# John Lafayette Girardeau on the danger of neglecting federal theology



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 14, 2020)

It has become almost an adage, that the Church has developed her theology mainly through conflict with error. This must be so from the nature of the case. Attention is not apt to be specially directed to what is undisputed, and our clearest judgments are derived from comparison. The contrast of truth and error, induced by the assertion of the latter, enhances our comprehension of both. The doctrine of the covenants constitutes no exception to this law. ...

And while Cunningham, Hodge, and our own Thornwell have trodden in their footsteps, and evinced in their discussions their sense of the importance of the federal system—a fact for which the present generation of Calvinists should be devoutly thankful—it is to be feared that indications are beginning to manifest themselves of a growing tendency towards a departure from this type of theology. Especially would it be for a lamentation should it disappear from the pulpit—the grand organ by which divine truth is brought into contact with the masses. ...

For more, see John Lafayette Girardeau on the danger of neglecting federal theology.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 15, 2020)

This is a very insightful post. I think the best modern example of this danger of neglecting federal theology is the Calvinistic-dispensational movement of John MacArthur and the Masters Seminary. They think you can have a Calvinistic theology devoid of federal theology.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## B.L. (Sep 15, 2020)

Thanks for posting this. I've had several Girardeau books in my cart over at RHB that I've been meaning to purchase. This is a nice reminder to do so!

Have a joyful day!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 15, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> This is a very insightful post. I think the best modern example of this danger of neglecting federal theology is the Calvinistic-dispensational movement of John MacArthur and the Masters Seminary. They think you can have a Calvinistic theology devoid of federal theology.



One of the biggest strengths of this essay is that it demonstrates how Calvinism is deeply intertwined with the covenant of grace. Accordingly, monergestic dispensationalists, while preferable to Arminian dispensationalists, will never be able to fully embrace Reformed soteriology while they dissent from the doctrine of the covenants.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 16, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> One of the biggest strengths of this essay is that it demonstrates how Calvinism is deeply intertwined with the covenant of grace. Accordingly, monergestic dispensationalists, while preferable to Arminian dispensationalists, will never be able to fully embrace Reformed soteriology while they dissent from the doctrine of the covenants.


Agreed. I have a cousin who studied at the Masters Seminary and he argues that to suggest a link between covenant theology and Calvinistic theology is to create a theological 'system' rather than interpreting the Bible 'naturally' which dispensationalism purports to do. In other words, covenant theology is a 'system', dispensationalism is the natural way to interpret scripture


----------



## The Original Secession (Sep 16, 2020)

Alright, I pretty ignorant of MacArthur's dispensationalism, who can give me an idea of what to read so that I can understand this a bit better? With all of his new found fame I suspect I will need to know this.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 16, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> In other words, covenant theology is a 'system', dispensationalism is the natural way to interpret scripture.



I know I am preaching to the choir here, brother, but I tire of this dichotomy that is constantly proposed between natural thinking and systematic thinking. All knowledge and fields of inquiry are systematic; it is inescapable. I wish people would just be honest and say, “My system is different than yours,” and proceed from there, instead of trying to fabricate a fundamental difference that simply isn’t there.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 16, 2020)

How anyone concludes that dispensationalism is not a system of interpreting scripture is beyond me.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 16, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I wish people would just be honest and say, “My system is different than yours,” and proceed from there, instead of trying to fabricate a fundamental difference that simply isn’t there.





Reformed Covenanter said:


> How anyone concludes that dispensationalism is not a system of interpreting scripture is beyond me.


Agreed. If anyone has any ideas on how to tell a good Calvinist dispensationalist brother that their dispensationalism weakens their Calvinism (in light of Daniel's first post) I would be interested to hear them.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 16, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Agreed. If anyone has any ideas on how to tell a good Calvinist dispensationalist brother that their dispensationalism weakens their Calvinism (in light of Daniel's first post) I would be interested to hear them.



Hand them a copy of Calvin's _Institutes_. Hard to argue that you are a stronger *Calvin*ist when you hold to a hermeneutic which *Calvin* did not hold.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 16, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Hand them a copy of Calvin's _Institutes_. Hard to argue that you are a stronger *Calvin*ist when you hold to a hermeneutic which *Calvin* did not hold.


Taylor, like you I love Calvin's Institutes and have come to appreciate more and more the vital importance the Institutes are to true Christianity. However I don't think this strategy will work. Dispensationalists believe Calvin got many things right but he tended to 'spiritualise' the text. Apparently he did not get rid of all his Roman Catholic baggage. It is a terrible argument I know.

I am inclined to think (I am open to correction) the best strategy for Calvinistic dispensationalists is to show that the Puritans, the pastors in the Nadere Reformatie etc, continued to develop Calvin's argument by developing a full-orbed covenant theology. This came to its climax in ch 7 of the Westminster Confession. In Vos' insightful essay "The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology" he makes this comment: " The Westminster Confession is the first Reformed confession in which the doctrine of the covenant is not merely brought in from the side, but is *placed in the foreground* and has been able to *permeate at almost every point*." [My emphasis].

