# Herman Hoeksema - The triple knowledge (3 vol.) com. on the HC



## Mayflower (Apr 15, 2008)

I just finished the first volume 1 (of the 3) of Herman Hoeksema - The triple knowledge (3 vol.) commentary on the Heidelberg Cathechism.

It's really excellent !!!!!!!

Herman Hoeksema belongs to me favourite theologions (expect his view on paedobaptism ofcourse!).

Reformed Free Publishing Association

I can't wait to started now with volume 2!

Are there any more Hoeksema fans?


----------



## AV1611 (Apr 15, 2008)

Mayflower said:


> Are there any more Hoeksema fans?



Indeed, though I think that his denial of the legal aspect of the covenant is problematic.


----------



## Stephen (Apr 15, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Mayflower said:
> 
> 
> > Are there any more Hoeksema fans?
> ...





Would you elaborate on this more, brother.


----------



## AV1611 (Apr 15, 2008)

Stephen said:


> Would you elaborate on this more, brother.



Sure, he sees covenant as an end in itself as opposed to a means to an end. This is done by defining covenant as a relationship and denies that there are conditions to the relationship. His favourite example is that of marriage, i.e. marriage is not the ceremony but the life lived together in mutual friendship and communion. He seems to overlook the fact that the friendship within marriage is bounded by obedience. 

He then rejects the traditional conception of the covenant of works and the _pactum salutis_. See:

The Covenant: God's Tabernacle With Men
Standard Bearer - V.80 - I.5 - Feature Article - The Covenant Concept (1) By Rev. Herman Hoeksema
Standard Bearer - V.80 - I.6 - Feature Article - The Covenant Concept (2) By Rev. Herman Hoeksema


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 15, 2008)

In addition to that, Hoeksema denies common grace, and is a hyper-Calvinist. However, he is still worth reading, and has many excellently clear and good things.


----------



## BertMulder (Apr 15, 2008)

Depends on your definition of hyper-calvinist...

The denial of common grace is Biblical, and thus a strength..

Richard, why do you think his covenant view is problematic though?

(Although he further developed this view, it is not unique to Hoeksema. You find many elements of this covenant view in divines such as Witsius and Brakel)

Ralph, you and I ought to have a discussion on infant baptism sometime...

Why, for instance, you would think that God would have such a change in the covenant, and not a word in Scripture about it...

Referring to the fact that children were included in the covenant already in the Old Testament, and had the sacrament of circumcision administered. Continuity in the covenant would of necessity dictate also, likewise, that the sacrament of the covenant in the New Testament has to be administered to the children of believers.

Sorry if this is offtopic...

This is not intended, and as such should not be construed as an attack on our baptist brethren...


----------



## AV1611 (Apr 16, 2008)

BertMulder said:


> Richard, why do you think his covenant view is problematic though?
> 
> (Although he further developed this view, it is not unique to Hoeksema. You find many elements of this covenant view in divines such as Witsius and Brakel)



No one denies that the covenant _establishes_ a relationship. Note Dickson, "The Covenanting of God with man, tended of its own nature to man's good and happiness...because a singular respect and honour was put upon man, when he was made a confederate friend of God: for, if it be an honour to a mean and poor man to be joined with a King or Prince in a formal bond of mutual friendship, how much greater honour is it unto man, to be joined in a bond of mutual love and friendship with God?" And it can be argued that essence of covenant is relationship and communion but to ignore the rest of what Scripture teaches on the covenant is not the best way to approach things. Whilst it is common for the PRC to argue that Hoeksema's view was just a development on Witsius etc if you read them you find a very different conception of the covenant.

Hoeksema's denial of the covenant of works is very problematic on a number of grounds. Most importantly it ignores the law element of the covenant made with Adam, the law which Christ kept for us and so merited us eternal life.

Also, it was wrong to say that the traditional view ignores the place of the Holy Ghost in the _pactum salutis_ and to say that when Jesus addressed his Father he is speaking to the Triune God as opposed to his Father the first person of the Godhead does not do full justice to the NT texts. 

