# Seeking a Review



## JM (Sep 11, 2006)

for Reformed Dogmatics by Herman Hoeksema, is it worth the money? Is Hoeksema a hyper-Calvinist?

Thanks,

jm


----------



## yeutter (Sep 11, 2006)

I like Hoeksema's Dogmatics. I also like Kersten's Dogmatics, and Charles Hodge's Systematics.

I do not always agree with Hoeksema but particulary like him on anthropology, soteriology, and eschatology.

Your question as to weather Hoeksema was hypercalvinist, will likely get some reaction. Some, like Johnson, think any one who denies common grace is hypercalvinist. Some think anyone who does not understand the call of the Gospel to be a 'free well meant offer' to every man, head head, is a hypercalvinist. If that is your definition then Hoeksema is a hypercalvinist. 

Hoeksema is not like J. C. Philpot. Hoeksema affirms that the Gospel should be preached promiscously to all men and every man.


----------



## polemic_turtle (Oct 2, 2006)

To somewhat ressurrect this discussion, could you show me where Philpot denied the Gospel should be preached to all men? It is my understanding that very few outside of the extreme Primitive Baptists ever said that the Gospel shouldn't go to all. A sourced quote would be appreciated, so I could look it up.


----------



## AV1611 (Nov 19, 2006)

JM said:


> for Reformed Dogmatics by Herman Hoeksema, is it worth the money?



Yes



JM said:


> Is Hoeksema a hyper-Calvinist?



No


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 19, 2006)

AV1611,

You have a private message waiting. Check that.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 19, 2006)

JM said:


> for Reformed Dogmatics by Herman Hoeksema, is it worth the money? Is Hoeksema a hyper-Calvinist?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> jm



Though it is debatable about the hypercalvinism, Hoeksema is in error on another significant area in theology and that is his denial of the covenant of works. Though he doesn't follow through with the implications of this denial, later proponents have, like the Federal Vision, etc. Hoeksema may have some helpful insights but there are systematic theologies which are probably more helpful and give you a broader review of Reformed Theology. If you can only by one, then buy something else. I would recommend Berkhof's ST, Calvin's Institutes, Hodge's ST, or Turretin's Institutes. All these will be more grounded in the historical Reformed faith, both Continental and Scottish. Personally, I prefer Calvin or Berkhof. It will also do you well to simply study the Westminster Confession and the 3 Forms of Unity.


----------



## AV1611 (Nov 20, 2006)

Puritan Sailor said:


> ...his denial of the covenant of works.



Have you read Prof Murray on the Covenant of Grace? BTW: Hoeksema did not deny the covenant of works (he was bound to believe it by the WCF) but rather he looked at it and reworked it and so engaged in doctrinal development as he explains in his _The Covenant: God's Tabernacle with Men_.


----------



## AV1611 (Nov 20, 2006)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> AV1611,
> 
> You have a private message waiting. Check that.



I have taken it on board.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 20, 2006)

AV1611 said:


> Have you read Prof Murray on the Covenant of Grace? BTW: Hoeksema did not deny the covenant of works (he was bound to believe it by the WCF) but rather he looked at it and reworked it and so engaged in doctrinal development as he explains in his _The Covenant: God's Tabernacle with Men_.



Yes, I've read Murray and he is wrong to reject theterm "covenant of works." Certainly he holds the subtance with "Adamic administration" but this cute phrase has opened the doors to heresies which he would deplore if he were alive today. 

As for Hoeksema, first of all, he was not bound to Westminster. He was not a Presbyterian. He was bound to the 3 Forms of Unity. 

And he does most certainly deny the covenant of works in his Reformed Dogmatics pg. 214-226, on The Covenant with Adam. He views it as something that has "creeped in" to the Reformed camp because the 3 Forms do not use the term. He then attacks Hodge's articulation. Hoeksema's "doctrinal development" is actually regression into mono-covenantalism and is a clear departure from the historic Reformed faith. It leads to great confusion because you destroy the distinction between law and gospel. You will logically become an antinomian or a legalist with a monocovenantal scheme.

Rowland Ward has proven irrefutably how the "covenant of works" was articulated in the Reformed Faith very early on, becoming an unquestioned point of doctrine for both the Continental and English/Scottish churches by the early 17th century. I would suggest you read his short work called "God and Adam." It will show you how deviant Hoeksema's view actually is.


----------



## Mayflower (Nov 20, 2006)

Puritan Sailor said:


> .As for Hoeksema. He was not a Presbyterian.:




That's interesting to know that Hoeksema would not be a presybterian ? Do you have more information about this ?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 20, 2006)

Mayflower said:


> That's interesting to know that Hoeksema would not be a presybterian ? Do you have more information about this ?



