEvangelicalsarenowmovingin the other direction, andwhatfundamentaldifferencesremain betweenEvangelicalandnon-Evangelicalcommu-nities.
And in the conclusion he stateswhathehopes readerswill takeawayfromthisbook(p.24):
1. Ihopereadersareabletorecognizewithgreatersympa-thy thecomplexmotivationswhich influence conversionstootherChristiantraditions.2. Iwant readerswho arestrugglingwith the desire toleave their tradition to feelbothmoreunderstoodand,inmanycases,morehesitant.3. IhopethatallChristianswouldfind in this volume amodelforpeaceableecumen-ical dialogue. Peoplewho
November 2014 109
BookReviews
claim Jesus as Lord shouldbe able to disagree before anonbelievingworldwithoutdenyingtheloveforothersweprofessmarksusasChristians(John13:34-35).
There it is—“amodel forpeaceable ecumenical dia-logue”—for Christians of allstripes.ThebookisnotaboutthejourneysofChristianswithintheirtradition—fromoneReformedorPresbyterianorBaptistgrouptoanother—butaboutthejourneysof evangelicals toCatholicismandEasternOrthodoxyandAn-glicanism.Betweenthosegroups,weshouldhave“peaceableecu-menicaldialogue.” This certainly comes outin the tone of the respondents.Plummer chose as respondentsthosewhowould be critical oftheliturgicaltraditiontowhichamanjourneyed.AsgoodBaptists,BlaisingandAllisonfindweak-nessesinEasternOrthodoxyandRomanCatholicism.GregoryisCatholic,socertainlyheisnotim-pressedwithCastaldo’sdeparturefromRomanCatholicism. AndPetersonbelongstothePCA,andthereforehas issueswithAngli-canism. But these respondentsmakesuretopointoutthattheyappreciate this, and appreciatethat,aboutthetraditiontheyare
critiquing.Amodelforpeaceableecumenicaldialogue. In all fairness, the respon-dents do talk issues,andfor themostpart they talk fundamental issues. CraigBlaising critiquesEasternOrthodoxy for exaltingtradition above Scripture, ven-erating icons andMary, and itsviewof theEucharist. He alsoresponds appropriately to Ells-worth’s “ChristusVictor” viewofChrist’sdeaththatdeniesthatChrist’sdeathwaspenalsatisfac-tion. GreggAllison critiquesRo-manCatholicism for its faultyviewofScriptureandrevelation,includingtheideathatrevelationincludestradition,thattheapocry-phalwritingsarepartofScripture,andthatthechurchistheofficialinterpreterofScripture.Inaddi-tion,hecritiquesRome’sviewofmerit,ofMary,ofthesacramentsworkingex opere operato,andoftransubstantiation. AndRobertPeterson,whoseresponse I considered the leastsubstantiveofall,evaluatesAn-glicanismnegativelybecauseofitsdoctrinallatitude(toleranceofheresy),anditshierarchicalviewofchurchgovernment.Dorsett’slastwordwas to find evidenceof doctrinal latitude alsowithinPresbyterianism.
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 1110
Alloftheseissuesraisedbythe respondents are to the point. But thenBlaising closes bynotinginalongparagraphwhatEasternOrthodoxyandEvangeli-calismhaveincommon;Petersonbegins with that thought, andextends it for four pages; andAllisonisconcernedtoconvincethereaderthathemust“reconsid-erandabandon”anyjourneyhemightbetakingtowardRome,be-causeitisajourneyfrom“greaterfaithfulnesstolesserfaithfulness”—meaningthatRomestillexhib-itssomedegreeof“faithfulness”(115).Allisonalsorefrainsfromreferring toRome’s venerationofMary andof the sacramentalelementsintheEucharistasbeingidolatry. Onemustbeverysoft,whenpromotingmodern ecumenicalpeaceableness. And that is oneofmycriticismsofthebook. Without question, howwecarry out discussions about re-ligiousmatterswithotherswhodisagreewith us is important.Our love for our non-Christianornon-Reformedneighborsmustshowitselfinthemannerinwhichwe interactwith them. But thepretty prattle promoting peace-ableness gets to be toomuch.Evenmore, I disagreewith theidea that all of these liturgicaltraditions are valid expressions
oftheChristianfaith,theirfaultsandweaknessesnotwithstanding. Thatbeingsaid,thebookwascertainlyworth reading for theeducationitgaveme,particularlyregarding RomanCatholicismandEvangelicalism.
Roman Catholicism Beckwith’s account of hisjourney toRomanCatholicismtaughtme nothing new. Beck-with did the best job of any indevelopingthetheologicalissueswithwhichhehadtograppleashemadehis journey. At lengthhedefendsRome’sviewof jus-tification, the real presence ofChrist in theEucharist, the sac-ramentofpenance,andapostolicsuccession.Nothingnew;butallofthisdidrefreshmymemoryontwopoints. First,Romedoesnotchange.Beckwith’sextendedexplanationofRome’s viewof justificationunderscores that Rome todaypresentsthematterasshealwaysdid,usesthesametextsinsupportofherview,andgivesthosetextsthesameinterpretation.And,asan aside, this remindedme thattherewas plenty of ecumenicaldialoguebetweenRomeandProt-estantsinthe1500saswell—butitwas seldompeaceable, and itwas never pretty prattle. Thereasonwasnotbecauseinthatday
November 2014 111
BookReviews
Christians knew nothing aboutlove. The reasonwas thatmenin those days understood these issues tobefundamental issues,andthestruggletobealifeanddeathstruggleforthetruth. Second, Rome delights inappealing to church history, totheancientfathers.Initself,thisisnotbad;theReformersdidandallProtestants shoulddelight inthe same. But Rome’s appealto themunderscores the fallacyof her view of tradition. I’mputtinginmyownwordsapointthat Beckwithmakes on page129:“Ifthefathersdidit,itmustbe right; if Rome and EasternOrthodoxydoeswhatthefathersdid, it is obviously right; if theProtestantsdifferfromthefathers,andthereforealsofromRomeandEasternOrthodoxy,obviouslytheProtestants arewrong.” We intheReformedtraditiondowelltoknowtheteachingsoftheancientfathers,bothinordertoseethatthe seeds ofReformed thoughtwerefoundinthemtoo(Augus-tinebeingtheobviousexample),and to see howRome’s appealtothemisnotalwaysdiscerningenough. From Chris Castaldo, anex-Roman Catholic, I learned aboutRomanCatholicism. IenjoyedCastaldo’saccount,notprimarilybecausehebecame
Evangelical, but primarily be-causeofhisinsightsintoRomanCatholicism. Castaldo conveyed clearlythatultimateauthority,forRome,wasfoundinthechurchandnot in theBible. Therefore,whenthechurchallowsforit,Romishtraditionmaybedismissedwhenconvenient,whilemaintainingRomishauthority. As evidence, during someofficial Roman Catholic reli-gious event held on a Fridayduring Lent, and apparentlyunbeknownst to those in atten-dance, the banquet hall’s chefhadpreparedfiletmignon.Thiswasnosmallproblem:foraRo-manCatholic“toknowinglyandwillfully consumemeat duringLentconstitutesamortalsin.Ifoneshoulddieafterdoingso,itwould put that person into theflames of eternal damnation”(147). But not toworry. Thebishop announced that he had“theauthoritytodeclareaspecialdispensationwhichwill allowustoeatmeatduringLent,”andpronouncing the blessing. Theresort was saved from havingto scrounge up fish at the lastmoment,andtheattendeescouldenjoy filetmignon. Castaldolookedathisneighbor“whosatbesidemethinkingthatifhehadchoked on his steak and died
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 1112
apartfromthebishop’sblessing,hewouldhavebeenroasted.Butnow,afterthebishop’sprayer,hecouldfeastinpeace”(147).Italldependsonthebishop’swill. IlearnedfurtherthattheRo-manCatholicconceptofincarna-tion isnotthatGod’seternalSononce tookonHimselfourhumannaturesothatHeiscontinuouslyhuman,butthattheactofthein-carnationitselfis“continuingun-tiltheendoftime”(149;thesearethewordsofPopeBenedictXVI).ThishassignificantimplicationsforRome’s ideaofherself: the“institutionoftheRomanCatho-licChurch...istheembodimentofJesusonearth”(149-150).ItalsohasimplicationsfortheEucharist,helpingtoexplainChrist’sbodilypresence;andforRome’sviewofthe ongoing death ofChrist, sothatour justificationhasnotyetfinallybeenaccomplished. And I was reminded that,even apart from a right under-standing ofScripture’s teachingregarding justification, manyRomanCatholics strugglewithguilt, and find no relief fromthat strugglewhile livingunderRome’sideaofsinandsalvation.Iheardonceofanothermanwhoexperiencedthesamething.HisnamewasMartinLuther. BradGregory,Castaldo’sre-spondent,tookCastaldo’sunder-
miningofthepillaronwhichRo-manCatholicismrestsmostseri-ously,andrespondedbytryingtomaketheProtestantviewofsola Scriptura and theperspicuityofScripturelooksilly.IfScriptureis so clear,why areProtestantssodivided?Doyouseeanysuchdivision inRome? Castaldo’slastwordwasalsoworthreading.Amongotherthings,hesaidaboutRome’s unity: “if you probebelow the surface,youdiscoverthatsuchagreementoftendoesn’tgobeyondacommonliturgyandclericalattire”(180-181).