I would suggest a read of *John Gill*:
7. Of the Everlasting Covenant of Grace, Between the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
8. Of the Part Which the Father Takes in the Covenant.
9. Of the Part the Son of God, the Second Person, Has Taken in the Covenant.
10. Of Christ, as the Covenant-Head of the Elect.
11. Of Christ, the Mediator of the Covenant.
12. Of Christ, the Surety of the Covenant.
13. Of Christ, the Testator of the Covenant.
14. Of the Concern the Spirit of God Has in the Covenant of Grace.


And of *David Dickson*:
Therapeutica Sacra: Chapter 4: Of the Covenant of Redemption.
Therapeutica Sacra: Chapter 5: Of the Covenant of Works.
Therapeutica Sacra: Chapter 6: Of the Covenant of Grace.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 16, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> In addition to that, Hoeksema denies common grace, and is a hyper-Calvinist. However, he is still worth reading, and has many excellently clear and good things.



I think it is more accurate to say that he is a high-Calvinist, rather than a hyper-Calvinist, as he still believes in human responsibility.


----------



## kvanlaan (Apr 16, 2008)




----------



## CDM (Apr 16, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > In addition to that, Hoeksema denies common grace, and is a hyper-Calvinist. However, he is still worth reading, and has many excellently clear and good things.
> ...



 

I think I remember him flatly denying him being a hyper-Calvinist...I'll see if I can look it up.


----------



## BertMulder (Apr 17, 2008)

Believe this article by Prof. Engelsma may be useful in this discussion:

http://www.prca.org/prtj/nov2006.pdf

In it you can read that nowhere do we deny a covenant relationship between God and Adam. 

What we do deny is the view that Scripture teaches that Adam could have merited heavenly, eternal life by his obedience.

Nowhere do we deny the federal and organic responsibility of us all in Adam, for eating of the tree. As such, our original sin is also to be repented of.

Richard, I did not say that the teaching of Witsius was the same as Hoeksema. But Hoeksema is standing on the shoulders of Witsius and Brakel.


----------



## AV1611 (Apr 18, 2008)

BertMulder said:


> In it you can read that nowhere do we deny a covenant relationship between God and Adam.



I know that you don't deny a covenant was established between God and Adam but it is precisely the rejection of it being a covenant of works that is the problem as you note by saying;



BertMulder said:


> What we do deny is the view that Scripture teaches that Adam could have merited heavenly, eternal life by his obedience.



This is where I disagree with Hoeksema and the PRC. 



BertMulder said:


> Hoeksema is standing on the shoulders of Witsius and Brakel.



Not really, at least in any meaningful sense. He completely rejects their views of covenant calling it unbiblical. Have a read of this and then re-read Hoeksema.


----------



## Mayflower (Apr 18, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> BertMulder said:
> 
> 
> > What we do deny is the view that Scripture teaches that Adam could have merited heavenly, eternal life by his obedience.
> ...



It was for me always difficul to understand, how Adam could merrited heaven ?

Thomas Goodwin:

Adam could not earn a condition of a higher rank, nor by all his works have brought any greater preferment than what he was created in. To compass it was ultra suam sphaerum, above his sphere; he could never have done it. As, for instance, he could not have attained that state in heaven which the angels enjoy. What says Christ? “When you have done all you can, say, You are unprofitable servants” (Luke 17:10). This he could no more do than other creatures by keeping those their ordinances can merit to be “translated into the glorious liberty” which they wait for, and shall have at the latter day. The moon, though she keep all her motions set her by God never so regularly, yet she cannot thereby attain to the light of the sun as a new reward thereof. And thus no more can any pure creature of itself, by all its righteousness, obtain in justice a higher condition to itself. And therefore the angels, by all their own grace, have not to this day earned a better condition than they were created in.-Works, vol. 5, pp. 82-83


----------



## AV1611 (Apr 18, 2008)

Mayflower said:


> It was for me always difficul to understand, how Adam could merrited heaven?



Witsius writes:

*IX.* It still remains doubtful, whether the life promised to Adam upon his perseverance was to be enjoyed in paradise, or in heaven. The latter appears more probable. 

