# Dipleuric Covenant in Calvin



## Prufrock (Apr 17, 2009)

(I have doubleposted this from the Bullinger page, as I thought it would be worthwhile here as well)

A "popular" claim these days is that Bullinger taught a bilateral covenant, which is evidence of a tradition different from Calvin's teaching of a unilateral covenant. There is much evidence, however, that this is a misreading of Calvin. I will supply but a few quotes as an example. The first I came across this afternoon.



> Whosoever then would contend boldly with the ungodly must first have to do with God, and confirm and ratify as it were the compact which God has proposed to us, even that we are his people, and that he in his turn will be always our God. (_Commantary on Habakkuk 1:12)_



This in no way undermines or weakens the soteriological monergism of Calvin's teaching (any more than in Bullinger's!), as this requirement in man is itself a gracious donation from God, as the following demonstrate from his sermon on Deut. 32:46.



> True it is that we can neither keep God's word nor do it until he have written it on our hearts. But Moses presupposeth that God will shed out his Holy Spirit upon the people.


And again,


> So then let us not think as the papist does that Moses upholdeth here the Freewill of men, or purpose, therewithall to set forth their deservings, as though men could by their own power and policy obtain paradise, and were able to serve God and to do the commandments of the Law: Moses went not that way to work: but he knew what promise had been made to the people, and that all things tended to the Covenant which God had made with them...where it is said that God would make a new Covenant with his people, which was that he would write his Law in their hearts and change their stony hearts into hearts of flesh.


----------



## MW (Apr 17, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> > Whosoever then would contend boldly with the ungodly must first have to do with God, and confirm and ratify as it were the compact which God has proposed to us, even that we are his people, and that he in his turn will be always our God. (_Commantary on Habakkuk 1:12)_



Paul, this is an important reference. I wonder how much significance should be given to the words "as it were." We could impose the internal-external covenant distinction on Calvin, and then we could understand his "as it were" statement to refer to the external administration of the covenant, which retains his commitment to a unilateral covenant so far as its inward essence is concerned. But it is probably best to see him working his way towards that distinction rather than thinking in terms of those specific categories.


----------



## Prufrock (Apr 17, 2009)

Rev. Winzer,

There is a lot in your statement to unpack. First, I'd like to ask about the point you raise concerning Calvin moving in that direction; his comments on Gen. 17:7 come to mind (I apologize in advance for the length):



> For if Paul deprives the Gentiles of God and of eternal life, on the ground of their being aliens from the covenant, (Ephesians 4:18,) it follows that all Israelites were of the household of the Church, and sons of God, and heirs of eternal life. And although it was by the grace of God, and not by nature, that they excelled the Gentiles; and although the inheritance at the kingdom of God came to them by promise, and not by carnal descent; yet they are sometimes said to differ by nature from the rest of the world. In the Epistle to the Galatians, (Galatians 2:15), and elsewhere, Paul calls them saints ‘by nature,’ because God was willing that his grace should descend, by a continual succession, to the whole seed. In this sense, they who were unbelievers among the Jews, are yet called the children of the celestial kingdom by Christ. (Matthew 8:12.) Nor does what St Paul says contradict this; namely, that not all who are from Abraham are to be esteemed legitimate children; because they are not the children of the promise, but only of the flesh. (Romans 9:8.) For there, the promise is not taken generally for that outward word, by which God conferred his favor as well upon the reprobate as upon the elect; but must be restricted to that efficacious calling, which he inwardly seals by his Spirit. And that this is the case, is proved without difficulty; for the promise by which the Lord had adopted them all as children, was common to all: and in that promise, it cannot be denied, that eternal salvation was offered to all. What, therefore, can be the meaning of Paul, when he denies that certain persons have any right to be reckoned among children, except that he is no longer reasoning about the externally offered grace, but about that of which only the elect effectually partake? *Here, then, a twofold class of sons presents itself to us, in the Church; for since the whole body of the people is gathered together into the fold of God, by one and the same voice, all without exception, are in this respects accounted children; the name of the Church is applicable in common to them all: but in the innermost sanctuary of God, none others are reckoned the sons of God, than they in whom the promise is ratified by faith.* And although this difference flows from the fountain of gratuitous election, whence also faith itself springs; yet, since the counsel of God is in itself hidden from us, we therefore distinguish the true from the spurious children, by the respective marks of faith and of unbelief.