Evangelicalism WilburEllsworth,whojour-neyedfromtheBaptisttraditiontoEasternOrthodoxy,didafinejobofpointingouttheweaknessesofEvangelicalism. They shouldmake anyRe-formed,Presbyterian,andBaptistman, woman, and child weep—even if he does not considerhimself“Evangelical,”asIdonotconsidermyselftobe. EarlyinhispastorateatFirstBaptist ofWheaton, Ellsworthbecameconcernedaboutitsown“worshiplife”(24),aswellasthebroader phenomena of “seekersensitiveworshipservices”(25).Hewasacutelyawareofa“lackofanytheologicalbasis”(26)thatgoverned his congregation, and
November 2014 113
BookReviews
others, when facing questionsaboutworshipstyles.And,whenhe left First Baptist to pastorChristChurchinGlenEllyn,hediscoveredwhat else had beenlacking: “a prevailing spirit ofreverenceinitsworshiplife”(28). Indeed.Reverence!Rever-ence ismissing inEvangelical-ism!Andit ismissinginmuchthatcallsitselfReformed! Evangelicalism, Baptists,Presbyterians, Reformed—anygroupwhichhassoldoutrever-ence in the interests of “seekersensitiveservices”willfindthatiftheygainseekers,theylosethosewhodelightedinreverence! Thisisnottheplacetodefendtheneedforreverenceinworship,tounderscorehowJehovah’smaj-estyandholinessaretoaffectourworship,ortoseethatthesecondcommandmentisrelevant.HereI simplypoint out that this is afundamentalweakness inEvan-
gelicalism, and that thosewhodesire toworship reverently areprone to leave Evangelicalismentirely. Unfortunately,forsomethatjourney leads them to EasternOrthodoxy. WouldthatReformedchurch-eswill avoid cultural trends inworship,andtheideathatwecan“grow” the churchby changingourworship styles toplease themasses! Wouldthatwemanifestrever-enceinworship—bothoutwardly,intheworshipstyleandform,aswellasinwardly,intheheartsofallwhoworship! Andwould that allwhoarereadytoleaveEvangelicalismforreverence inworship couldfindit,notinEasternOrthodoxy,butinReformedchurchesthatstriveto remain faithful toScripture’sinstructionregardingworship!l
Parade of Faith: A Biographical History of the Christian Church, byRuthA.Tucker.GrandRapids,MI:Zondervan,2011.Pp.509,(cloth).$39.99.[ReviewedbyDouglasJ.Kuiper.]
Fascinating! I challenge anyone whoclaimstofindchurchhistorybor-ingtoreadthisbook,andthensayinallhonestythatthebook—and
thehistory it records—wasbor-ing. RuthTuckermakesthesub-ject matterofherbookinteresting,by presenting “a biographical
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 1114
history.”Eachofthe24chaptersis devoted to successive eras inchurchhistory.Afteranoverviewoftheentireperiod,Tuckergivesabriefbiographyofseveralindi-vidualswhoplayedakeyroleinthe church’shistory in thatday.Forexample,Chapter1,whichisdevotedtotheperiodofbiblicalhistory after Christ’s resurrec-tion,includesaccountsofJesus’motherMary, John theBaptist,andtheapostlesPeterandPaul.Chapter 8, entitled “MedievalTheology,”includesaccountsofthelivesofAnselmofCanterbury,PeterAbelard,ThomasBecket,ThomasAquinas, Bonventure,andWilliamofOckham. Not only the subjectmat-ter, but also itspresentation, isdelightful to the reader. Tuckerbringsthehistoryalivebyheruseofthepresenttenseinrecordingpasthistory.Forexample:“WhenLutherreturnsfromhisconfine-mentinWartburg,heisstunnedbythemomentumofthereform”(228). Eachchaptercontainsvarioussidebarswhich are of interest.Somearequotesof thewritingsandspeechesof the leadingfig-ures of that period; others arequotesfromlaterscholarsaboutthese leadingfigures. Did youknow that Luther’s dog wasnamed“Tolpel”?(Luther’sTable
Talk,fromwhichTuckerquotes,alsoindicatesthis). Others contain a one para-graph summary of importantfigureswhose lives arenot giv-en extensive treatment. WhileChapter12presentsthehistoryoftheSwissReformationfromtheviewpointofthelivesofZwingli,Bullinger,Calvin, andReneeofFerrara,thesidebaronpage253,entitled “Calvin’sColleagues,”contains a few remarks aboutFarel,Bucer,andBeza. Oneofmyfavoritesidebarsineachchapterwasthetreatmentof“EverydayLife.”Earlyineachchapter,Tuckerdevotedmostoftwopagestosomeaspectoflifeinthatday:“GrowingUpinNaza-reth,”“EarlyChristianWorship,”“Food,Fasts,andFeasts”(inthechapter onEasternOrthodoxy,from the fourth century on),“Marriage andFamily inMedi-evalTimes,”“SixteenthCenturyDivorce,”“MalePerspectivesonWomeninMinistry.”Yougetthepoint. Church History as Parade Tucker ties together thechurch’shistorybythemetaphorofaparade. Themetaphor underscoresthatchurchhistorydevelopsandprogresses. Tucker keeps thisthought prominent. Near the
November 2014 115
BookReviews
beginning of every chapter is asidebarwiththetheme“ParadeofHistory,”inwhichshesetsforthin about five sentences inwhatdirection the history ismoving.Sheconcludeseachchapterwithseveral paragraphs of questionsbeginningwith “What if”—inwhatdirectionwouldhistoryhavegone,iftheseparticulareventsdidnotoccur? Tuckerherselfadmitsthatherbook“isnotareferenceworkoran exhaustive history ofChris-tianity, nor is the selection ofindividualsandtopicsfreefromsubjectivity”(12).Itisasifsheiswatchingtheparadepassbywhileseated inone location, and seescertain sights or developmentsthatanother,seatedthreeblocksdowntheroad,mightnotsee. Forthemostpart,Tuckergetsit right. From the early historyof the NewTestament churchthroughtheReformation,thepeo-pleshenoticesintheparadearethepeoplethatfactoredlargelyinchurchhistory.Wecanoverlooktheomissionofthebiographiesofsomegreatfigures, by realizingthatTucker had to select a fewoutofmany. That she includesanon-Christianonrareoccasion(Muhammad, for example) isunderstandable;hefactoredlargeinchurchhistory.Someindivid-uals(MargaryKempeandRenee
ofFerrara) seemnot towarranttheattentiontheyaregiven,butTuckeradmits that theselectionwassubjective.Still,thatReneegetsfourpageswhileFarel,Buc-er,andBezaaregivenaparagraphinasidebarsayssomethingaboutTucker’s perspectiveon the pa-rade. As the paradewinds down,twothingsbecomeapparent. First, the reader realizesthat the church,whose historyis presented in biographies, isnot necessarily the Reformedchurch. Granted,Tucker neverclaimed itwould be the historyoftheReformedchurch.Butthereadermighthaveassumedit,ifhe knew thatTucker is amem-ber of theChristianReformedChurch, and a former professoratCalvinTheologicalSeminary.TheonlynarrowlyReformedper-sonwhosebiographyisincludedafterthetimeoftheReformationisthatofAbrahamKuyper.OtherProtestants, such asBonhoefferandBarth, are also recognized.But don’t expect to find anymentionof theSynodofDordt,even though the earlyChristiancouncilsaregivenfairtreatment. Second, the reader realizesthattheparade,asTuckersawitincludesnominalChristianswhomadeheadlinesintheirday,butwhose doctrines and interpreta-
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 1116
tions of Scripture did not con-tributepositivelytothechurch’srightunderstandingofScripture.Chapter22includesbiographiesofEvangelineBooth(Command-eroftheSalvationArmy)andAi-meeSempleMcPherson(founderoftheFoursquareGospel).AndChapter24concludesbyinclud-ingC. S.Lewis;MartinLutherKing,Jr,MotherTeresa,DesmondTutu,andBillyGraham. What I amsaying is that inreading this book,watching theparadepassbyme,Ibeheldatfirsta grand, spectacular procession.But,ashappensatsomeparades,itfizzledoutattheend—asifthecandywasallgone,andsomeofthefloatsandbandsmadeanearlyexit.Ilostinterest. Thisis,ofcourse,oneman’ssubjective analysis. By it I donotsuggestthatTuckerfailedinher purpose. Rather, I suggestto readers of thePRTJ, whomI expect sharemyviews of thechurchandherhistory, thatyoutoowouldfind the last chaptersof the book less interesting andrelevantthantheformer.