_1st._ Because paradise is in scripture represented as a type of heaven. and heaven itself is called paradise, Luke xxiii 43. by that exchange of names which is very common between a sacrament, or sign, and the thing signified thereby. But is it in the least probable, that paradise should be made a sacrament after man’s ejectment? 

_2dly._ Is it fit that man when raised to consummate happiness should reside there, where God does most brightly display the rays of his glorious majesty; which doubtless he does in heaven, where he has fixed his throne, Isa. lxvi. 1. 

_3dly._ As the earthly paradise was furnished with all the delights and pleasures appertaining to this animal life, of which there is no necessity in that most perfect and immediate fruition of God, all that external entertainment being in the highest degree excluded thence; heaven ought to be deemed a much more suitable habitation for glorified man than the earthly paradise. However, we would not deny, that happiness does not depend on place; and there being scarce anything to demonstrate this in scripture; therefore we ought not to contend strenuously about such a question.


----------



## BertMulder (Apr 18, 2008)

My friend Richard, I HAVE that book in my possession, AND HAVE READ IT, cover to cover...

And I stand by my previous points.


----------



## AV1611 (Apr 18, 2008)

BertMulder said:


> And I stand by my previous points.



In that case please demonstrate your case. Please show how Hoeksema worked within the framework of Witsius, _et al_. He emphatically rejected their view and so is in no way standing on their shoulders. 

Hoeksema's theology of the covenant is a _fundamental_ break with classic and traditional Covenant/Reformed theology and his view is untenable in my opinion.


----------



## BertMulder (Apr 18, 2008)

Well, my friend Richard, as I am currently up to my eyebrows in tax returns, I do not have the time to show you.

Also, I am still waiting for an answer to my question in post 6 above:

(Richard, why do you think his covenant view is problematic though?)

Furthermore, I still have not seen anyone present Biblical proof of the Covenant of Works idea where man could 'earn or merit' anything (if we do perfect works, we only do what is our duty to do), let alone, earn eternal life in Heavenly Paradise. Thus man would have been able to attain to what Christ could only attain for us by his death on the cross. This, in a certain sense, would make man mighty as God.

I am realizing we are here embarking, to a certain extent, on the old supra-infra controversy...

So, what I would ask you, Richard, is to not only answer my previous question, but also, to support your assertion why Hoeksema's covenant view cannot be a further development from Brakel and Witsius (who, I agree, both held to a Covenant of Works)

And why you see it as a fundamental break with classic and traditional covenant theology, realizing that continental European covenant theology did not include a 'covenant of works'. In any case, it is absent in the 3 forms of unity...

Correct me if I am wrong, but believe only the Westminster standards make the 'covenant of works' a confessional issue?


----------



## AV1611 (Apr 18, 2008)

BertMulder said:


> Also, I am still waiting for an answer to my question in post 6 above:
> 
> (Richard, why do you think his covenant view is problematic though?)



I answered this earlier when I said:

Hoeksema's denial of the covenant of works is very problematic on a number of grounds. Most importantly it ignores the law element of the covenant made with Adam, the law which Christ kept for us and so merited us eternal life.

Also, it was wrong to say that the traditional view ignores the place of the Holy Ghost in the pactum salutis and to say that when Jesus addressed his Father he is speaking to the Triune God as opposed to his Father the first person of the Godhead does not do full justice to the NT texts.​


BertMulder said:


> Furthermore, I still have not seen anyone present Biblical proof of the Covenant of Works idea where man could 'earn or merit' anything (if we do perfect works, we only do what is our duty to do), let alone, earn eternal life in Heavenly Paradise. Thus man would have been able to attain to what Christ could only attain for us by his death on the cross. This, in a certain sense, would make man mighty as God.



I think that Witsius, a Brakel and Bavinck have all done so in their work.



BertMulder said:


> I am realizing we are here embarking, to a certain extent, on the old supra-infra controversy...



Not really as I am supra.



