# Too much covenant?



## arapahoepark (Aug 12, 2013)

What do you think of all these notions to rethink covenant theology from John Stek to now this: Let ?


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 12, 2013)

Interesting article.

May our meditations on covenant theology always lead us to Christ.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## jogri17 (Aug 12, 2013)

I am of the opinion that while the language of Covenant is probably the best way to understand God's redemptive plan, it certainly isn't the only way of talking about it. I get very annoyed by the way many reformed people feel the need to throw the word "covenant" around to make something sound more Calvinistic (see covenant apolegetics, covenant baptism, covenant christology, covenant worship, covenant sacramentalism, etc.). All the forementioned examples are things I have seen and heard- some more prominant than others. There comes a point where it gets annoying.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Aug 12, 2013)

jogri17 said:


> I am of the opinion that while the language of Covenant is probably the best way to understand God's redemptive plan, it certainly isn't the only way of talking about it. I get very annoyed by the way many reformed people feel the need to throw the word "covenant" around to make something sound more Calvinistic (see covenant apolegetics, covenant baptism, covenant christology, covenant worship, covenant sacramentalism, etc.). All the forementioned examples are things I have seen and heard- some more prominant than others. There comes a point where it gets annoying.


 Covenant itself is not a magic term, the notion beneath the idea of covenant is that our God is a God who keeps his word and publicly reveals himself. Covenant is the medium by which he chooses to do it.


----------



## MW (Aug 12, 2013)

I read the Stek piece when it came out and have seen the same concerns expressed from time to time to the present. I do not believe there is an overload or over-emphasis on covenant so far as "theology" is concerned. Some schools have used it to explore metaphysical concepts, especially the Dutch neo-Calvinist school, and this has led to some distortion. There is clearly a problem with definition and explanation in the present day because of a lack of coherence among people calling themselves "reformed." There are different schools of thought, and now we have intermixing of schools, which adds to the confusion. But covenant theology is a part of the essential fabric of reformed theology. First, there are two Testaments in the Bible, and they have to be understood in terms of continuity and discontinuity. It was equally true of Calvin as it was for the Calvinist tradition that covenant theology gave expression to the substantial unity of the two Testaments and provided the means for identifying discontinuous elements. Secondly, the reformed tradition saw covenant theology as a systematising factor in the understanding of the Bible's soteriological teaching. As Geerhardus Vos has shown, the New Testament had already commenced the systematising process, and this was significantly advanced by the appropriation of Old Testament themes to explain the person and work of Christ in terms of "new creation," the two Adams, exodus, pilgrimage, temple, kingship, restoration, etc. It is the covenant concept which ties these themes together. Thirdly, the federal theology is regulative of our ministerial and sacramental practice. One might say that the early church did without a clear understanding of federal theology, but one only needs to look at the subsequent corruption of church, sacraments, and ministry to see that this was not good. There are other important connections which might be mentioned, e.g., the simultaneous rise of constitutionalism in the West, but these suffice to show that covenant theology has received a right emphasis and place in the reformed theological system.


----------



## Philip (Aug 12, 2013)

I think it's certainly a good reminder to let Scripture guide our systematics rather than the system driving our reading of scripture. The reformed tradition has been traditionally good about this, but our covenant theology (particularly post-17th century) may be a blind spot, at least insofar as we extrapolate and extrapolate _ad absurdum_.

Covenant theology is not the driving assumption of reformed theology---_solus Christus_ is.


----------



## MW (Aug 12, 2013)

Philip said:


> Covenant theology is not the driving assumption of reformed theology---_solus Christus_ is.



I don't think that dichotomy should be made. First, and obviously, the larger part of the Bible is the Old Testament, and Christ is clearly seen in the Old Testament through the lens of covenant theology. Secondly, the Book of Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke, is fundamental to our overall understanding of Christ in relation to the Old Testament and of the superiority of the age and administration which He has inaugurated. Thirdly, the "solus" in "solus Christus" is dependent on a specific understanding of soteriology which derives from covenant theology. There is one Mediator between God and man and He is the Mediator of the covenant.


----------



## CharlieJ (Aug 12, 2013)

Also, I'm not sure that there was ever a homogenous, unanimous concept of covenant theology that certain contemporary theologians are just now "rethinking." Witsius, Cocceius, Owen, Thomas Boston, Jonathan Edwards, G. Vos, M. Kline, John Murray -- they all have some different views, but they are all Reformed. There was even a significant contingent of Reformed theologians who were indifferent to or opposed to covenant theology, such as the anti-Cocceians.


----------



## Philip (Aug 13, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> I don't think that dichotomy should be made. First, and obviously, the larger part of the Bible is the Old Testament, and Christ is clearly seen in the Old Testament through the lens of covenant theology. Secondly, the Book of Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke, is fundamental to our overall understanding of Christ in relation to the Old Testament and of the superiority of the age and administration which He has inaugurated. Thirdly, the "solus" in "solus Christus" is dependent on a specific understanding of soteriology which derives from covenant theology. There is one Mediator between God and man and He is the Mediator of the covenant.