Hoeksema was a minister in the Protestant Reformed Church. It was a splinter group from the Christian Reformed Church which broke away during the early 20th century. The PRC does not hold to the Westminster standards. They hold to the 3 Forms of Unity.


----------



## Mayflower (Nov 20, 2006)

Puritan Sailor said:


> Hoeksema was a minister in the Protestant Reformed Church. It was a splinter group from the Christian Reformed Church which broke away during the early 20th century. The PRC does not hold to the Westminster standards. They hold to the 3 Forms of Unity.



But is a presbyterian not someone who hold to the presbyterian view of Chrch goverment ? In which way did he differens regards church goverment ?


----------



## AV1611 (Nov 20, 2006)

Puritan Sailor said:


> And he does most certainly deny the covenant of works in his Reformed Dogmatics pg. 214-226, on The Covenant with Adam. He views it as something that has "creeped in" to the Reformed camp because the 3 Forms do not use the term. He then attacks Hodge's articulation.



What he attacks is the idea that the covenant was between equal parties. Hoeksema was at pains to point out that the very essence of covenant is a relation of friendship as Berkof points out in his _ST_. As HH states "However, that this living relation of friendship on the part of God with man is the real idea and essence of the covenant has not received proper recognition. Usually, the covenant was understood as a pact or agreement between God and men; or its essence was seen in the promise, "I will be your God." It was described as a way of salvation, as a means to an end, rather than as the very heart of all true religion, as the highest self-revelation of the triune God, as the ultimate realization of God's purpose of salvation. To demonstrate that the latter is nevertheless the true idea of God's covenant, as presented to us in Holy Scripture, is the chief purpose of this brief treatise." (_The Covenant: God's Tabernacle with Men_)

He goes on to say "Grave objections may be raised against this presentation of the idea of God's covenant. The most serious and fundamental of these is that man cannot really be a party, a contracting party, in relation to the living God. For God _is God_. He is the infinite, the eternal, the self-existent, the perfectly self-sufficient One. He is the Lord, the sovereign Creator, of Whom, and through Whom, and unto Whom are all things. There is none beside Him. And man is a mere creature that owes his whole existence, all that he is and has, his entire being, with body and soul, with mind and will and strength, with all his powers and talents and possessions, in every relationship and every moment of his life, to his Lord and Creator. God is always the overflowing Fount of all good, and man is always the dependent and needy creature, who must drink from that Fountain. God is the self-sufficient I AM, man is constantly and completely dependent on Him. How, then, shall that creature assume the position of a party in relation to his God? What obligation could he possibly assume beside that which is already incumbent upon him, without any special agreement: that he shall love the Lord his God with all his strength? Can the fulfillment of this solemn obligation ever become a condition for higher favors and richer blessings?"



Puritan Sailor said:


> Hoeksema's "doctrinal development" is actually regression into mono-covenantalism and is a clear departure from the historic Reformed faith. It leads to great confusion because you destroy the distinction between law and gospel.



Could you explain?



Puritan Sailor said:


> You will logically become an antinomian or a legalist with a monocovenantal scheme.



No more than adherence to unconditional election will result in rejecting the need for gospel preaching.

Here is John Gill:



> ...Moreover, It may be observed, that the law given to Adam is expressly called a covenant, as it should seem in Hosea 6:7 "but they, like men", (or like Adam) "have transgressed the covenant": the sense of which seems to be, that as Adam transgressed the covenant God made with him; so the Israelites had transgressed the covenant God made with them; for as well may Adam’s transgression of the law or covenant be referred to here, as his palliating his sin, after the commission of it, is referred to in Job 31:33. Besides, the terms by which the positive law given to Adam is expressed, manifestly imply a covenant; as that if he eat of the forbidden fruit, he should surely die; which implies, that if he abstained from it, he should surely live; which formally constitute a covenant; even a promise and a threatening. To which may be added, the distinction of two covenants of grace and works, called the law of faith, and the law of works; and a twofold righteousness and obedience yielded to the one, and to the other, the righteousness which is of faith, and the righteousness which is of the law (Gal. 4:24; Rom. 3:27; 10:5,6), for without the law of Adam, as a covenant, two covenants cannot be fairly made out; for though in Hebrews 8:7,13 we read of a first and second, an old and a new covenant; yet these respect one and the same covenant, under different dispensations; and though in the passage referred to, the covenant at Sinai may be intended as one, yet as a repetition, and a new edition of the covenant made with Adam.
> 
> This covenant is by divines called by various names; sometimes a covenant of "friendship", man being in friendship with God when it was made with him; of which there are many instances; as the placing him in the garden of Eden, putting all the creatures in subjection to him, and providing an help meet for him; appearing often to him, and talking friendly with him, and granting him communion with him; and it was an act of friendship to him to enter into covenant with him; and while Adam observed this he remained in friendship with God; and it was the breach of this covenant that separated chief friends. Sometimes they call it a covenant of "nature", it being made with Adam as a natural man, and a natural head of his posterity; and promised natural blessings to him and his; was coeval with his nature; and was made with all human nature, or with all mankind, in Adam. it is also called a covenant of "innocence"; because made with man in his innocent state; and who, as long as he kept this covenant, continued innocent; but when he brake it, he was no more so. And it is frequently called the "legal" covenant, the covenant of "works", as the Scripture calls it, "the law of works", as before observed; it promised life on the performance of good works; its language was, "Do this and live". And it sometimes has the name of the covenant of life from the promise of life in it; though not in such sense as the covenant with Levi, as a type of Christ, is called, the covenant of life; for it is life of a lower kind that was promised to Adam, than what was promised to Christ, for his people, as will be seen hereafter.
> 
> ...