I think this statement is significant for a discussion with Calvinistic dispensationalists. If the doctrine of the covenant 'permeates at almost every point' this means the covenant is important for many Reformation doctrines: God's sovereignty, providence, justification, sanctification, union with Christ etc. Therefore, I think, it is easy to show Calvinistic dispensationalists they have a more fragmented theology. They do not have the covenant to bring their theology together. I'm still thinking this through

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Sep 17, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Taylor, like you I love Calvin's Institutes and have come to appreciate more and more the vital importance the Institutes are to true Christianity. However I don't think this strategy will work. Dispensationalists believe Calvin got many things right but he tended to 'spiritualise' the text. Apparently he did not get rid of all his Roman Catholic baggage. It is a terrible argument I know.
> 
> I am inclined to think (I am open to correction) the best strategy for Calvinistic dispensationalists is to show that the Puritans, the pastors in the Nadere Reformatie etc, continued to develop Calvin's argument by developing a full-orbed covenant theology. This came to its climax in ch 7 of the Westminster Confession. In Vos' insightful essay "The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology" he makes this comment: " The Westminster Confession is the first Reformed confession in which the doctrine of the covenant is not merely brought in from the side, but is *placed in the foreground* and has been able to *permeate at almost every point*." [My emphasis].
> 
> I think this statement is significant for a discussion with Calvinistic dispensationalists. If the doctrine of the covenant 'permeates at almost every point' this means the covenant is important for many Reformation doctrines: God's sovereignty, providence, justification, sanctification, union with Christ etc. Therefore, I think, it is easy to show Calvinistic dispensationalists they have a more fragmented theology. They do not have the covenant to bring their theology together. I'm still thinking this through



Agreed, brother! I was just joking about handing them Calvin’s _Institutes_. I wish it were that easy.


----------



## Von (Sep 17, 2020)

I'm in contact with several Master's Seminary graduates and for the life of me I could never understand why they would use Grudem's systematic theology (before Mac's was published) when they disagree on so many points with him. Gruden is a continuationist (Strange Fire conference, anyone?...), he has funny views about creation if I remember correctly, and there's one or two other things that he is not solid on.



*Edited so as to not misrepresent Wayne Grudem as a dispensationalist.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 17, 2020)

Von said:


> But he is a Dispensationalist.



I don't think Grudem is a Dispensationalist. His eschatology is historic premillennial (which is not Dispensational), and in his _Systematic Theology_ he appears to disagree with Dispensationalism's eschatological separation of the Church and Israel.


----------



## Von (Sep 17, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I don't think Grudem is a Dispensationalist.


Wow! You are right. Thanks for that... I've edited my post so as to reflect the truth.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 17, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Agreed, brother! I was just joking about handing them Calvin’s _Institutes_. I wish it were that easy.


Hey, I typed a long winded argument, including finding the Vos quote - only to find you were joking


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 18, 2020)

Another thought. I think ch 7 of the 1689 Baptist Confession is particularly good at showing the link between Covenant Theology and sovereign election. Note especially 7:2 and 7:3. https://founders.org/library/1689-confession/chapter-7-gods-covenant/


----------



## Taylor (Sep 18, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Another thought. I think ch 7 of the 1689 Baptist Confession is particularly good at showing the link between Covenant Theology and sovereign election. Note especially 7:2 and 7:3. https://founders.org/library/1689-confession/chapter-7-gods-covenant/



Thanks for the reference. That is helpful. I do think it's funny, though, how that page presents the 1689 Baptist Confession "in modern English," although the 1689 Baptist Confession was originally written in modern English.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 19, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> That is helpful.


Baptism aside, I think the 1689 Baptist Confession reflects developments in covenant theology that occurred after the WCF was written (especially the link between sovereign election and covenant). 


Taylor Sexton said:


> I do think it's funny, though, how that page presents the 1689 Baptist Confession "in modern English," although the 1689 Baptist Confession was originally written in modern English.


The other funny thing is that the *1689 *Confession was actually written in *1677*. I understand it was not until the 1689 Act of Toleration was enacted that the framers of the 1689 Confession felt free to publicly publish their confession.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Sep 19, 2020)

The Original Secession said:


> Alright, I pretty ignorant of MacArthur's dispensationalism, who can give me an idea of what to read so that I can understand this a bit better? With all of his new found fame I suspect I will need to know this.


I hear he has a study bible with interpretative notes. Could be your first esv, Mr. Dotson.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Sep 20, 2020)

The Original Secession said:


> Alright, I pretty ignorant of MacArthur's dispensationalism, who can give me an idea of what to read so that I can understand this a bit better? With all of his new found fame I suspect I will need to know this.


Here is a brief answer to your question. Of course, I do not agree with MacArthur's dispensationalist doctrine, but at least you'll hear it from the horse's mouth...

Reactions: Like 1


----------