Criticisms The book is not entirelypraiseworthy. First, I faultTucker for notincluding footnotes of her quo-tations in thebodyofherbook.
The quotes in her sidebars shealways attributes to their authorandgivesthetitleoftheworkinwhich thatquote appeared. Buthercopiousquotationsinthebodyofthetextarewithoutfootnotes.Tucker says, “Quoteswithin thebodyof the text are taken fromoriginal sources,most ofwhichcanbefoundonlineatsuchsitesas Medieval Sourcebook”(12). Tomymind,Tucker under-minesherownaccuracyasahis-torian by not providing the reader the specific and original sourceofherquotes.Shegivesmetheimpressionthatsheisnotstrivingto be historically accurate, butonlytoentertain.If“most”ofthequotescanbefoundonacertainwebsite, one is leftwonderingwheretherestcanbefound.Andone can only hope that the siteMedieval Sourcebook is avail-able toposterity forgenerationsto come, exactly asTucker sawitwhensheborrowedfromit,sothat the reader can always referto it. But thenatureof internetsites is that they come and go.Historians and scholars demon-strate their reliability by usingfootnotes,evenwhenstrivingtobe entertaining. Second,Tuckerfindsonesub-theme in this parade that struckmeodd.TuckerfeelsconstrainedtoletusknowthatMaryofEgypt
November 2014 117
BookReviews
wasasexaddict(93),thatPeterAbelardwas a scholarwith sexappeal (164), and thatAimeeTempleMcPhersonbrought“sexappealtothestage”(451).Inad-dition,sheprovidesuswith“Ev-erydayLife”vignetteson“SameSex Love” in Charlemagne’sempire(140),“RapeintheMid-dleAges” (200), and“BundlinginNewEngland”(390).Iamnoprude.Idonotasktobeshelteredfromsuchinformation.Butthisisanessentialaspectofchurchhis-tory?Again,thissaysmoreaboutherdesiretobeentertaining,andabouttheageinwhichshewrotethebook, than it says about thehistoryofwhichshewrites. Third, Tucker’s inclusionofafourletterwordbeginningwith “d” (12) is offensive toany pious Christian. Rightlyused, this “d” word refers toGod’s prerogative to condemnthewicked to everlasting pun-ishment in hell. The flippantuseofthewordasanadjectiveisavainuseofGod’sname,inviolationofthethirdcommand-ment.ThatTuckerdoesnotusetheword herself, but includesit inaquotefromHenryFord,does notmatter. The historyof the church ought to be thehistory of the pious use of thenames, attributes, honors, andprerogativesofJehovahGod.
Fourth, the readermust un-derstandthat,whilemuchofwhatTuckerwritesishistoricallyaccu-rate,sheslipsinherowntwistorinterpretationwhichisnotalwaysaccurate. Sometimesthereadercanas-sumethat,andothertimesTuckertells the reader asmuch. Sorealisticisherwritingstyle,thatalthoughTucker presents PopeJoanasa legend (147-148), thereaderalmostbelievesthattherewasafemalepope,disguisedasaman(PopeJohnVIII,A.D.853),whogivesbirthtoababywhileenroutetoapapalappearance.Isittruethat“thechairusedforthepapalconsecrationwasdesignedwithaholeso thatan inspectorcanverifygenderwithcertainty”(148)?No,itisnot,andTuckertells the reader asmuch. Butclearly,hergoalinthisbookis,atleastinpart,toentertain. Yet, in other places she isnotsoupfront.ThatLutherap-pearedbeforetheDietofWormsand asked for aday togivehisanswer is ahistorical fact. Butof all thebiographiesofLutherwhichIhaveinmystudy,nonesomuchassuggeststhatLutherwastruly,internally,“temptedtorecant, remembering the fateofJanHus”(227). Fifth, Tucker gives occa-siontothereaderwholovesthe
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 1118
Reformed faith (the doctrinesof sovereign grace) to questionwhether she loves the same.Shedoesnotexplicitlydenythedoctrine of sovereign, double,unconditionalpredestination,butwhenshetreatsthedoctrineshemakescommentsthatleadonetowonder.Oneexample,referringtoAquinas:“Hisconclusionsareoftenlessthanprofound,asonthetopicofpredestination”(171).IfherfollowingcommentsonAqui-nas’viewaretrulywhathesaid,andfaithfultohisintent,thenhisdefenseofdoublepredestinationwasquiteprofound,consideringthetimesinwhichhelived! Sixth, her ecumenical spiritmanifests itself repeatedly. Bythis I donot refer toher appre-ciation for the catholic church,gathered out of every nation,consistingofmenandwomenofevery skin color and language.
Rather,IrefertoherassumptionthatallprofessingChristians,byvirtueofprofessingtobeChris-tians, are brothers and sistersinChrist. Sheandherhusbandworshiped in anEasternOrtho-doxchurch. “ThepeopleinthepewsseemedsincereandnolessgenuinelyChristianthanthoseinmyown church. Yet therewasachasmseparatingus.Thatwewere askednot toparticipate intheEucharistwasasmuchtheirlossasours”(117). Of course, the personal po-sition of a history on any issueormatterdoesnotmeanthatthehistory bookwhich he or sheproducesisoflittlevalue. Thisbookisnotof littlevalue. But,aswithanyhistorybook,itmustbereadaskingthequestion:istheauthor’sportrayalofandevalua-tionofthishistorycorrect?l
Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture, DavidVanDrunen.Wheaton,IL:Crossway,2010.Pp.208,(paper),$16.99.[ReviewedbyDavidJ.Engelsma.]