http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_3/book3_07.htm


----------



## tewilder (Nov 20, 2006)

AV1611 said:


> What he attacks is the idea that the covenant was between equal parties. Hoeksema was at pains to point out that the very essence of covenant is a relation of friendship as Berkof points out in his _ST_. As HH states "However, that this living relation of friendship on the part of God with man is the real idea and essence of the covenant has not received proper recognition. Usually, the covenant was understood as a pact or agreement between God and men; or its essence was seen in the promise, "I will be your God." It was described as a way of salvation, as a means to an end, rather than as the very heart of all true religion, as the highest self-revelation of the triune God, as the ultimate realization of God's purpose of salvation. To demonstrate that the latter is nevertheless the true idea of God's covenant, as presented to us in Holy Scripture, is the chief purpose of this brief treatise." (_The Covenant: God's Tabernacle with Men_)



On this topic it is useful to check out the writings of Hoeksema's collaborator Henry Danhof.

http://www.prca.org/prtj/apr97.html
http://www.prca.org/prtj/nov97.html#IdeaCovenantGrace
http://www.prca.org/prtj/apr98.html#CovenantOfGrace

The redefinition of covenant comes out very similar to the Federal Vision's version, as expressed by Ralph Smith in his books (always recalling that the Federal Vision has _two_ covenant concepts used for different purposes).

Dropping the Covenant of Works will force a redefinition of the concept of covenant.


----------



## AV1611 (Nov 20, 2006)

tewilder said:


> On this topic it is useful to check out the writings of Hoeksema's collaborator Henry Danhof.
> 
> http://www.prca.org/prtj/apr97.html
> http://www.prca.org/prtj/nov97.html#IdeaCovenantGrace
> http://www.prca.org/prtj/apr98.html#CovenantOfGrace.



Thank you for these...some bed time reading  



tewilder said:


> The redefinition of covenant comes out very similar to the Federal Vision's version



How so? Berkof defends the covenant as a relation of friendship views and Gill points out that divines taught as much pre-1700s.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 20, 2006)

Hoeksema's views should stand on their on two exegetical and dogmatic feet.

There is some source material for the covenant of works here.

Hoeksema's idiosyncratic re-construction of covenant theology was one of several in the 20th century. Ironically, formally anyway, his covenant theology not a little like Barth's.

rsc



AV1611 said:


> Thank you for these...some bed time reading
> 
> 
> 
> How so? Berkof defends the covenant as a relation of friendship views and Gill points out that divines taught as much pre-1700s.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 20, 2006)

AV1611 said:


> What he attacks is the idea that the covenant was between equal parties. Hoeksema was at pains to point out that the very essence of covenant is a relation of friendship as Berkof points out in his _ST_. As HH states "However, that this living relation of friendship on the part of God with man is the real idea and essence of the covenant has not received proper recognition. Usually, the covenant was understood as a pact or agreement between God and men; or its essence was seen in the promise, "I will be your God." It was described as a way of salvation, as a means to an end, rather than as the very heart of all true religion, as the highest self-revelation of the triune God, as the ultimate realization of God's purpose of salvation. To demonstrate that the latter is nevertheless the true idea of God's covenant, as presented to us in Holy Scripture, is the chief purpose of this brief treatise." (_The Covenant: God's Tabernacle with Men_)
> 
> He goes on to say "Grave objections may be raised against this presentation of the idea of God's covenant. The most serious and fundamental of these is that man cannot really be a party, a contracting party, in relation to the living God. For God _is God_. He is the infinite, the eternal, the self-existent, the perfectly self-sufficient One. He is the Lord, the sovereign Creator, of Whom, and through Whom, and unto Whom are all things. There is none beside Him. And man is a mere creature that owes his whole existence, all that he is and has, his entire being, with body and soul, with mind and will and strength, with all his powers and talents and possessions, in every relationship and every moment of his life, to his Lord and Creator. God is always the overflowing Fount of all good, and man is always the dependent and needy creature, who must drink from that Fountain. God is the self-sufficient I AM, man is constantly and completely dependent on Him. How, then, shall that creature assume the position of a party in relation to his God? What obligation could he possibly assume beside that which is already incumbent upon him, without any special agreement: that he shall love the Lord his God with all his strength? Can the fulfillment of this solemn obligation ever become a condition for higher favors and richer blessings?"