BertMulder said:


> support your assertion why Hoeksema's covenant view cannot be a further development from Brakel and Witsius (who, I agree, both held to a Covenant of Works)



It can't be a development because he states (in effect) "This is what they believed...I disagree, this is my position..." That is hardly developing their work but rather the very opposite. He in effect throws their work in to the trash and starts again, hardly a development.



BertMulder said:


> And why you see it as a fundamental break with classic and traditional covenant theology, realizing that continental European covenant theology did not include a 'covenant of works'. In any case, it is absent in the 3 forms of unity...Correct me if I am wrong, but believe only the Westminster standards make the 'covenant of works' a confessional issue?



May I point you to The Covenant of Works in Dutch Reformed Orthodoxy by Shane Lems;

Despite recent criticism of the covenant of works within Dutch churches, it is very clear that the covenant of works is both a Presbyterian and Reformed--indeed Dutch Reformed--doctrine. The main point of this essay is simple: the Dutch Reformed church has taught the covenant of works since the Reformation. While we may owe much to our Presbyterian brothers and sisters, we did not adopt the covenant of works from the Westminster Standards. Rather, the English and Dutch Reformed theologians were influenced by each other, and stood side by side on the covenant of works.

These influential Dutch Reformed theologians _[Caspar Olevian, Zacharias Ursinus, Herman Witsius, Wilhelmus a' Brakel, Herman Bavinck, and Louis Berkhof]_ spanning nearly 400 years vigorously upheld the doctrine of the covenant of works. The covenant of works is not simply a Presbyterian doctrine. No one can call the covenant of works a "new thing" in Dutch Reformed theology, nor can they accuse any who hold to the covenant of works of being out of line with mainstream Reformed orthodoxy. Actually, one might make a solid argument that a denial of the covenant of works is the new and minority position in our tradition.​


----------



## BertMulder (Apr 18, 2008)

Disagree strongly with Shane Lems.

1. Caspar Olevianus and Zacharius Ursinus were German, not Dutch, authors of the Heidelberg Catechism, in which they do not make the Covenant of Works a confessional issue, does not even mention it.
2. All the other Dutch theologians are later than the Westminster Standards.

So the only early ones did not include the Covenant of Works in their catechism, which, if they had considered it important, they certainly would have. The later ones, in my opinion (without researching this), would have likely been influenced by Westminster.

In both Witsius and Brakel (have not read Bavinck or Berkhoff) there are many pointers to later covenant vision by Hoeksema. Such as Brakel's statements of the covenant of grace as a bond of friendship...

And my friend, you have made certain assertions to my first question, but you have not answered it. As also, that Hoeksema does specifically not ignore the legal element... It is our confession, as PR, that we stand guilty in Adam, as our federal and organic head, unless redeemed by Christ.

I have not seen any BIBLICAL proof of a Covenant of Works in any theological work.


----------



## AV1611 (Apr 18, 2008)

BertMulder said:


> In both Witsius and Brakel (have not read Bavinck or Berkhoff) there are many pointers to later covenant vision by Hoeksema. Such as Brakel's statements of the covenant of grace as a bond of friendship...



Brother, this is where your argument starts to flounder. Noone is denying that covenant does not possess friendship. Earlier I quoted David Dickson who said that "The Covenanting of God with man, tended of its own nature to man's good and happiness...because a singular respect and honour was put upon man, when he was made a confederate friend of God: for, if it be an honour to a mean and poor man to be joined with a King or Prince in a formal bond of mutual friendship, how much greater honour is it unto man, to be joined in a bond of mutual love and friendship with God?" This is a common theme throughout the Reformed and Puritans. 