DavidVanDrunen has ac-complished something that bor-dersonthemiraculous. AnOr-thodoxPresbyterian theologian,aprofessoratWestminsterWest
SeminaryinCalifornia,andtreat-inganissueforevercloselylinkedwithAbrahamKuyper andwiththeChristianReformedChurchinNorthAmerica,asVanDrunen
November 2014 119
BookReviews
knows well, he has managedtowrite a book onChristianityand culturewithout discussingthe issueofacommongraceofGod.Indeed,hementionscom-mongraceonlyonceandtheninpassing.Eventhesinglementionqueerlyqualifiescommongraceasbeing“providential”:“God’sprovidential common grace”(181). This feat of ignoring com-mongrace—beyondanyshadowof doubt deliberately ignoring commongrace—is,however,notpraiseworthy. Not even in thejudgmentofanavowedenemyofcommongrace, as this revieweris.Suchistheveryessenceofthetransformationalconceptionofthecultural calling of theChristianon the part of thosewhomVanDrunenopposes,andsuch is theverynatureof thediscussionoftheculturalcallingofthechurchandChristianinReformedcircles,atleastfromthetimeofAbrahamKuyper,thatanyReformedtreat-mentoftheissuemustopenlycon-siderthetheoryofcommongrace,whethertodefendandpromoteit,ortorejectit. Simply to ignore commongrace in a consideration of theChristian and culture is theo-logicallyirresponsibleatbestorcowardlyatworst.Thelatterisnotimpossible.Inthiscase,the
Reformedtheologian,thoughheclearlyseesthedoctrinalerrorandthedisastrouspracticaleffectsofrootingtheChristian’sparticipa-tionincultureinacommongraceofGod, shies fromcondemningcommon grace, lest he bringdownon himself the scorn andreprobation of the theologicalestablishment. Silence, then, isthebestpolicy.Thebestpolicy,butnotanhonorablepolicy. The book is yet another at-tempttoanswerthequestionwithwhichReformedandPresbyterianchurchesandtheologiansarefor-ever struggling,andoverwhichtheyareconstantlyfighting,andevensplitting:therelationoftheChristianto“culture.”Whatisinviewby“culture”isnotsomuchthe creation itself and its ordi-nances, for example,marriage,family, labor, and government,astheentirewayoflifeofaso-ciety and nation in the creationanditsordinances.Inasmuchasthis culture is corrupted, indeedcontrolled,byungodlymenandwomen,indeed,bySatanhimself(IICor.4:4),thesubjectisthere-lationoftheChristiantoawickedworld. One prominent answer byReformedtheologianstotheques-tionoftherelationoftheChristianto culture is thatChristians arecalled byGod to “redeem” and
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 1120
“transform”theculture,sothatinsomesuperficialwaytheculturebecomes“Christian.”Thisviewwas powerfully introduced intothe Reformed community bytheDutch theologian,AbrahamKuyper,andhiscolleague,Her-manBavinck.Kuyperproposedthat the spiritual power of thisenterpriseisacommongraceofGod, that is, a cultural graceofGod thatChristians sharewithunbelievers. TheChristianRe-formedChurch and its schools,especially but by nomeans ex-clusivelyCalvinCollege,arethemain proponents of this hugecultural calling of ReformedChristians.Initschurchdogmaof common grace, adopted bytheChristianReformedChurchin1924,theChristianReformedChurchboundthisconceptionoftherelationof theChristianandcultureuponallitsmembers. RaisinghopeintheReformedreader,VanDrunenopposes theprevalent, popular explanationoftherelationoftheChristiantoculturethatadvocatesredemptionandtransformation. Whyhe rejects thisviewoftherelationofChristiantoculture,VanDrunendoesnotinformthereader,excepttonoteinageneralwaythattheviewisnotgroundedinScripture.Againstthefounda-tionofthetransformationalistand
redemptive conception, namely,commongrace,heoffersnoob-jection.Oftheglaringeffectofthetransformationalistviewandprogram,namely,sheerworldli-ness,hetakesnonote. In place of the redemptive,transformational view of theChristian’srelationtoculture,VanDrunenproposesatwokingdomsdichotomyoftheChristian’slife.Hischurchlifehelivesingrati-tudeforGod’sredemptionofhimbyJesusChristandinseparationfromtheungodly.ThisislifeinoneofthekingdomsofGod. Therestofhislife,whatcouldbecalledhisculturallife,thatis,hislifeinsocietyasaworker,asastudent,asacitizenofaparticular,earthlynation,theChristianlivesas inakingdomother than,andalongside,thespiritualkingdomofChrist.Thiskingdomismerelyearthly and temporal. WithoutyieldingtotemptationtogrosssinandwhilemaintainingobediencetothelawofGodasbesthecan,theChristianlivesinthisearthlykingdomasinthesphereofGod’sgeneral providence. He lives alifethathehasincommonwiththeungodly. The use of the adjective“common”ispervasiveanddom-inantinVanDrunen’sdescriptionoftheculturallifeoftheChristianamongandwiththeungodly.The
November 2014 121
BookReviews
kingdomoftheculturallifeoftheChristianisa“commonkingdom”(79f.).Inthiscommonkingdom,theChristianfinds himself in a“culturalcommonality”withtheungodly(77). The impression left by thistwokingdomsconceptionoftheChristianlifeisthatonMondaymorning the Christian lowerstheflagofthekingdomofJesusChristandraisesoverhimselfin-steadtheflagoftheUnitedStates,or ofCanada, or of someothernation. SofardoesVanDrunencarrythisdivisionintheChristian’slifeand so far does hemake plainthemeaningandimplicationsofthe bifurcation that, byway ofexample,hedenies that theRe-formedChristianhasacallingtoestablish,maintain,andusegood,Christianschoolsintheeducationofhischildren.ForVanDrunen,theuseof the state schools is aperfectly legitimate option forReformedparents.
Howbelievingparentsshouldeducate their children is amatterofChristian liberty…Non-Christians often havemadegreatercontributionstohuman learning thanChris-tians have…. We shouldwishtolearnfromunbelieverswhomGod has enabled tounderstandwonderful things
about his creation…. Weimpoverish our children ed-ucationally ifweunduly cutthem off from the accom-plishmentsandcontributionsof unbelievers…. There arestillmany excellent teachersandfinelearningopportunitiesinpublicschools(182-187).
WithsignificantappealtothecovenantwithNoah,whichVanDrunenregardsasthe“common”covenant of a “common king-dom,”VanDrunendeclaresthatteachingandlearningthesubjectsoftheeducationalcurriculumare“joint activities of the common kingdom”(179;emphasisisVanDrunen’s). At a time in historywhengoodChristian schoolsmust bevigorously defended and pro-motedbythespiritandwordingofArticle21oftheChurchOrderofDordt as never before,VanDrunen denies their necessity.TheeffectofsuchanattitudeonthepartoftheseminaryprofessoratWestminsterWestuponfuturepastorsinReformedchurcheswillbethedeathofChristianschoolsin those fellowships. What fa-thers andmothers reared up atgreatcostandhugesacrifice,ason behalf of a divine calling inthecovenantofgrace,Dr.DavidVanDrunencasuallyundermines.
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 1122
TheChristianschoolwithallitsincalculablebenefitsforthecove-nantchildrenofGodisacasualtyofthetheoryoftwokingdoms. Insupportofhisadvocacyofthe education of covenant chil-dren by unbelievers in schoolsthatare forbiddeneven tomen-tionGod (except in the cursingby teachers and students alike)and that arecommitted,by law,to theprofaningof thenameofGod by refusing to “sanctify,glorify,andpraise[thename]inall[God’s]works,”especiallyHisworksincreationandprovidence(Heid.Cat.,LD47),VanDrunenappeals to “natural revelation”:“naturalrevelation…comestoallhumanbeingsequallyundertheNoahic covenant” (180). WhatVanDruneninexcusablyignoresis what unbelieving, ungodlyteachers dowith natural revela-tion. According toRomans 1,unbelieving people, includingteachers and professors in thestate schools, hold this naturalrevelationunder inunrighteous-ness,so that theydonotglorifyGod,butchangethetruthofGodinto a lie, in the vanity of theirimaginationsand in the follyoftheirdarkenedhearts(vv.18-32). VanDrunenandallReformedparents who are of amind tofollowhisadviceconcerningtheeducationoftheirchildrenwould
dowellnottobasetheirdecisionto abandon theChristian schoolonnaturalrevelation. Altogether apart from theReformed doctrine of the cov-enant ofGodwith the childrenof believers and the Christianprincipleofgodlyupbringingthatthedoctrineimplies,asEphesians6:1-4makes explicit, and thatparents promise at the baptismoftheirchildrenaccordingtotheReformedFormfortheAdminis-trationofBaptism,isVanDrunenignorantofwhatisgoingoninthestate schools inAmerica inAD2014? Itistruethattherearetwodis-tinctkingdomsfortheChristian:the spiritual, eternal kingdomof JesusChrist and the earthly,temporal kingdomofwhatevernation he or she inhabits. It isalsotruethatKingJesusrulesallintwodistinctways.Hegovernsthe church—His spiritual king-dom (Heid. Cat., LD 48)—byHisgrace;Hegovernstheworldoutsidethechurch,includingallearthlynations,byHisalmightypower. But it is not true that theChristianlivesinthetwodistinctkingdomsintwodifferentways,by virtue of twodifferent pow-ers, according to two differentstandards,andwithtwodifferentgoals.ItisnottruethatChristians
November 2014 123
BookReviews
livea“common”culturallifein“commonality”withtheungodly. Rather,theChristianlivesallhislife,culturallyandspiritually,orreligiously,asacitizenofthekingdom of heaven. The onepowerofhis life is theredemp-tivegraceofGodinJesusChristbytheSpiritofChrist.TheonestandardistheveryspirituallawofGod,which is bothuponhisheartandbeforehimonthepagesoftheBible.Theonegoalistheperfectrevelationofthekingdomof heaven in the day of JesusChrist. AsVanDrunenrightlycon-tends,themotiveoftheChristianisnotacommongraceredemp-tion of society, or of the entireinhabitedworld. Neither is themotive the postmillennial trans-formationofAmerica,muchlessofalltheworld,orevenofGrandRapids,Michigan,orofMoscow,Idaho,orofAmsterdam,theNeth-erlands,intothekingdomofGod. Another weakness ofVanDrunen’s polemic against thetransformational conception oftheChristianlifeisitsfailuretoexposethepostmillennialimpli-cationoftheconception. ButthemotiveoftheChris-tianwithregardtoallhisculturallife is to let the light ofGod’sholinessandtruthshineintothedarknessof thekingdomof this
world,whosegodisSatan,sothathis lifeglorifiesGodandleavesthegodlesswithoutexcuse. The word and theologicalconceptthatexplainstherelationof the Christian to the worldandthatwouldputanendtothecontinual search of Reformedtheologiansforunderstandingofthisrelationisantithesis. Notredemptionoftheculture. Not transformation of theculture. Not thedivision of the lifeoftheChristianintotwodistinct,evendifferent,lives. Butantithesis. That is, absolute spiritualseparationof theChristianfromthe ungodlyworld and itswayof life, or culture, even as theChristianlivesfullyandactivelyintheculturethatiscontrolledbytheungodly. The biblical basis ofVanDrunen’s two kingdoms viewoftheChristianlifeintheworldisGod’scovenantwithNoah inGenesis 9, just as the biblicalbasisofAbrahamKuyper’scom-mongraceviewofcultureandoftheChristian’s participation inculturewastheNoahiccovenantofGenesis9.InthetheologyofVanDrunen, theChristian livesa “common” cultural lifewiththe ungodly by virtue ofGod’s“common” covenantwith him
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 1124
andtheungodly,which“commoncovenant” issupposed tobe thecovenantmadewithNoah.“InhiscovenantwithNoahGodenteredcovenantal relationshipwith theentirehumanrace(andwiththeentire creation), promising topreserveitsculturalactivities….Thiswastheformalestablishmentofthe‘commonkingdom’”(29). VanDrunen’s understand-ing of the covenantwithNoahismistaken, aswasKuyper’s.The covenant with Noah wasnotessentiallydifferentfromthecovenantwithAbrahaminGene-sis17andwithJesusChrist(Gal.3). Itwas not a covenantwitheveryhumanwithoutexception,thereprobateungodlyaswellastheelect.Itwasnotacovenantconcernedonlywithearthlyandtemporal benefits. Itwas not acovenantthatmaybedescribed,asVanDrunendoesdescribeit,asacovenantof“culturalcommon-ality.” Thismistaken understand-ing of the covenantwithNoahis fundamental toVanDrunen’sbifurcationof theChristian life,asalsoofhisbenignconceptionoftheculturallifeoftheungodly.In the theologyofVanDrunen,GodHimself has arranged thattheChristianlivehislifeintwodifferent kingdoms, under twodistinctcovenants.