The traditional view has never been that the the covenant is a contract between two equals. Unfortunately, Hodge does not articulate this clearly. But Westminster and other theologians than Hodge do make it clear, which Hoeksema ignores (why is that?). It has always been the Reformed position that God imposes the contract upon Adam. It is a voluntary condescension on God's part. He chose to make a covenant with Adam along with all the stipulations, rewards, and curses. 

And Hoeksema's argument about relationship is simply ignoring the historical Reformed tradition. The covenant secured the relationship. Without the pact, there is no relationship. Berkhof does a wonderful job articulating that. In the covenant of works, God set the terms for how man would fellowship with Him and be His freind. It is a false dilemma to put relationship vs. pact. It must be both. It is the same regarding means vs. end. In the traditional reformed view, the covenant secures both the means and the end. It's not either/or. 



> Could you explain?



Yes. The traditional articulation of the the cov. of works and the cov. of grace, sets forth two different ways for man to relate to God. The covenant of works with Adam garanteed life with God based upon the perfect obedience of Adam and his posterity. Since Adam failed, his sin is imputed his his posterity, and they are born in alienation from God and corrupt, incurring more wrath for themselves by their personal sin. That relationship can only be restored for God's people based upon the work of Christ as federal head. In the covenant of works, life is gained by man's work. In the covenant of grace, life is gained by Christ's work on their behalf. Hence, the traditional articulation of law vs. grace. 

The problem with monocovenantalism, is that by combining the two covenants, your covenant of grace becomes a covenant of works (therefore legalism). Or your covenant of works becomes a covenant of grace (therefore antinomian). Hoeksema's overemphasis on election and sovereignty kept him from the legalistic implications of his covenant scheme. But there is nothing gaurding the antinomian elements. Plus, you confuse the role of Adam's federal headship if you make the covenant of works simple a dispensation of the covenant of grace. How can sin be imputed to Adam's posterity as an act of grace? Thankfully, Hoeksema didn't follow through with this, but the logical tendency is still there.


----------



## tewilder (Nov 20, 2006)

AV1611 said:


> Thank you for these...some bed time reading
> 
> 
> 
> How so? Berkof defends the covenant as a relation of friendship views and Gill points out that divines taught as much pre-1700s.



See the section: 
"The Dutch Reformed Connection" in

http://www.contra-mundum.org/vision/vision.html


----------



## AV1611 (Nov 20, 2006)

Puritan Sailor said:


> The traditional view has never been that the the covenant is a contract between two equals. Unfortunately, Hodge does not articulate this clearly. But Westminster and other theologians than Hodge do make it clear, which Hoeksema ignores (why is that?). It has always been the Reformed position that God imposes the contract upon Adam. It is a voluntary condescension on God's part. He chose to make a covenant with Adam along with all the stipulations, rewards, and curses.
> 
> And Hoeksema's argument about relationship is simply ignoring the historical Reformed tradition. The covenant secured the relationship. Without the pact, there is no relationship. Berkhof does a wonderful job articulating that. In the covenant of works, God set the terms for how man would fellowship with Him and be His freind. It is a false dilemma to put relationship vs. pact. It must be both. It is the same regarding means vs. end. In the traditional reformed view, the covenant secures both the means and the end. It's not either/or



But Hoeksema did not deny stipulations, rewards, and curses but wanted to emphasise the relation aspect. So the essence of the covenant are not the stipulations, rewards, and curses but rather the most intimate fellowship with the triune God.