The difference between these and Hoeksema was not so much what he affirms as what he rejects. The covenant made with Adam was a legal covenant, a covenant of works:

*Zacharius Ursinus* in his _Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism_: “The doctrine of the church consists of two parts: the Law, and the Gospel, in which we have comprehended the sum and substance of the sacred Scriptures…The duties of the ministers of the church include in general, 1) A faithful and correct exposition of the true and uncorrupted doctrine of the law and gospel, so that the church may be able to understand it”

*Zacharius Ursinus* in his _Large Catechism_: “Question. What is the difference between the law and the gospel? Answer: The law contains the covenant of nature established by God with man in creation; that means, it is known by man from nature, it requires perfect obedience of us to God, and it promises eternal life to those who keep it but threatens eternal punishment to those who do not. The gospel, however, contains the covenant of grace; that means, although it exists, it is not known at all from nature; it shows us Christ’s fulfillment of that righteousness which the law requires, and its restoration in us through Christ’s Spirit; and it promises eternal life freely on account of Christ to those who believe in him.”

*Caspar Olevian* in his _Ad Romanos Notae_: “For this reason the distinction between law and Gospel is retained. The law does not promise freely, but under the condition that you keep it completely. And if someone should transgress it once, the law or legal covenant does not have the promise of the remission of sins. On the other hand, the Gospel promises freely the remission of sins and life, not if we keep the law, but for the sake of the Son of God, through faith.”

*Theodore Beza* in _The Christian Faith_: “We divide this Word into two principal parts or kinds: the one is called the ‘Law,’ the other the ‘Gospel.’ For all the rest can be gathered under the one or other of these two headings…Ignorance of this distinction between Law and Gospel is one of the principal sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity.”

*William Perkins* in _The Art of Prophesying_: “The basic principle in application is to know whether the passage is a statement of the law or of the gospel. For when the Word is preached, the law and the gospel operate differently. The law exposes the disease of sin, and as a side-effect, stimulates and stirs it up. But it provides no remedy for it. However the gospel not only teaches us what is to be done, it also has the power of the Holy Spirit joined to it….A statement of the law indicates the need for a perfect inherent righteousness, of eternal life given through the works of the law, of the sins which are contrary to the law and of the curse that is due them…. By contrast, a statement of the gospel speaks of Christ and his benefits, and of faith being fruitful in good works."

*John Owen*: "Man in his creation, with respect unto the ends of God therein, was constituted under a covenant. That is, the law of his obedience was attended with promises and threatenings, rewards and punishments, suited unto the goodness and holiness of God; for every law with rewards and recompenses annexed hath the nature of a covenant."

You say that Brakel's made statements of the covenant of grace as a bond of friendship. So what? 

The key disagreement is this:
*1.* Reformed - covenant is the means by which friendship is established.
*2.* Hoeksema - covenant is friendship not the means by which friendship is established.


----------



## BertMulder (Apr 18, 2008)

So where do Hoeksema and the PR disagree with your immediate proceeding quotes?

And what precisely is YOUR covenant view?

Heard say you hold now to a separation between the Covenant and Redemption and the Covenant of Grace? So that there is contradiction in the Godhead? At bottom the error of Amyraut, with his hypothetical universalism?

This may seem to be a diversive question, but it does have a bearing on this conversation.


----------



## AV1611 (Apr 18, 2008)

BertMulder said:


> So where do Hoeksema and the PR disagree with your immediate proceeding quotes?



I think the key is Zacharius Ursinus's _Large Catechism_: 

*Question. What is the difference between the law and the gospel? 
Answer:* The law contains the covenant of nature established by God with man in creation; that means, it is known by man from nature, it requires perfect obedience of us to God, and it promises eternal life to those who keep it but threatens eternal punishment to those who do not. The gospel, however, contains the covenant of grace; that means, although it exists, it is not known at all from nature; it shows us Christ’s fulfillment of that righteousness which the law requires, and its restoration in us through Christ’s Spirit; and it promises eternal life freely on account of Christ to those who believe in him.”

Note how he is making the point that God made the promise of eternal life to Adam in a covenant upon the condition of perfect obedience. Note also how the law of Moses was the republication of the law made with Adam. The covenant made with Adam was a covenant of law, and this is antithetical to grace. This law was broken this law Christ kept for us, his law-keeping being imputed to us through faith.

The covenant establishes a relationship. THe problem for Hoeksema is that his system begins to break down. If you deny the covenant of works then you are denying the framework of the gospel. 

I take it you would agree with the quotes above? 