AlthoughVanDrunenstudi-ouslyavoidscallingthecovenantwithNoahacovenantof“com-mon grace,” the covenantwithNoahhasforhimthesamesignif-icancethatithadforKuyper,whoviewedandcalled it acovenantof commongrace. VanDrunenacknowledges thiswhenhe de-claresthatthecovenantwithNoahprovides“commonblessings”toall humans, godly and ungodlyalike(77). ThetruthaboutthecovenantwithNoahisthatitwasarevela-tionofthefullbreadthandscopeofthecovenantofGodwithJesusChristandtheelectchurchoutofallnationsinHim.Thiscovenantextendstoallnations,thesourceofwhichwasNoahandhisthreesons,intheelectamongthem.Itextendsalsotothecreationitself,theheavenandtheearth,andtothedifferentcreaturesinthecre-ation,includingtheanimals.ThecovenantwithNoahmadeknownthetruthabouttheonecovenantof God that John 3:16 extols:“Godsolovedthe world(Greek:“kosmos”). OneNewTestamentpassagethat explains the covenantwithNoah ofGenesis 9 is Romans8:19-22: “Thecreation [Greek:“ktisis]itselfalsoshallbedeliv-eredfromthebondageofcorrup-tion into the glorious liberty of
November 2014 125
BookReviews
the children ofGod.” Anotheris Colossians 1:13-20: God’ssavingworkinJesusChrististhereconciliationof“allthingsuntohimself…whethertheybethingsinearth,orthingsinheaven.” BecauseVanDrunen’s crit-icism of the transformationalconception of theChristian lifefails to penetrate to the root oftheerrorinthefalsedoctrineofacommongraceofGod,andbe-causethepositivedescriptionof
theChristianlifedividesthislifeandneglectssolidlytogrounditin the antithesis, the book failsto achieve its noble, andmuchneeded,purpose. Reformed andPresbyterianChristianityinNorthAmericaisstill at a losswith regard to theChristian life in theworld—therelationoftheChristiantoculture. Howshameful! Howexceedinglydangerous! Howunnecessary!l
Samuel Rutherford: An Introduction to His Theology.Ed.MatthewVogan.Edinburgh:ScottishReformationSociety,2012.Pp.xii+354(paper).$30.00.[ReviewedbyDavidJ.Engelsma.]
As the title suggests, thebook is a collection of essayssummarizing and analyzing thetheologyoftheScottishPresby-teriantheologian,SamuelRuth-erford(1600-1661).Rutherfordwasanable,significantchurch-man in difficult times for thePresbyterians inGreatBritain.HewasaScottishcommissionertotheWestminsterAssembly.Hewas also a prolificwriter. Histheological works have influ-enced Scottish Presbyterianismtothepresentday,asthisvolumedemonstrates. Friend and foe alikewouldacknowledge him to have been
oneof themost important theo-logiansScotlandhasproduced. SuchwasRutherford’s rep-utation inhisown time that theReformedchurchesintheNeth-erlandsofferedhimthepositionof professor of theology in theUniversityofUtrecht. Asisusualinbooksthatarecollectionsof essaysbyvariouswriters, the book is of varyingworth. The essays that are thebook’s content are divided intosix main sections: “Revalu-ing Rutherford’s TheologicalContribution”; “Rutherford andPracticalTheology”;“RutherfordandCovenantTheology”;“Ruth-
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 1126
erford andEcclesiasticalTheol-ogy”; “Rutherford andPoliticalTheology”;and“RutherfordandtheCovenantedReformation.” Anotherworthwhile featureis the inclusion of sections ofRutherford’s own theologicalwritings.Theexcerptsmanifestavivid,evenflorid,oftenfancifulstyle ofwriting. Somemaybeattractedtothisstyle.Ithasthetendency,however,ofobscuringtheprecisedoctrinalteachingoftheScottishPresbyterianandtheprecisedoctrineitselfthatisunderdiscussion.Foratheologian,pre-cisionofexpressionmustcontrolthestyleofwriting.Thisdoesnot,however,requireapedanticstyle.
Criticism of Hoeksema Ofparticular interest to thisreviewerandundoubtedlytothereadersofthisjournalisShermanIsbell’streatmentofRutherford’sdoctrineofthecovenant,“Samu-elRutherford and thePreachedCovenant” (167-191). In hispresentationanddefenseofRuth-erford’sdoctrineofthecovenant,IsbelldelivershimselfofseverecriticismofthecovenanttheologyofHermanHoeksema.CriticismofHoeksemaandoftheProtestantReformedChurchesisaproclivityofIsbell. TheissueisRutherford’sandIsbell’sbeliefthatthepreaching
of the gospel is divine (saving)graceforalltowhomthepreach-ing comes, especially in the“visible church”—the covenantcommunity—thosewho perishin unbelief, according toGod’seternal reprobation of them, aswellasthosewhoaresavedbythegraceofthepreaching,accordingtoGod’seternalelectionofthem.IsbellquotesRutherfordteachingauniversal,savinggraceofGodforallwhohearthegospel,rep-robateandelectalike. Thisgraceforallis“saving,”notbecause it effectually saves,for it does not (thus betrayingitselfasnot,infact,thegraceofGodatall).But,itis“saving,”inthe theologyofSherman Isbell,because it isofasavingnature,because it purposes salvation,and because its endwould besalvationifthesinnerperformedthe requisite “condition” uponwhich the salvation this graceaims at depends (according toIsbell).Isbell’s“grace”issavingin precisely the sense inwhichthegraceofGodissavinginthetheologyofJamesArminius.
It’sastateofcommongracetobewithinthevisiblechurch….ThesameblessingsofAbra-ham come on us Gentiles. Butheandallhisseedwereblessedandingracebytheex-
November 2014 127
ternalcallofthecovenant….Andthisexternalcallingisofgraceandsograce,nomerit,aswell as predestination tolife is grace, or for grace. For whosoever are called,not because they are elect,but because freely loved ofsuchaGodandwithoutmeritcalled…theyareinastateofgrace. But so are allwithinthe visible church…. Andexternal covenanting withGodisofitselffreegraceandasingularfavourbestowedofGod (176; theomissions areRutherford’s,orIsbell’s).
Isbell approves this decla-ration of universal, impotent(saving)graceinthepreachingofthegospel.This,forIsbell,isthe“offerofthegospel,”astheofferis popularly held today amongPresbyterianandReformedtheo-logians. Thus,Rutherford apparent-ly and Isbell certainly committhemselves to theArminianismexposedandcondemnedbytheCanonsofDordt:(saving)graceforandtowardsall;thefailureofthegracetosavemanytowardswhomitisdirectedbyGod;thenecessary implication that theexplanation of the salvation ofsomeby thisuniversalgrace isnotthesovereigntyofthegrace(forthenallwouldbesavedby
it),buttheacceptingwillofthesinner.