Rev. Winzer, I don't dispute any of this. I merely maintain that covenant theology is a means to the end of a better understanding of the supremacy of Christ. As reformed, we didn't start doing covenant theology and come to realize that Christ alone was savior and mediator. Instead we realized that Christ alone was savior and mediator and started to look for him in the Old Testament, and developed a covenant theology to organize the covenant principle that we found. I don't mean to suggest that covenant theology does not significantly contribute to our understanding of the supremacy of Christ---of course it does! That's the whole point! My point is simply that _Solus Christus_ is the reformation principle that precedes covenant theology (and really all of reformed theology) and that if there are places in our covenant theology that are not helpful in bringing forth the supremacy of Christ, we should reject them.

Our soteriology (the five solas) were, I believe, developed before our covenant theology.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 13, 2013)

Here is a good response from R. Scott Clark.

Should Reformed Theology Move Beyond Covenant Theology? | The Heidelblog


----------



## arapahoepark (Aug 13, 2013)

Philip said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think that dichotomy should be made. First, and obviously, the larger part of the Bible is the Old Testament, and Christ is clearly seen in the Old Testament through the lens of covenant theology. Secondly, the Book of Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke, is fundamental to our overall understanding of Christ in relation to the Old Testament and of the superiority of the age and administration which He has inaugurated. Thirdly, the "solus" in "solus Christus" is dependent on a specific understanding of soteriology which derives from covenant theology. There is one Mediator between God and man and He is the Mediator of the covenant.
> ...


Ah read you wrong like Rev. Winzer as if you wanted to discard it. My mistake.
The post by Dr. Clark looks excellent.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 13, 2013)

We live in a very restless age, illustrated by the fact that it is presumed that many things should be "revamped" and "refreshed" and "recast" every few years. That principle may be an acceptable fashion for your living room, kitchen or church magazine, but is not for theology, which evolves by degrees, building on already clearly established and confessionally- embodied truths, as the Holy Spirit works in His Church to progressively illumine the Word.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## mvdm (Aug 13, 2013)

Dr. Evans explains further in light of Dr. Clark's piece:

Substituting Water for Wine: Scott Clark’s Extrinsic Covenantalism | TheEcclesialCalvinist


----------



## Philip (Aug 13, 2013)

Why is it that I find the actual positions of Clark and Evans (such as I understand them) to not actually be in conflict, and the only real difference to be vocabulary?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 13, 2013)

Another response from Dr. Clark...

Is Covenant Theology “Narrow”? | The Heidelblog


----------



## MW (Aug 13, 2013)

Philip said:


> Why is it that I find the actual positions of Clark and Evans (such as I understand them) to not actually be in conflict, and the only real difference to be vocabulary?



That is the danger of rising above the human condition in order to take a transcendental view of the various perspectives. Sooner or later the floater will have to come back down to earth to be subject to the usual human limitations and deal with perspectives and languages as they are historically and culturally conditioned.


----------



## Philip (Aug 13, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> That is the danger of rising above the human condition in order to take a transcendental view of the various perspectives



Not sure how I've done this, exactly. I do, admittedly, attempt to incorporate a couple of perspectives into my theology, but I am merely doing as I have been taught, attempting not (for example) to confuse covenant with election, as some (such as the federal visionists) have been wont to do. The various vocabularies of mystical union with Christ, covenant, and the _ordo salutis_ complement one another and it is, I think, a mistake to say that one is to be given a place of privilege above the others. The thing that is to be given privilege (and must always be given privilege) is the pre-eminence of Christ.


----------



## MW (Aug 13, 2013)

Philip said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > That is the danger of rising above the human condition in order to take a transcendental view of the various perspectives
> ...



I was referring to the particular discussion you had mentioned. If we ascend high enough we can see value in both perspectives and reconcile the ideas and language put forward; but we will have to come back to earth and live as human beings, which requires the acceptance of limitation and the choice of one limitation over another.

Reformed theology, like all theology, is historically conditioned. It cannot be two things at once. There is no such thing as a changeless change.


----------



## Philip (Aug 13, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> but we will have to come back to earth and live as human beings, which requires the acceptance of limitation and the choice of one limitation over another.



Fair enough. Not sure what this has to do with the conversation, though. The fact is that the reformed tradition does contain both emphases that Clark and Evans are disputing. One may prefer one to the other in certain contexts, but that does not make them mutually exclusive, necessarily, any more than _Christus Victor_ and penal substitution are mutually exclusive.



armourbearer said:


> Reformed theology, like all theology, is historically conditioned. It cannot be two things at once.



It can be two things at once so long as those two things are not logically contradictory.


----------



## MW (Aug 13, 2013)

Philip said:


> Fair enough. Not sure what this has to do with the conversation, though. The fact is that the reformed tradition does contain both emphases that Clark and Evans are disputing. One may prefer one to the other in certain contexts, but that does not make them mutually exclusive, necessarily, any more than _Christus Victor_ and penal substitution are mutually exclusive.



