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


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



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



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



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).



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,



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,



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.



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.”



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


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


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


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.



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,



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



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



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.



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.



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


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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).


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


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.”


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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.”


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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’


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


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


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.


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


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


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-


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


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


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.


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


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-


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


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


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


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


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


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.

nov-2014 part

Documents