BertMulder said:


> Heard say you hold now to a separation between the Covenant and Redemption and the Covenant of Grace? So that there is contradiction in the Godhead?



There is no contradiction in the Godhead. This is perhaps where Hoeksema is also more problematic. He rejects the traditional view of the covenant of redemption upon grounds that are polemical and in so doing rejects something that does not exist. He then has to reject that when Christ is addressing his father in John that he is addressing the first person, instead he is addressing the triune God (according to Hoeksema). 

Therapeutica Sacra: Chapter 4: Of the Covenant of Redemption.

Try Back Free Church - Sermons and Studies - Covenant Theology - an Introduction


----------



## BertMulder (Apr 18, 2008)

Richard, you are merely showing here your lack of understanding of Hoeksema and PR doctrine.

Furthermore, what is known as three covenant view is not traditionally reformed, but is the heresy of Amyraut and the School of Saumur.

Most reformed theologians would insist that there is no real separation between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace.


----------



## BertMulder (Apr 18, 2008)

By the way, sorry for changing a literary topic into a doctrinal discussion...

Perhaps the mods would like to split it off?


----------



## AV1611 (Apr 19, 2008)

BertMulder said:


> Richard, you are merely showing here your lack of understanding of Hoeksema and PR doctrine.



You may well be right. I have read most of what he has written on the covenant. Perhaps you would like to demonstrate where I am wrong?

Further, you have not shown that Hoeksema was standing on the shoulders of Witsius _et al_. This remains an unproven assertion. You don't have the time, fine, but you still have not actually proven anything.



BertMulder said:


> Furthermore, what is known as three covenant view is not traditionally reformed, but is the heresy of Amyraut and the School of Saumur.



Again, perhaps you could prove this as opposed to merely making an assertion.



BertMulder said:


> Most reformed theologians would insist that there is no real separation between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace.



I agree that there is no fundamental separation, they are two sides of the same coin, yet the _pactum salutis_ was made in eternity between the trinity whilst the covenant of grace is the working out of that in time. That is the traditional Reformed view. You disagree, fine, but prove it! 

Don't continue to make unfounded assertions.


----------



## BertMulder (Apr 19, 2008)

Richard, please do not misunderstand me here...

What IS your covenant view?

You just stated here that there is no fundamental separation between the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace. I am happy to hear that, and I agree. That is also my view, and that of the Protestant Reformed.

I had however heard, or thought I had heard, that you had come to the view of the (North American) Free Reformed, which see a distinction between the scope of those covenants, where essentially every man, head for head, is included in the Covenant of Redemption.

And to go back to your initial assertion:



> Indeed, though I think that his denial of the legal aspect of the covenant is problematic.



Where does Hoeksema deny the legal aspect of the Adamic covenant? As Protestant Reformed we confess that Adam was our federal and organic head, and as such, we are responsible for his transgression.

Or am I misunderstanding you, and are you barking up a different tree?


----------



## AV1611 (Apr 19, 2008)

BertMulder said:


> I had however heard, or thought I had heard, that you had come to the view of the (North American) Free Reformed, which see a distinction between the scope of those covenants, where essentially every man, head for head, is included in the Covenant of Redemption.



Could you define what you mean by CoG and CoR?



BertMulder said:


> Where does Hoeksema deny the legal aspect of the Adamic covenant? As Protestant Reformed we confess that Adam was our federal and organic head, and as such, we are responsible for his transgression.



May I refer you to Hanko's _God's Everlasting Covenant of Grace_ pp. 28-33. This shows clearly the PRC rejection of the classic conception of the covenant of works. See also Hoeksema's _Reformed Dogmatics_ volume 1, pp. 303-321.

By law I am refering to the principle of "Do this and live".

May I also refer you here.

Not a full answer I admit but I, like you, am pressed for time.


----------



## BertMulder (Apr 19, 2008)

Brother Richard, as it seems where are busy talking past each other,

Furthermore, as we are both to busy right now to get into a deep theological debate,

I suggest we let this issue rest a while....


----------