Christus Victor is a competing theory for the nature of atonement. If it is subordinated to substitutionary atonement some use can be made of it; but as it is regularly argued as a better alternative it must be rejected because it fails to provide for numerous elements of biblical teaching. Likewise, here, there are two competing theories for a structural system of reformed soteriology -- covenant and union with Christ. One cannot accept both. In the Confession and Catechisms union with Christ is related to redemption applied and subordinated to the broader structural theme of the covenant of grace. The covenant of grace systematises redemption purposed, accomplished, and applied. The competing system of union with Christ will create a fundamental change in these doctrines. Reformed theology cannot be two different things at once.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 14, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> ...Likewise, here, there are two competing theories for a structural system of reformed soteriology -- covenant and union with Christ. One cannot accept both. In the Confession and Catechisms union with Christ is related to redemption applied and subordinated to the broader structural theme of the covenant of grace. The covenant of grace systematises redemption purposed, accomplished, and applied. The competing system of union with Christ will create a fundamental change in these doctrines. Reformed theology cannot be two different things at once.




Rev. Winzer,


This confuses me a bit. Are you referring to two systems as starting points and what is applied and subordinated to? 


In more pointed terms, some start with Union with Christ instead of the Covenant and Grace and others start with the Covenant of Grace and see Union with Christ as subordinated to the CofG?


----------



## Philip (Aug 14, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> Christus Victor is a competing theory for the nature of atonement. If it is subordinated to substitutionary atonement some use can be made of it; but as it is regularly argued as a better alternative it must be rejected because it fails to provide for numerous elements of biblical teaching.



And penal substitution, taken on its own, without _Christus Victor_, fails to provide for numerous elements of biblical teaching. The mistake, on all sides, is in thinking that the two are mutually exclusive when Scripture teaches both.



armourbearer said:


> Likewise, here, there are two competing theories for a structural system of reformed soteriology -- covenant and union with Christ.



Why must they be in competition---I see good Biblical arguments for both. Covenant theology is an excellent way to do Biblical theology, but for systematics, I might prefer starting with union with Christ---yet even in this system, I would end up talking about the _Pactum Salutis_, _Historia Saluttis_, and the _Ordo Salutis_ (purposed, accomplished, applied). One can look at the same thing from different angles and both be true.



armourbearer said:


> The competing system of union with Christ will create a fundamental change in these doctrines.



How so? What fundamental changes do you see coming from this?


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Aug 14, 2013)

I don't read Matthew as denying that the right insights of a Christus Victor approach are invalid; only that they ought to be understood in the context of penal substitutionary atonement. I agree. Similarly, Warfield is right, I believe, that covenant is architectonic for Reformed theology: union with Christ is to be understood, and fully mined, within that framework, but this is the framework. 

Does the evocation of "covenantal" solve everything? Of course not. Can its mere evocation be employed as if it has solved questions that it hasn't and as if its very mention permits us to dodge necessary theological work? No. Has the label "covenant" been slapped on things and all is supposed to be better? Yes. None of that is right. But, having said all that, "covenant" is the framework in which we do Reformed theology, certainly confessional theology. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 14, 2013)

That cleared it up for me Dr. Strange. Thanks.


----------



## Philip (Aug 14, 2013)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Similarly, Warfield is right, I believe, that covenant is architectonic for Reformed theology: union with Christ is to be understood, and fully mined, within that framework, but this is the framework.



See, when I studied Covenant theology at RTS last January, it was made very clear that covenant theology is primarily concerned with the _historia salutis_ and as background for the _ordo salutis_, such that if one did not have the second right, the first would be confusing (certainly this seems to be the case historically, given that the first seems to become clearer before the second).

I guess I should lay forth the concern I have here: when I interact with Anglicans, Anglo-Catholics, and others of that ilk, the charge made against reformed theology usually boils down to nominalism, and once we get to that point, Calvin's understanding of union with Christ is usually what I turn to. The problem I see with looking at it through a purely covenantal lens is that this seems to reduce it to a contractual union, whereas if I look at covenant theology through a lens of union with Christ, I tend to make covenant more than just a legal framework. I tend to agree that covenant is a framework that helps us in understanding a lot of issues, but I also think that there is a danger of reducing everything to a legal contract.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 14, 2013)

Phillip,

I am niave about dealing with Anglicans. But I have always come from a place of understanding things starting with Covenant in relationship to God and Adam. Union with Christ makes no sense outside of that context. Am I missing something?


----------



## Philip (Aug 14, 2013)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> But I have always come from a place of understanding things starting with Covenant in relationship to God and Adam. Union with Christ makes no sense outside of that context. Am I missing something?



In terms of justification, that is correct. But Calvin also links it to sanctification, a theme which gets taken up by Dabney, who claims that the Holy Spirit is the principle of union with Christ, stopping just short of the language of theosis. Calvin's theology of the Lord's Supper (the real presence) presupposes that union with Christ is more than just federal headship (certainly not less, but more).


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 14, 2013)

The Covenant of Grace, like the covenant of marriage has both relational and legal aspects. All bases are covered. An able preacher will open up the different facets of the covenant including the relational. You get similar criticism of marriage by people who don't understand its fulness. See e.g. Berkhof's "Systematic Theology" on the duality of the covenant.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 14, 2013)

*​*


Philip said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > But I have always come from a place of understanding things starting with Covenant in relationship to God and Adam. Union with Christ makes no sense outside of that context. Am I missing something?
> ...