Revelatory Peculiarities of Isbell’s Criticism ToaShermanIsbell,theRe-formedfaithputsthesequestions.First,whyisitfundamentalPres-byterianorthodoxytoconfesspar-ticulargraceinpredestinationandparticulargraceintheredemptionofthecross,butuniversalgracein the preaching of the gospel,whichpreachingGodintendsastherealizingofpredestinationandredemption? Second,whyis itfalsedoc-trine,subjecttothesharpcriticismof a Sherman Isbell, for aRe-formedtheologianoraReformedchurchtoconfessparticulargracein the preaching,whereas it isorthodoxy to confess particulargraceinpredestinationandintheredemptionofthecross? Third,howdoes aShermanIsbell harmonize awill ofGodforthesalvationofmanymoreinthepreachingofthegospelthanitisthedeterminingwillofGodto save inHis counsel (will) ofpredestinationandinHisaccom-plishment of redemption in thecross? And,fourth,whysuchfiercecriticismofatheologian(Hoek-sema) and of churches (Protes-tantReformed) for consistently
BookReviews
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 1128
viewingthegraceofpreachingasparticular,inviewofIsbell’sownprofessionoftheparticularityofgrace in predestination and inredemption,especiallyinlightofthetruththatGodinthepreachingisnotatlooseends,butisrealiz-ingHisdecreeofpredestinationand the redemptionof thecrossofJesus? ThereissomethingpuzzlingabouttheseverityandpersistenceofanIsbell’scriticismofthecon-fessionofparticulargraceinthepreaching. Just this doctrine inanecclesiasticalandtheologicalatmosphereofuniversalizingthegraceofGod!Justthetheologianwhodeniesuniversalgraceinthepreaching,amongmultitudeswhoareadvocatinguniversalgraceinall areas of salvation, from thecounselofGodtofinalsalvation! So peculiar is this insistentcriticism of a theologian (Her-manHoeksema)andofchurches(PRC)thatare“guilty”ofnothingmorethanextendingtheparticu-larity of grace in predestinationandinthecrosstothepreachingof the gospel, that it suggests agraveweaknessonthepartofthecritic. Regardless that he payslipservicetoparticulargraceinpredestinationandinthecross,asacreedalPresbyterianisboundbytheWestminsterStandardstodoattheveryleast,thetruthofpar-
ticular,sovereigngracedoesnothaveanIsbell’sheart.Universalgrace,dependentforitsefficacyon the sinner’s performing a“condition,”hashisheart.
A Conditional Covenant InkeepingwithRutherford’sthinking, Isbell affirms, IsbellgroundsGod’s universal, impo-tent(saving)graceinacondition-alcovenant.Here,theuniversallygraciousofferisrestrictedtothe“visiblechurch,”notallofwhomareelect.“Christhimselfthroughthepreachingoffersgracetoallin the visible church, includingreprobates” (184). In light ofIsbell’s own explanationof this“offer,” what ismeant is thatGodonHis part has a graciousattitude towards the reprobates,desirestheirsalvation,and,inthisgraciousdesire,makessalvationavailable to them, if only theywillaccepttheofferandperformthecondition.“Christhimself…conditionallyoffersgracethroughtheministryofthegospelinthevisiblechurch”(183). Suchaconceptionofpreach-ing in the congregation leadsIsbell to affirm a conditionalcovenant. According to Isbell,claiming to follow the lead ofRutherford, allmembers of thevisiblechurchareinthecovenantofgrace,thatis,Esauaswellas
November 2014 129
BookReviews
Jacob.God,therefore,graciouslyoffers,andevenpromises,salva-tiontoall.Butthecovenantandits salvation are “conditional.”Whethercovenantgraceactuallysaves anyone among all thosetowhom the grace is directeddependsuponone’sfulfillingthecondition. And thecondition isfaith. Severalmiserable, un-Re-formed and anti-Reformed fea-tures obviously disfigure thispresentation of the covenant ofGod in JesusChrist. Covenantgrace is resistible. Covenantsalvationdependsupon thewillof thechildorothermemberofthe“visiblechurch.”FaithisnotpartofthecovenantgraceofGod,freelybestoweduponsome—theelect—contrarytotheconfessionof theReformed faith inHeads3&4oftheCanonsofDordt,buta“work”ofthesinneruponwhichthesaving,covenantgraceofGoddepends—a“condition.”Dordt,Iremindthereader,confessedasReformed orthodoxy that “faithis…tobeconsideredasthegiftofGod,notonaccountofitsbeingofferedbyGodtoman…”(Can-ons ofDordt, 3&4:14). Dordtdenied that “God onHis partshowsHimself ready to revealChristuntoallmen…”(CanonsofDordt,3&4:RejectionofErrors5).
Isbell’sdoctrineofagracious,butconditionalcovenantwithallmembersofthe“visiblechurch,”reprobate and elect alike, is thefalse gospel ofArminianism,which the Reformed faith hascondemned in the Canons ofDordtandwhichthePresbyterianStandards,whichIsbellprofesses,alsocondemn. Under the pressure of theReformed creeds, a ShermanIsbellmay squirm and equivo-cate,andeven inhisdefenseofhimself contradictwhat he hasjustaffirmed.Isbelldoesexactlythis:“Thoughlifeandsalvationunder thecovenantofgraceareofferedtosinnersgenerally,onlythe elect will receive Christ,for only in themdoes theHolySpirit create faith” (184). Butthecontrarydoctrinethathehasalreadypassionatelyaffirmedanddefended, and that he does notrecant,issheerArminianheresy:universal,impotent(saving)graceoperative(inoperative,inreality)inaconditionalcovenant. In contrast to the theologyof a Sherman Isbell, the clear,consistent,biblicalgospel is thetruth of particular, sovereigngrace, originating in the eternaldecree of election, grounded intheparticular redemptionof thecross,andmadeeffectual in theelect, redeemed child of God
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 1130
by the preaching of the gospel.This is grace for, to, and in theelectalone,notonlyintheresult,but also in the divine purpose,although the preaching of thisgospelofgracecomestoallhear-ersasasavoroflifeuntolifetotheelectandasasavorofdeathuntodeathtothereprobate(IICor.2:14-17). In addition to his doctrinalheterodoxy, Isbell suffers fromserious misunderstanding, ormisrepresentation, or both, ofvitaldoctrinaltruths,asalsofromequallyseriousambiguity,indeed,misstatement,atcrucialjuncturesin the debate. Evidently, in keepingwiththetheologyofRutherford,Isbellunderstands the promiscuouspreaching of the promise to bethe same as the preaching of apromiscuouspromise—apromisemade byGod to reprobate andelect alike. This ismisunder-standing. Gospel preaching isthe promiscuous preachingof aparticularpromise.Thepromiseisforthose,andonlythose,whobelieve,accordingtodivineelec-tion. The unbeliever hears thepromise.Hehearsitinitspartic-ularity.Herealizesthatitisnotforhim,wickedly,disobedientlyremaininginunbelief.