Puritan Sailor said:


> Yes. The traditional articulation of the the cov. of works and the cov. of grace, sets forth two different ways for man to relate to God. The covenant of works with Adam garanteed life with God based upon the perfect obedience of Adam and his posterity. Since Adam failed, his sin is imputed his his posterity, and they are born in alienation from God and corrupt, incurring more wrath for themselves by their personal sin. That relationship can only be restored for God's people based upon the work of Christ as federal head. In the covenant of works, life is gained by man's work. In the covenant of grace, life is gained by Christ's work on their behalf. Hence, the traditional articulation of law vs. grace.
> 
> The problem with monocovenantalism, is that by combining the two covenants, your covenant of grace becomes a covenant of works (therefore legalism). Or your covenant of works becomes a covenant of grace (therefore antinomian). Hoeksema's overemphasis on election and sovereignty kept him from the legalistic implications of his covenant scheme. But there is nothing gaurding the antinomian elements. Plus, you confuse the role of Adam's federal headship if you make the covenant of works simple a dispensation of the covenant of grace. How can sin be imputed to Adam's posterity as an act of grace? Thankfully, Hoeksema didn't follow through with this, but the logical tendency is still there. .



So you would deny that the covenant of Grace is from everlasting to everlasting? How does that sit with WLC Q31 "The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed."?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 20, 2006)

AV1611 said:


> But Hoeksema did not deny stipulations, rewards, and curses but wanted to emphasise the relation aspect. So the essence of the covenant are not the stipulations, rewards, and curses but rather the most intimate fellowship with the triune God.



He denied the covenant with Adam was a different covenant than the covenant of grace. He argued the covenant with Adam was a dispensation of the one covenant of grace. Hence, he confuses what the stipulations, rewards, curses, and even the relational aspect really are in the one covenant. 

How is the relation of God with man in Adam different than the relation of God to man in Christ? If Adam stands as a federal head for men (which I gather you would agree with) and yet the covenant with him is part of the one covenant of grace (made in Christ), then that totally confuses the terms of the whole relationship, especially regarding reprobation and election. 

You would have to conclude universalism logically, for even those fallen in Adam would still be in Christ in the one covenant of grace. Remember, Adam's covenant was part of the covenant of grace right? There are no other covenants in progress, only the one covenant of grace. If there is only one covenant in operation, and all men fall in Adam and inherit eternal wrath and death, then they have fallen under the curses of the covenant of grace, since there is only one covenant right? All men deserve eternal wrath for their sin as well as Adams and lie under the curse of the covenant. 

Oh but wait! Then there is Christ, who takes upon himself the curse of the covenant. YES! Praise God, amazing grace how sweet the sound! All in Christ shall live because Christ has done His work. All those in the covenant of grace will be saved. 

Oh, but wait, we have a dilemma now. For God made a covenant of grace with Christ to save the elect. But we have these reprobates now who are under the curse of the one covenant of grace. Remember, the covenant with Adam, was part of the one covenant of grace right? So how can these reprobates experience the wrath of the one covenant of grace? Don't they have to be in covenant with God in order for them to experience the curse of the covenant? And if they are in the covenant of grace, then they have a Mediator in Christ right? For Christ is the only mediator of the covenant of grace. The elect of course have no problem since Christ paid all for them. But, for God to punish these reprobates under the one covenant of grace, He has to ignore the work of Christ as the mediator of this one covenant and spurn the sacrifice of His Son. And if he will do that, then the mediation of Christ is no garantee of covenant blessing and fellowship for the elect, and so faith in Christ alone is no garantee of salvation for even the elect. 

So we are left with some options. We can concede Barth was right and we become universalists because all are elect and reprobate in Christ (also the antinomian solution to monocovenantalism). Or we can add some works so that the elect can add to the unsure mediation of Christ and distinguish themselves from the reprobate (the Fed Vision option). How many works? Who knows!? Or we can say all are reprobate and the whole work of Christ was just a great big divine joke on all sinners in covenant with Him, just to pacifiy them for the true wrath to come upon all. 

Which mode of monocovenantalism would you prefer? 

I'm not trying to be facetious here, but hopefully you can see this isn't just about word games and semantics. The gospel is at stake here when you discard the covenant of works.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 20, 2006)

There's no need to choose between an identity of the _pactum salutis_ with the covenant of grace (AA Hodge) or a distinct covenant of grace and _pactum salutis_ (C Hodge).

From the perspective of the office of the Mediator, the covenant of redemption was entirely legal, a covenant of works. The Mediator was obligated to fulfill the terms of the covenants of redemption and works in order to merit justification and salvation for the elect.

From the pov of the elect, however, the same _pactum salutis_ can be said to be entirely gracious since the covenant of redemption secures for them the benefits of the Mediator's obedience to and fulfillment of the covenants of redemption and works. In short: It's works for the Son and grace for us.

rsc 



AV1611 said:


> So you would deny that the covenant of Grace is from everlasting to everlasting? How does that sit with WLC Q31 "The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed."?


----------