In terms of what? Union with Christ or Covenant? I think I understand Calvin using the term two-fold grace proceeding from our Union with Christ. That is why he is so strong about dividing Christ into parts in 1 Cor. 1:13,30. All things are found in Christ and aren't divided. 


1Co 1:30    And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption,


But does Calvin remove this from a Covenantal understanding? 






Philip said:


> See, when I studied Covenant theology at RTS last January, it was made very clear that covenant theology is primarily concerned with the historia salutis and as background for the ordo salutis, such that if one did not have the second right, the first would be confusing (certainly this seems to be the case historically, given that the first seems to become clearer before the second).




Based upon this I am confused then Phillip. How can anyone understand Union with Christ outside of the Prelapsarian Covenant? It seems you are saying there isn't a necessary understanding of Covenant before one understands Union with Christ. Maybe I am missing what you are saying.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 14, 2013)

Sorry, I think I am confused over two different paragraphs Phillip. It seems I am trying to understand your parallel in the paragraph about Union with Christ with the one I quote above. You are speaking about the Historia Salutis as a background in connection with the Ordo Salutis. I don't see how one can have either correct without the other as you seem to be saying. But what does that have to do with your concerns with Union with Christ. That might be a better place for me to understand. And please pardon me if I am rabbit trailing the discussion.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 14, 2013)

From this also, we infer, that we cannot be justified freely through faith alone without at the same time living holily. For these fruits of grace are connected together, as it were, by an indissoluble tie, so that he who attempts to sever them does in a manner tear Christ in pieces. Let therefore the man who seeks to be justified through Christ, by God’s unmerited goodness, consider that this cannot be attained without his taking him at the same time for sanctification or, in other words, being renewed to innocence and purity of life.
Calvin 1 Cor. 1:30

Why, then, are we justified by faith? Because by faith we grasp Christ’s righteousness, by which alone we are reconciled to God. Yet you could not grasp this without at the same time grasping sanctification also. For he ‘is given unto us for righteousness, wisdom, sanctification, and redemption’ (I Cor.1:30). Therefore Christ justifies no one whom he does not sanctify. These benefits are joined together by an everlasting and indissoluble bond, so that those whom he illumines by his wisdom, he redeems; those whom he redeems, he justifies; those whom he justifies, he sanctifies. . . . Although we may distinguish them, Christ contains both of them inseparably in himself. Do you wish, then, to attain righteousness in Christ? You must first possess Christ; but you cannot possess him without being made partaker in his sanctification, because he cannot be divided into pieces (I Cor.1:13). Since, therefore, it is solely by expending himself that the Lord gives us these benefits to enjoy. He bestows both of them at the same time, the one never without the other.
Inst. 3.16.1

Just for reference...


----------



## Philip (Aug 14, 2013)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I don't see how one can have either correct without the other as you seem to be saying. But what does that have to do with your concerns with Union with Christ.



My concern is this: union with Christ certainly has covenantal aspects with regard to justification. However, it also is in and of itself a benefit of regeneration and a means of sanctification and fellowship with the triune God, from the inside. Union with Christ should be understood as the Reformed reply to mysticism---through Christ we have better fellowship with God because we are united to God Himself in Christ. The Lord's Supper is understood here as a means by which the curtain is pulled back and the believer is allowed to glimpse the reality.

I'm not suggesting here that sanctification and justification aren't connected: they are inextricably linked, and are such because they are both fruits of union with Christ.

The other issue is that in terms of the historical development, a theology of the _ordo salutis_ (and thus of union with Christ) developed much more fully much earlier than did Covenant theology as such. Certainly the covenant started to become prominent in the 16th century, but it wouldn't be until the 17th that it would develop more fully into the hallmark of reformed thought that is has become.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 14, 2013)

Philip said:


> My concern is this: union with Christ certainly has covenantal aspects with regard to justification.



I agree with much of what you are saying Phillip. At the same time are you saying that Union with Christ doesn't have covenantal aspects with regard to sanctification? Examples.... Conditions, repentance, faith, practice?


----------



## Philip (Aug 14, 2013)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> At the same time are you saying that Union with Christ doesn't have covenantal aspects with regard to sanctification?



Sure. What I would contend, though, is that union with Christ is a ground of covenanting. What puts us in a position where God can covenant with us such that God can fulfill all of the terms of covenant? The fact that we are in union with Christ. God covenants with us, yet He fulfills both sides of the covenant: how? God takes upon Himself the Covenant curses even though the Covenant is with His people: why? Because He is united to His people and they to Him. Union with Christ is the ground of the covenant.


----------



## MW (Aug 14, 2013)

Philip said:


> And penal substitution, taken on its own, without _Christus Victor_, fails to provide for numerous elements of biblical teaching.



Which is why I said that it will have some use when it is placed in subordination to substitution. Substitution must be fundamental; only on the basis that divine justice is satisfied can any claim for victory be substantiated. But the fact remains that Christus Victor is regularly taught as a better alternative to substitution. Hence it must be put in its place, and not permitted to roam free. The same applies in this discussion. We have two competing claims for primacy. Reformed theology cannot be both at once.