Q. 31 of the WLC Although he quotesQ. 31of theWestminsterLargerCat-echism(WLC),Isbellrefusestorecognizethatthisclear,author-itative confession concerningGod’sestablishmentofthecove-nantofgracewithChristHimselfand,inHim,withalltheelect,andonlytheelect,utterlyoverthrowsIsbell’s entire covenant project.Thisprojectistoextendthecov-enant to include the reprobate,at least, all the reprobate in thevisiblechurch. The issue raised by Isbellis the question, “With whomdoesGodmakeHiscovenantofgrace?”Or,“Whoareincludedinthecovenantofgrace?”Bothastothedoctrineinviewandvirtual-lyword-for-word,thisisQ.31ofIsbell’sownWLC:“Withwhomwasthecovenantofgracemade?ThecovenantofgracewasmadewithChristasthesecondAdam,andinhimwithalltheelectashisseed.” WhywillthePresbyteriannothonestlyconfronthisowncreed?Whywillhenotsubmithimselftoitatthispointandwithregardto this vital issue,which is thevery subject of Isbell’s chapterinthebookonRutherford?Whydoeshenotacknowledgethatthiscreedalarticlesettlestheissueoftherelationbetweenelectionand
November 2014 131
BookReviews
thecovenant?Stillmoregravely,whydoesheopenlyviolateandoppose this article of his owncreed? Not only do Isbell and hisPresbyterian confederates denythatGodhasmadeHiscovenantof grace with “all the elect,”andwith them only. But theyalso deny that, primarily andfundamentally,GodmadeHiscovenantwithJesusChristHim-self personally, as the “secondAdam,”orcovenanthead,sothattheextensionofthecovenanttomerehumansisduetotheirbeingChrist’s“seed.”EveryformoftheteachingthatthecovenantismadewithmoreorothersthantheelectisadenialthatGodmadeHiscov-enantinthefirstandfundamentalinstancewithJesusChrist. WLC,Q.31isclear,decisiveresolutionoftheissuethat,aftermore than four hundred years,is still bedeviling theReformedcommunity: “Withwhom hasGodestablishedthecovenantofgrace?” To this question, HermanHoeksema and the ProtestantReformed Churches give ex-actly the same answer as doestheWLC inQ. 31. Why thendoes the answer ofHoeksemato thegreatquestion showhimto have been hyper-Calvinistic,antinomian,andoutsidetheRe-
formedpale,intheestimationofaShermanIsbell?ArenotthesechargesagainstHoeksemamorerevealingofthosewhomakethechargesthantheyareofHoekse-ma? Not content to hasten overQ. 31 of his creed (and Isbellis obviously in a great hurry atthispointandwithregardtothisquestion and answer) and notcontenttorefusethedoctrineofthisquestionstandinginthecon-troversyover the issue,whetherGodestablishesthecovenantwiththeelectorwithallinthevisiblechurch, Isbell adds to his faultby falsifying the doctrine itselfas found inQ. 31 of theWLC.Isbell’s very brief explanationofthequestionisthat“Question31speaksofChrist’spurchaseofcovenantblessingsfortheelect”(182). ButQ.31oftheWLCdoesnotspeakofChrist’spurchaseofcovenantblessingsfortheelect.Itimpliesthis.Indeed,itimpliesmore than this. It implies thatChrist has purchased covenantblessingsonly fortheelect,sothatthecross’spurchaseofcovenantblessings exposes as erroneoustheteachingthatGodonHispartsincerely desires that reprobatepersons share in the covenantblessingsofthecross. ButthefactisthatQ.31ofthe
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 1132
WLCdoesnotspeakofChrist’spurchase of covenant blessingsfor the elect. Q. 31 declaresin the simple, straight-forwardlanguage that every laymancaneasilyunderstand,tosaynothingof the educated theologian, thatGodmadethecovenantofgracewithChristand,inHim,withalltheelect. Q.31,ontheveryfaceofit,answersthequestionwithwhichIsbellbusieshimselfinhischap-teronRutherford:“WithwhomhasGodmade the covenant ofgrace?” Toanswerthisquestion,asIs-belldoes,thatGod,infact,makesthecovenantwithmanyhumansoutside ofChrist,with humanswhoareontheirown,apartfromChrist’s headship of them, and,indeed,withreprobatesisflagrantviolationandstarkcontradictionofQ.31oftheWLC,Isbell’sowncreed. Attheveryleast,Q.31ofhiscreedshouldinclineaPresbyte-riantheologiantobemuchmoresympathetic,andkinder, towardHermanHoeksema than is theharsh Isbell. Whymust IsbellvilifyonewhoconfessesthatGodmade the covenantwithChristandwith all thosewho are inHim,astheirHead,byelection?WhycannotShermanIsbellandhiscohortspubliclyacknowledge
thataHermanHoeksemaandtheProtestant ReformedChurchesare faithful to the doctrine andtheologyofQ.31of theWLC?And,therefore,worthyofaplaceat the table aroundwhichRe-formedandPresbyterianschurch-es and theologians are debatingthe issue,withwhomGod hasmadeHiscovenantofgrace. Isbell’sfierceattackonHoek-semaforconfessingthedoctrineofQ.31oftheWLCandIsbell’sown shabby treatment of thedoctrineofthequestionraisethesuspicionthatIsbellhimselfdoesnotlove,andevendissentsfrom,thedoctrineofQ.31.
Inaccurate Theologyand Absurd Charges Isbellcomesoffbadlyinoth-errespectsaswell.Hemakesthetheologicallyinaccurate,factuallymistaken,andabsurdchargethatHoeksema’s rejectionofuniver-sal,impotent(saving)grace(the“well-meantoffer”)showshimtohavebeenguiltyof“antinomian-ism”(184). Antinomianism is the errorofdenyingthatthelawistheruleof lifeofsinnerswhoaresavedbygrace. Hoeksema’srejectionof the “well-meant offer”wasnot antinomian. It had nothingto dowith antinomism. Itwasnot antinomism according to
November 2014 133
BookReviews
the broadest extension of thatfalse doctrine. Hoeksema didnotdeny thatGodin thegospelcommandsallwhoheartorepentandbelieve—the“externalcallofthegospel.”Hedidnotquestiontheresponsibilityofthesinnertoobeythecommandbybelieving,even though the unregenerated sinnerisincapableofdoingso. Hoeksemadeniedthe“well-meantoffer,”buthedidnotdenythe“well-meantoffer”becauseitcallsonallsinnerstobelieveonJesusChristandpromises toallwhodobelievethattheywillbesaved. He denied the “well-meantoffer” as it is taught by suchas Sherman Isbell because itteaches thatGod is gracious toallsinnerswithagrace,orlove,thatdesires(wills)theirsalvationand, in thisgrace,makesChristandsalvationavailable to them,dependentupontheiracceptanceoftheoffer.Hoeksemadeniedthe“well-meant offer,”whether re-gardingthecovenantorregardingmissionsbecauseitmakesfaithacondition uponwhich salvationdepends. To accuse this doctrine ofantinomism is theological igno-rance andmere name-calling.Suchtactics,evenintheologicalcontroversy, are dishonorable,anddiscrediting—nottotheone
whoiscallednamesbuttotheonewhodoesthecalling. ThatHoeksema limited theexternalcalltotheelectissheer,inexcusable falsehood: “Hoek-semadefines external callingassomething applicable rather totheelect”(187,188).ContrarytoIsbell’scharge,HoeksemataughtthattheexternalcallofGodinthepreachingofthegospelcomesinseriousness to allwho hear thepreaching, reprobate and electalike.
The external calling throughtheWord…is in a certainsensegeneral,althoughitdoesnotreachallmen….Thefactremainsthatmanyarecalled,butfewarechosen.Alsothecalling through the gospeldoes not come only to theelect,butalsotothereprobateaccordingtothegoodpleasureofGod….Throughthiscall-ingtheresponsibilityofmanandhis ethical character aremaintained. God speaks tohim through that gospel. Inthat gospelHe calls him torepentance,toconversionandfaith…. Hepresents to himthewayofsinasawaythatdispleasesGodandthatmakesthesinnertheobjectofGod’swrath…. Moreover, in thatgospelHeopensforhimthatrepentsawaytobereconciledtoGod…. All this is being
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 1134
preached in the gospel, andis preachedwithout distinc-tion to all that areunder thegospel,alsotothereprobate.Moreover,thiscallingthroughthegospelisdistinguished…inthis,thatitopensawayofredemptionandsalvationandgivesthehopeofeternallifeinthewayoffaithandrepen-tance (Herman Hoeksema,Reformed Dogmatics,RFPA,1966,470,471).
Isbell’s clumsy attempt todefendhisviewofthepreachingasuniversalgracebyappealingtothetraditionalReformeddistinc-tionbetweenGod’srevealedwillandGod’ssecretwillisconfusion,orignorance.Thereissuchadis-tinction.ButithasnothingtodowithagraceofGodforallwhohearthegospel,orwithadesireofGodforthesalvationofallwhocomeunderthepreachingofthegospel. God’s revealedwill isHiscommand to the sinner,makingknownthesinner’sduty.ToPha-raoh, itwas thecommand,“Letmy people go!” To the sinnerunderthepreachingofthegospel,itisthecommand,“Repent,andbelieveonJesusChrist!” God’ssecretwillisHisowncounsel,whatHehasdeterminedtodowiththesinnertowhomthe
commandcomes,andbymeansofthecommanditself.WithregardtoPharaoh,itwasthesecretwillofGod, as concerned Pharaohhimself, to harden Pharaoh’sheart by the command itself, sothatGodmight justlycondemn,destroy, anddamn theEgyptianking.Withregardtosinnersto-day towhomthegospelcomes,God’ssecretwillisthesalvationof some—the elect—and thehardeninganddamnationofoth-ers—the reprobate—bymeansoftheexternalcall,orcommand,itself.RegardinganEsau,God’ssecretwillwasEsau’sdamnation.RegardingaJacob,God’ssecretwillwas Jacob’s salvation (cf.Romans9). Contrary to Isbell’s suppo-sitionandclaim, there is in thisdistinctionabsolutelynobasisforadoctrineofauniversal,savingwillofGodinthepreachingofthegospel. Isbell’s construal of the tra-ditionalReformeddistinctionbe-tweenGod’ssecretandrevealedwillpositscontradictioninGod.AccordingtothemistakennotionofIsbell,withHissecretwillGodwillsthesalvationonlyofsome.With His revealed will, Godwills the salvationof all. WithHissecretwill,GodisGodinthesalvation of sinners. WithHis
November 2014 135
BookReviews
revealedwill,God isdependentuponthewillofsinnersinsavinghumans. AccordingtoIsbell’sdoctrineof the revealed and the secretwills ofGod,God isHimself aconfused, conflictedBeing. HeHimselfistornbycontradictorywills. Which of the twowillswillprevail? Whichof the twowillswillPresbyterianpreachersemphasize,andintheenddecideon,tothedetrimentoftheotherwill? The answer to this latterquestionisclearfromthetheolo-gyofShermanIsbell. This now is Presbyterianorthodoxy according to one ofits preachers. Andon thebasisof such amonstrous notion ofthewillofGod,whichinrealityis one andunified, not two andcontradictory,IsbellwarsagainstthetruththatGodisgraciousinthegospeltotheelectalone.