Prima facie, I see this supporting a notion in your post. I want to look at a few things more carefully, and then ask you a few questions from your undoubted familiarity with Calvin's writings.


----------



## MW (Apr 17, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> > *Here, then, a twofold class of sons presents itself to us, in the Church; for since the whole body of the people is gathered together into the fold of God, by one and the same voice, all without exception, are in this respects accounted children; the name of the Church is applicable in common to them all: but in the innermost sanctuary of God, none others are reckoned the sons of God, than they in whom the promise is ratified by faith.* And although this difference flows from the fountain of gratuitous election, whence also faith itself springs; yet, since the counsel of God is in itself hidden from us, we therefore distinguish the true from the spurious children, by the respective marks of faith and of unbelief.



Yes, so Calvin obviously allows for two classes of persons to temporally exist side by side in the covenant people of God; but he always has this qualification of the true and the spurious, which seems to disallow the possibility that the covenant is truly administered in an external manner to any other than the elect. I would be interested to learn if there is any statement by Calvin which can allow for the non-elect to be externally in covenant with God. It would seem that his definition of "covenant" as "gracious promise" could allow for it, even though I have only seen him apply it to the inward reality.


----------



## Prufrock (Apr 20, 2009)

Sorry I did not respond over the weekend, but I realize my Saturday afternoon is already your Sunday -- so I thought it just as worthwhile to wait.

Calvin does sometimes speak of "distinct degrees of adoption," such as in his comments on the same verse as above, when he argues that "nothing is more certain than that God made his covenant with those sons of Abraham who were naturally to be born of him," which his subsequent comments make clear is not restricted to the faithful. These "distinct degrees," I think, can make sense of a few passages in his works if we understand him to mean the covenant is _truly_ administered to the covenant people, but in differing degrees -- hence his statement on the same verse: "and in that promise, it cannot be denied that eternal salvation was offered to all." This sounds an awful lot like the later administration of the external covenant.

Exodus 24 comes to mind as well:


> Moses states that he read the book before the people; and then adds that the people themselves embraced the covenant proposed to them. Finally he relates that when the people had professed their obedience, he sprinkled the blood...


This is, of course, open to objections; but it seems the plainest reading suggests that the covenant was sincerely proposed, and subsequently accepted by the whole congregation.

Thoughts?


----------



## MW (Apr 20, 2009)

Paul, "distinct degrees" is a good way of putting it and seems like it should form a significant part of the taxonomy from which to understand Calvin's concept. The most descriptive comments I can remember are on Rom. 9:4, 5, relative to temporal election; but again, verse 6 brings in the issue of true and false beneficiaries. I think if we put together everything he says it only makes sense on the basis of an external covenant administration. My only query is whether Calvin ever actually stated it that way.


----------



## Prufrock (Apr 20, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> Paul, "distinct degrees" is a good way of putting it and seems like it should form a significant part of the taxonomy from which to understand Calvin's concept. The most descriptive comments I can remember are on Rom. 9:4, 5, relative to temporal election; but again, verse 6 brings in the issue of true and false beneficiaries. I think if we put together everything he says it only makes sense on the basis of an external covenant administration. My only query is whether Calvin ever actually stated it that way.



I feel foolish, but I hadn't even thought about the Romans passage; I was focused upon a few Psalms and Law passages. Thanks for pointing that one out.

I'll certainly keep a sharp eye and post immediately if I ever find such a wording. I will start looking for the first reformed formulation in which it is explicitly stated this way.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 21, 2009)

I am very interested in this also. I will bookmark this to keep it in my forefront. Thanks guys.


----------