Philip said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > The competing system of union with Christ will create a fundamental change in these doctrines.
> ...



A neo-orthodox type of subjectivity.


----------



## MW (Aug 14, 2013)

Philip said:


> What I would contend, though, is that union with Christ is a ground of covenanting. What puts us in a position where God can covenant with us such that God can fulfill all of the terms of covenant? The fact that we are in union with Christ.



This makes union with Christ the foundation of the covenant of grace rather than the covenant of grace the foundation of union with Christ. The reformed system is starting to be turned on its head. It is now just a matter of consistently working through this paradigm shift and "union" will redefine election, calling, justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification, as is done in the neo-orthodox system.


----------



## Philip (Aug 14, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> A neo-orthodox type of subjectivity.



I'm not sure why, given that Union with Christ is a fact, whether one is experiencing it or not. There is no covenant of grace without Christ. There is no inclusion in the covenant blessings apart from union with Christ. Are we going to deny this? As I see it, union with Christ is an objective fact.



armourbearer said:


> It is now just a matter of consistently working through this paradigm shift and "union" will redefine election, calling, justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification



Certainly one is elect in Christ, called to Christ, justified through the work of Christ, adopted in Christ, sanctified in Christ, and glorified with Christ. I wasn't aware that I was proposing anything new here.



armourbearer said:


> as is done in the neo-orthodox system.



Which neo-orthodox system?

With all due respect, I haven't denied the usefulness of covenant as an essential part of our theology---I merely think that to make it _the_ organizing principle runs the risk of nominalism. Certainly in Biblical theology it, by necessity, organizes our theology, but I'm not sure that it has to in systematics.


----------



## MW (Aug 14, 2013)

Philip said:


> As I see it, union with Christ is an objective fact.



It is the "application" of redemption. What is applied? Redemption. The objectivity of union comes from the fact that it is based on redemption. If it is based on redemption, and redemption itself is a part of the outworking of the covenant of grace, this application cannot be the foundation for the covenant of grace. In reality something else is made the objective foundation in this kind of system -- usually an incarnational model, as in neo-orthodoxy.



Philip said:


> Certainly one is elect in Christ, called to Christ, justified through the work of Christ, adopted in Christ, sanctified in Christ, and glorified with Christ. I wasn't aware that I was proposing anything new here.



On what basis is one elect in Christ? Is it because He took the place of man or because God gave the individual by covenant to Christ to be redeemed by Him? It appears that you are presupposing truths derived from the federal theology of reformed thought in order to protect yourself against the innovations which will follow from refocusing reformed thought away from federal theology.



Philip said:


> Which neo-orthodox system?
> 
> With all due respect, I haven't denied the usefulness of covenant as an essential part of our theology---I merely think that to make it _the_ organizing principle runs the risk of nominalism. Certainly in Biblical theology it, by necessity, organizes our theology, but I'm not sure that it has to in systematics.



It might be worth your while to look into the criticisms of the Torrances in this area.

You don't avoid the charge of nominalism because you have traced everything back to election in Christ and the Reformed doctrine is that election is according to the good pleasure of God's will.


----------



## Philip (Aug 14, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> It is the "application" of redemption. What is applied? Redemption. The objectivity of union comes from the fact that it is based on redemption. If it is based on redemption, and redemption itself is a part of the outworking of the covenant of grace, this application cannot be the foundation for the covenant of grace. In reality something else is made the objective foundation in this kind of system -- usually an incarnational model, as in neo-orthodoxy.



First of all, the ultimate basis here would be the _pactum salutis_. Second, redemption is applied because of union with Christ. In regeneration one dies and is raised with Christ.

The attempt to associate this with neo-orthodox thought is misplaced, given that I affirm federal headship and they do not.



armourbearer said:


> On what basis is one elect in Christ? Is it because He took the place of man or because God gave the individual by covenant to Christ to be redeemed by Him?



Yes.



armourbearer said:


> It appears that you are presupposing truths derived from the federal theology of reformed thought in order to protect yourself against the innovations which will follow from refocusing reformed thought away from federal theology.



Sure I'm drawing on federal theology. My concern, though, is that we focus on the legal and end up leaning nominalistic rationalism. Maybe it's the fact that several in my circles are still recovering from Clarkianism, but I'm leery of any sort of rationalism and excessive reliance on a covenant framework strikes me as such, just as an excessive reliance on union with Christ would make me concerned about a latent Platonistic mysticism. I do not intend to say that these frameworks are in competition, but can be complimentary.



armourbearer said:


> It might be worth your while to to look into the criticisms of the Torrances in this area.



I'm looking for opportunity to study the Torrances and their critics (as I did with Barth, all too briefly, two years ago) but probably will not be able to do so for a while. But thanks for the suggestion.

I should mention that my familiarity with Covenant theology is mostly through Vos's excellent work on the subject, while my understanding of Union with Christ is mostly John Owen (mediated through a mentor who is very familiar with his thought).


----------



## MW (Aug 14, 2013)

Philip said:


> The attempt to associate this with neo-orthodox thought is misplaced, given that I affirm federal headship and they do not.