Will and Desire,but Not Intention Isbell’s defense of himselfand his theology of universalgrace in the preaching of thegospel againstHoeksema’s crit-icism of Isbell’s theology isabominable.ItissignificantthatIsbellfindsitnecessarytodefendhistheologyofthegospelcallasgracetoall.Hehimselfisawarethat his theology is dubious on
its very face. But in defendinghimself,Isbellrefusessquarelytofacetheissue.Theissue,whichIsbellhimselfraisesinhiscontri-butiontothebookonRutherford,issimplythis:IsGodgracioustoallinthepreachingofthegospel?And,ifHeis,howcanthisgracetomanyfailinsavingthem?Withthesequestions,theissueis,howdoesgracetoallinthepreachingharmonizewiththePresbyterianandReformedconfessionaldoc-trineofdoublepredestination? Finding it necessary to ad-dress these issues, Isbell thinksto evade the force of the perti-nent, penetrating questions, andthusmaintain his credentials asan orthodox Presbyterian theo-logian, by affirming that “Godnever intends the salvation ofthe reprobate” (189). Thus, atheologiantalksoutofbothsidesofhismouth.Thus,atheologianwithhisbacktothewalldelivershimselfbyverbaltricks. Consider:Isbellargues,withpassionandat length,onbehalfof a graciouswill of God forthesalvationofallwhohearthepreachingofthegospel—Godingracewills the salvation of all.IsbellcontendsthatGodsincerelydesiresthesalvationofallinHisgrace towards them. He insiststhat the gospel is awell-meantoffertoallonthepartofGod,who
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Vol. 48, No. 1136
isgracioustoallandwhodesiresthesalvationofall,whichofferdependsuponsinnersperformingthe“condition”ofbelieving. And then, when creedalReformed theology confrontsIsbellwiththequestionhowthisdoctrineistobeharmonizedwiththe Presbyterian andReformedtruths of predestination, limitedatonement,efficaciousgrace,andthetotaldepravityofthesinner,Isbell takes refuge in the asser-tion,“Goddoesnotintendthesal-vationofthereprobate.”Hegra-ciously willsthesalvationofthereprobate;Hegraciously desires thesalvationofthereprobate;Hegraciously offers salvationtothereprobate;butHedoesnotintend the salvation of the reprobate.ThislaststatementissupposedtobethedeliveranceofIsbellasstilla creedal Presbyterian, despiteall the preceding statements ofuniversal,ineffectualgrace. Isbell’sdefenseofhistheolo-gy is as sorry a business as is his theology. To teach a universal(saving)graceofGod that failstosavemanyis toteachafrus-tratedGod; inefficacious grace;and salvation in the endby theacceptance,thatis,thewill,ofthesinner.IfGodhasagraciouswillforthesalvationofallandifGodgraciouslydesiresthesalvationofall,Goddoes,infact,intend,the
salvationofall.Willanddesireare intention. And even if onegrants Isbell his preposterousdefense of himself by allowingadistinctionbetween“will”and“desire” on the one hand and“intention”ontheotherhand,theGodofthetheologyofShermanIsbell is aGodwhowills anddesiresthatwhichdoesnotcometopassandaGodwhose(saving)gracefailstosavemany. Intentionornointention,theReformed faith condemns thedoctrineofauniversal,ineffectual(saving)graceofGod.
The PRC and the Bibleon the Call of the Gospel Inconclusion,letthereader,especiallythereaderwhohasreadthearticleofShermanIsbell,beclearastotheReformedtheologyofHermanHoeksemaandoftheProtestant ReformedChurchestoday. There is no rejectionof thedistinction betweenGod’s re-vealedwillandHissecretwill. There isabsolutelynosym-pathy for, or concession to, theheresyofantinomism. There is no fear,much lessdenial, of the responsibility ofeveryhuman,particularlyunderthepreachingofthegospel.But,contrarytoIsbell,thisresponsibil-itydoesnotmeanthatsalvation
November 2014 137
isbothonehundredpercenttheworkofGodandonehundredpercenttheworkofthesinnerwhoissaved(190).Onthecontrary,theentireworkofsalvation,frometernity past to eternity future,fromelectiontotheresurrectionofthebody,istheworkofGod,andtheworkofGodalone.ItisonehundredpercentGod’swork,andzeropercenttheworkofthesavedsinner.Itistruethatweare,andarecalledtobe,activeinbe-lievingandobeying,butevenourspiritualactivityisGod’sworkinginus(Phil.2:10,11). ThereisinthetheologyoftheProtestantReformedChurchesnohesitationtocalleverysinnertorepentandbelieve,withurgency.Noristhereanyaversiontoprom-isinginthenameofGodthatallwhodorepentandbelieveshallbe saved. ButHoeksemaandtheProt-estantReformedChurchesdenythat thepreachingof thegospelisgracetoall. Wedenyalsothatthecovenantofgraceisestablishedwithallthemembersof the“visiblechurch”andthatauniversalcovenantgraceisconditioneduponthefaithofthemembers.Regardingthequestion,withwhomhasGodmadethecov-enantofgrace?ouranswerisQ.31oftheWLC,withoutequivocation:
with JesusChristpersonallyandwiththeelectinHim.Therearemanyinthesphereofthecovenant.Onlytheelectareinthecovenant;onlytheelectarecovenantfriendsofGod. To say nothing of Calvin,particularly in hisCalvin’s Cal-vinism;ofdeCockandVanVel-zen;andofBavinck,hasShermanIsbell never read the biblicalresolutiontotheproblemhead-dressesinhisessayinthevolumeonRutherford? HasheneverreadGalatians3? Godmade the covenant bypromisewithAbraham’s seed,whoisChrist,andinChristwithallwho areChrist’s (Gal. 3:16,29). Has he never readRomans9-11? “They are not all Israel,whichareofIsrael”(Rom.9:6).“Thechildrenofthepromisearecounted for the seed,” towhomandforwhomis thepromiseofthecovenant(Rom.9:8).Amongthechildrenofbelievingparents,inthe“visiblechurch,”Godhas“mercy onwhomhewill havemercy,andwhomhewillhehard-eneth”(Rom.9:18). Ontheserocksofthetruthofsalvationbyparticular,sovereigngracehavebeensmashedalltheattacksontheReformedgospelofgracebyproponentsofuniversal,ineffectualgraceinthepast.
BookReviews
On these same rocks willbe smashed the attacks on theReformedgospelofgracebypro-ponentsofuniversal,ineffectual,covenantgracetoday.l
Contributors for this issue are:
Nathan P. Decker, pastorofTrinityProtestantReformedChurchinHudsonville,Michigan.
Russell J. Dykstra, professorofChurchHistoryandNewTestamentStudiesintheProtestantReformedSeminary,Wyoming,Michigan.
David J. Engelsma, professoremeritusofDogmaticsandOldTestamentStudies in theProtestantRe-formedSeminary,Wyoming,Michigan.
Eugene P. Heideman, professoremeritusofWesternTheologicalSeminaryinHolland,Michigan.
Douglas J. Kuiper,pastoroftheProtestantReformedChurchinEdgerton,Minnesota.
Mark Shand, pastor in theEvangelicalPresbyterianChurchofAustraliainYoungtown,Tasmania.
David Torlach,pastorintheEvangelicalPresbyterianChurchofAustraliainWinnaleah,Tasmania.