Then you, along with John Owen, are guilty of covenant overload, from the perspective of the other side of this discussion. Subsequently, you are bound to keep facing the same problems, according to their view. Which is as much as to say, you are now committed to the negative side of the debate, and are not able any longer to maintain a post-modern transcendence over the issue.

On union with Christ and the application of redemption, see Larger Catechism 57-58; 66-67. Actual union with Christ is a benefit procured by Christ's meditation and is a part of the application of His benefits to us. Certainly the other benefits flow out of that union, but that does not diminish the fact that union with Christ is itself an application of redemption. Any union prior to this is denominated "virtual," not "actual," and that because it is part of the federal transaction from eternity.


----------



## MW (Aug 14, 2013)

The Reformed need to accept the charge of nominalism but refuse its criminality. God is real. What God does is real. The decree is real. God making all things ex nihilo is real. The dependence of all things upon God is real. There is a whole realm of "nominals" which cannot be proved on the basis of "sight," but it does not make them any less real.


----------



## Philip (Aug 14, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> The Reformed need to accept the charge of nominalism but refuse its criminality. God is real. What God does is real. The decree is real. God making all things ex nihilo is real. The dependence of all things upon God is real. There is a whole realm of "nominals" which cannot be proved on the basis of "sight," but it does not make them any less real.



Ok, but none of that makes you a nominalist. Nominalism would treat the covenant and union with Christ as legal fictions that don't effect a metaphysical change. Sounds like you reject this position.



armourbearer said:


> Which is as much as to say, you are now committed to the negative side of the debate, and are not able any longer to maintain a post-modern transcendence over the issue.



I haven't been aiming for that anyway, given that transcending one's perspective is a contradiction in terms.



armourbearer said:


> Certainly the other benefits flow out of that union, but that does not diminish the fact that union with Christ is itself an application of redemption.



But redemption is applied (in the _ordo salutis_) in the context of union with Christ. Union with Christ undergirds the application of covenant benefits in the _ordo salutis_---or can one be truly in the covenant without being in union with Christ?

This is where we are getting confused: when we start mixing up the _historia salutis_ (redemption accomplished) with the _ordo salutis_ (redemption applied). Certainly without the covenant promise there would be no benefits to apply, but apart from union with Christ, there is no way to apply them. Union with Christ is the mechanism of application.

Hopefully I've made a couple things clearer there.


----------



## MW (Aug 14, 2013)

Philip said:


> Ok, but none of that makes you a nominalist. Nominalism would treat the covenant and union with Christ as legal fictions that don't effect a metaphysical change. Sounds like you reject this position.



Any solid work on justification from a reformed perspective shows that the "fiction" in "legal fiction" is entirely in the mind of the accuser. God "calleth those things which be not as though they were." That is a fact of revelation. If people call that a fiction, Let God be true and every man a liar.



Philip said:


> I haven't been aiming for that anyway, given that transcending one's perspective is a contradiction in terms.



We started down this track when you suggested this discussion is about a difference in vocabulary. That requires a transcendent view of the issue. If now federal headship is seen as non-negotiable I think we have descended back to the real world of commitment to our limitations.



Philip said:


> But redemption is applied (in the _ordo salutis_) in the context of union with Christ. Union with Christ undergirds the application of covenant benefits in the _ordo salutis_---or can one be truly in the covenant without being in union with Christ?



Virtually, no; actually, yes. One either accepts or rejects actual union with Christ is a part of the application of redemption. If it is a part of the application of redemption then application per se cannot be founded on it.



Philip said:


> Union with Christ is the mechanism of application.



That is correct. But this is altogether different to your earlier contention that union with Christ "puts us in a position where God can covenant with us such that God can fulfill all of the terms of covenant." If "mechanism" is now your considered opinion on the subject I think we have made genuine progress towards an uncompromising stand in favour of reformed federalism.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Aug 14, 2013)

Quite a lot has happened in this discussion since I was here earlier and instead of saying what I was going to say (the conversation has move beyond that), let me just say this, Philip. It has been my experience generally that an older-style Roman Catholic (and Anglo-Catholic) will call all Protestants of any stripe nominalists. 

Certainly Joseph Lortz and older types sought to tar Luther as a nominalist. Louis Boyer still does that and is widely popular with the CTC crowd. Heiko Oberman and other competent historians have shown that the smear was overdone and that nominalism was not so bad, certainly not as bad as all the Thomists played it. I think that the whole nominalist/realist debate misses the point. 

All this is to say that older RC smear tactics (calling Protestants nominalists) should be determinative of nothing by way of theological response on our behalf. That Federal theology is excessively legal and not relational is a canard. Certainly the Westminster Standards, particularly the Larger Catechism, sees union as quite important. Here's my question: are you taking issue with anything that the Standards (including the TFU) say about union? Do the Standards not give it its proper place? And as for Calvin's doctrine of the Supper, Belgic Confession 35 rather nicely sets that forth. 

If the problem here is that some people slap "covenantal" on various things as an adjective and hope to avoid close scrutiny by such, I agree that such should not merit a pass and avoid careful examination. If, on the other hand, what is being suggested here is some sort of fundamental criticism of the federal theology of Westminster, count me out. I regard, and will go to my grave regarding, the Westminster Standards as an expression of my faith _ex animo_. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Philip (Aug 14, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> Virtually, no; actually, yes. One either accepts or rejects actual union with Christ is a part of the application of redemption. If it is a part of the application of redemption then application per se cannot be founded on it.



Are we speaking of the _ordo salutis_? If so, then Union with Christ is the precondition that makes the application of redemption possible.



armourbearer said:


> But this is altogether different to your earlier contention that union with Christ "puts us in a position where God can covenant with us such that God can fulfill all of the terms of covenant." If "mechanism" is now your considered opinion on the subject I think we have made genuine progress towards an uncompromising stand in favour of reformed federalism.



Union with Christ is certainly the mechanism of federal headship---it is no less than this. But it is also more. It is the ground of the covenant.



Alan D. Strange said:


> That Federal theology is excessively legal and not relational is a canard.



Certainly it is. Where have I said "relational" in all of this? Legality is a relation, so we agree on this point. My question is whether relationship is all it is---is there mutual indwelling? Am I in Christ by the Spirit and is Christ in me by the Spirit?



Alan D. Strange said:


> Here's my question: are you taking issue with anything that the Standards (including the TFU) say about union? Do the Standards not give it its proper place?



No. I am simply suggesting that confessionally-informed systematics might consider emphasizing other aspects _in addition to_ rather than in place of covenant theology. Somehow, in my reading of the WCF, I find that while covenant certainly plays a prominent role, I fail to find sufficient evidence to say that it plays a pre-eminent role.


----------



## MW (Aug 14, 2013)

Philip said:


> Are we speaking of the _ordo salutis_? If so, then Union with Christ is the precondition that makes the application of redemption possible.



Yes, this is the ordo salutis. Your second statement I will answer in the next section because there you explain what you mean by "precondition."



Philip said:


> Union with Christ is certainly the mechanism of federal headship---it is no less than this. But it is also more. It is the ground of the covenant.



You can't possibly know the ramifications of what you are saying. If you believe this you are undone. You have made the application of redemption dependent on the work of the Spirit IN us. What preacher ever said, Be united to Christ and you shall be saved! This is preposterous. The application of redemption (the work of the Spirit IN us) must be grounded in redemption itself (the work of Christ FOR us), and both must be grounded on God's purpose of redemption before the foundation of the world. You are confusing the work of Christ FOR us and the work of the Spirit IN us. Justification is one of the benefits of redemption; it cannot possibly be grounded on anything done IN us. Please go away and think about it before you say something you cannot possibly give a good account of in the day of judgment.


----------



## Philip (Aug 15, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> You have made the application of redemption dependent on the work of the Spirit IN us.



Here's the problem. I think we both agree that redemption accomplished is necessary for the benefits of it to be applied to anyone. However, what is it that allows the benefit to be applied _at all_? If there is no union with Christ (by faith, a work of the Spirit), there is no application of redemption to individual people. Certainly justification and the other benefits are applied because they are (intrinsically) bound up in the finished work of Jesus in his life death and resurrection, But the context in which they are applied to the individual is union with Christ by grace through faith.

I think where we're getting tangled up here is that I'm looking at how redemption gets applied and at the necessary conditions for its application, What you seem to be looking at is redemption itself in the _historia salutis_ and the basis for both in the _pactum salutis_. "Grounding" is probably a poor choice of words on my part.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 15, 2013)

> (Philip stated) Union with Christ is certainly the mechanism of federal headship---it is no less than this. But it is also more. It is the ground of the covenant.




Now I am no Scholar by any means, but it seems there are foundational things that should be considered mechanism before Union with Christ. 1. The basis of Covenant and the Father giving to the Son. 2. The Son being manifest in the Flesh (from the foundation of the world) to accomplish the work based upon the Everlasting Covenant. 


How can Union with Christ (which is about us) preceed the mechanism of what the Father and Son did prior to our Union with Christ? I am sorry if I am muddying up the waters and getting you guys off track but us simple minded folk are reading also. In Adam we die. In Christ we shall be made alive. 

It seems that the Ordo is just as important even considering the Historical.

Rom 8:29    For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.



Philip said:


> No. I am simply suggesting that confessionally-informed systematics might consider emphasizing other aspects in addition to rather than in place of covenant theology. Somehow, in my reading of the WCF, I find that while covenant certainly plays a prominent role, I fail to find sufficient evidence to say that it plays a pre-eminent role.




Doesn't this suggest Covenant plays a pre-eminent role?


CHAPTER VII

Of God's Covenant with Man.

I. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him, as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.


It seems that God's condescending which he expressed by way of Covenant is pre-eminent as I read this.


----------



## Philip (Aug 15, 2013)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> How can Union with Christ (which is about us) preceed the mechanism of what the Father and Son did prior to our Union with Christ?



Grounding was too strong a word, looking back. What it is, though, is the vital link---the means without which covenant cannot be applied. At the center of the covenant, fulfilling both sides, is Christ Himself, and only in union with Christ are we in the covenant at all. That's what I'm getting at.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> It seems that God's condescending which he expressed by way of Covenant is pre-eminent as I read this.



God's condescension is certainly pre-eminent and it is indeed communicated to us by way of covenant, but that covenant is received through union with Christ by grace through faith.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 15, 2013)

Philip,


I may be mistaken but you seem to be bouncing all over the place. What precedes, what is pre-eminent, on what basis, what is done, these topics seem to be all bounced around in your thinking. I have the same problems myself as I work through issues. I would encourage you to go back through this thread and reread Rev. Winzer's comments and warnings and think about them. Especially posts 36 and 46. I am going to do the same thing as I try to understand you and this discussion better. In fact I want to know more about Covenant Overload which Rev. Winzer mentioned above.


----------



## Iconoclast (Aug 15, 2013)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> > (Philip stated) Union with Christ is certainly the mechanism of federal headship---it is no less than this. But it is also more. It is the ground of the covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...






> I am sorry if I am muddying up the waters and getting you guys off track but us simple minded folk are reading also.



Yes Randy...I resemble this remark,lol
While we all rejoice in the truth of Union with Christ...of necessity it is pre-supposed in the CoR.

3._____ The Lord Jesus, in his human nature thus united to the divine, in the person of the Son, was sanctified and anointed with the Holy Spirit above measure, having in Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; in whom it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell, to the end that being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth,* he might be throughly furnished to execute the office of mediator and surety; which office he took not upon himself, but was thereunto called by his Father; who also put all power and judgment in his hand, and gave him commandment to execute the same.*
( Psalms 45:7; Acts 10:38; John 3:34; Colossians 2:3; Colossians 1:19; Hebrews 7:26; John 1:14; Hebrews 7:22; Hebrews 5:5; John 5:22, 27; Matthew 28:18; Acts 2:36 ) 

Creation and the fall could not have taken place apart from the CoR being in effect with all of it's elements fixed.


----------



## MW (Aug 15, 2013)

Philip said:


> But the context in which they are applied to the individual is union with Christ by grace through faith.



As noted, the term "mechanism" was sound; it merely reflects the "instrumentality" of faith, which is what the Spirit works in us to unite us to Christ. The other word you used, "precondition," could be understood in the same light. Now you use the word "context." It is fine as well. But you indicated this was not enough. You made union the ground of the covenant and of the application of the other benefits to us. This would require us to consciously seek our salvation in something done WITHIN us rather than something done FOR us; it would also leave justification "grounded upon" something which the Spirit does within us, namely, uniting us to Christ. The reason justification is by faith ALONE is owing to the fact that faith itself adds nothing of the person in the application. It is empty-handed and lays hold of a righteousness outside of the person. It is of faith that it may be by grace. If justification is in any way grounded on the work of the Spirit in uniting us to Christ we will ultimately end up turning within ourselves for the ground of our righteousness before God. Please seriously reconsider your sympathy for this revisionist school of thought. Who knows where it will ultimately lead you. The old is better! Faithful and true!


----------



## Philip (Aug 15, 2013)

I think, Rev. Winzer, I agree with everything you just said. However, the question I was asking is how the individual is brought into the covenant---on what basis are you personally counted as being in Christ?


----------



## MW (Aug 15, 2013)

Philip said:


> I think, Rev. Winzer, I agree with everything you just said. However, the question I was asking is how the individual is brought into the covenant---on what basis are you personally counted as being in Christ?



Virtually, by election; meritoriously, by redemption; instrumentally, by faith. The last part is usually called being "instated" in the covenant.

This work by Thomas Boston shows why the exclusivity of faith is important and how it relates to union with Christ: Boston - Sinners Instated into the Covenant by Faith


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 16, 2013)

Thanks for that Rev. Winzer.


----------



## BrettLemke (Aug 16, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> Philip said:
> 
> 
> > I think, Rev. Winzer, I agree with everything you just said. However, the question I was asking is how the individual is brought into the covenant---on what basis are you personally counted as being in Christ?
> ...



Bravo. Providentially, I was reading about this very instrumentality in A Puritan Theology last night. I have now caught the sails of this very profitable discussion!


----------



## jogri17 (Aug 16, 2013)

Peairtach said:


> We live in a very restless age, illustrated by the fact that it is presumed that many things should be "revamped" and "refreshed" and "recast" every few years. That principle may be an acceptable fashion for your living room, kitchen or church magazine, but is not for theology, which evolves by degrees, building on already clearly established and confessionally- embodied truths, as the Holy Spirit works in His Church to progressively illumine the Word.



With all due respect dear brother, many are calling not for a revamping every few years; they are calling for using additional language after a few centuries. Dogmatic language has to evolve to use the language of the day and the scholastic method of the Middle Ages and 17th century isn't the only way to do so that can be faithful to the Scriptures and the spirit of the Reformed Confessions and Catechisms. A great example would be Roman Catholic Theology, in the French Language the Théologie fondamentale movement. It seeks very strongly to integrate systematic theology, exegesis, and liturgy together into one academic discipline. It is very much not traditional (i.e. aquinas, Calvin, Turretin, Berkhof), but instead on focusing of talking about various issues and shows it through an almost historical-redemptive way.


----------

