For Those Just Tuning In: What is the FV?

[R. Scott Clark]

On the HB

 

[BobVigneault]

Thank you so much for that recap. Great idea Dr. Scott. This will make the perfect link to direct folks to. Blessings sir.

 

[Kevin]

Dr Scott I just read your piece & I have one (tangential) question. You said that
"Today the FV movement (like theonomy before it) has been rejected by all the major denominations in the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council ...".

I was wondering if you have a link to more info re Theonomy being rejected by "...all major denominations in (NAPARC)"?

I have a great deal of interest in both the doctrine & the movement and I was unaware that it had been directly rejected in any official way by any creditable denomination.

Thanks.

 

[py3ak]

At the same time, the FV movement also re-defines covenant theology to say that there is but one covenant. Historic Reformed theology had affirmed three covenants:

1) a pre-temporal covenant between the Father and the Son (and implicitly the Holy Spirit) to accomplish the redemption of and apply it to the elect;

2) a covenant of works before the fall;

3) a covenant of grace after the fall.

Dr. Clark, I was wondering what account you would give of a man like John Brown of Haddington who claims that the divines who would talk of 3 covenants were only distinguishing two aspects of the same covenant? I can look up the exact reference when I get home in his Essay.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

There are ways in which the covenants of redemption, works, and grace are all related. The covenant of redemption is a covenant of works between the Father and the Son and a covenant of grace with the elect. Thus, they all may be said, in that respect to be one covenant, but in their principles, the covenants of works and grace are utterly distinct. Thus, for pedagogical purposes, it's useful to speak of three covenants and it's particularly useful not to confuse the covenant of works the covenant of grace!

rsc

At the same time, the FV movement also re-defines covenant theology to say that there is but one covenant. Historic Reformed theology had affirmed three covenants:

1) a pre-temporal covenant between the Father and the Son (and implicitly the Holy Spirit) to accomplish the redemption of and apply it to the elect;

2) a covenant of works before the fall;

3) a covenant of grace after the fall.

Dr. Clark, I was wondering what account you would give of a man like John Brown of Haddington who claims that the divines who would talk of 3 covenants were only distinguishing two aspects of the same covenant? I can look up the exact reference when I get home in his Essay.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Hi Kevin,

I was thinking of the PCA report adopted by GA many years ago and the RCUS report of 1985 or so. I should probably be more precise. I don't know that the OPC has ever acted on theonomy and the URC has not.

rsc

ps. I deleted the parenthetical comment.

Dr Scott I just read your piece & I have one (tangential) question. You said that
"Today the FV movement (like theonomy before it) has been rejected by all the major denominations in the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council ...".

I was wondering if you have a link to more info re Theonomy being rejected by "...all major denominations in (NAPARC)"?

I have a great deal of interest in both the doctrine & the movement and I was unaware that it had been directly rejected in any official way by any creditable denomination.

Thanks.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Hi Kevin,

I was thinking of the PCA report adopted by GA many years ago and the RCUS report of 1985 or so. I should probably be more precise. I don't know that the OPC has ever acted on theonomy and the URC has not.

rsc

ps. I deleted the parenthetical comment.

Dr. Scott,

Is it your understanding of history that that PCA GA rejected theonomy?

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Here's a permanent link for the post.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Okay, I checked my my own footnotes:

In 1979, the 7th General Assembly of the PCA adopted four points of “definition and recommendations regarding theonomy.” They rejected theonomy as a standard of orthodoxy, but they also refused to rule it unorthodox. In 1987, however, the RCUS adopted two recommendations, the second of which says, “It is the position of the RCUS that the Heidelberg Catechism teaches that the ceremonial and judicial laws instituted by Moses have been entirely abolished and done away with by the coming of Christ, as far as it relates to obligation and obedience on our part. The moral law, however, has not been abolished as it respects obedience, but only as it respects the curse and constraint.” See Reformed Church in the United States, Abstract of the Minutes of the Reformed Church in the United States 1987 Synod (Sutton, NE: Reformed Church in the United States, 1987), 44.

 

[jaybird0827]

Very good article, easy to understand, and what's more, the gospel is clear.

Thank you!

 

[py3ak]

There are ways in which the covenants of redemption, works, and grace are all related. The covenant of redemption is a covenant of works between the Father and the Son and a covenant of grace with the elect. Thus, they all may be said, in that respect to be one covenant, but in their principles, the covenants of works and grace are utterly distinct. Thus, for pedagogical purposes, it's useful to speak of three covenants and it's particularly useful not to confuse the covenant of works the covenant of grace!

rsc

Thanks, Dr. Clark, and hearty agreement on not confusing the covenants of works and grace. I was just wondering what place someone like John Brown of Haddington or Thomas Boston would have within the three-covenant scheme, when John Brown specifically rejects that nuance while not disagreeing with those who accept it.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

I will re-read Brown, but I'm confident that what I say is an accurate summary of the mainlines of Reformed federalism in the 16th and 17th centuries. There have always been idiosyncratic approaches.

There was a bewildering variety of approaches to covenant theology among the English in the 1640s but how many of them were influential? Not all writers were equally influential or important. If you look at the most important writers in Europe and Britain you'll see a remarkable agreement on the mainlines of Reformed federalism.

I think my explanation above is essentially what Boston did.

rsc

 

[timmopussycat]

I will re-read Brown, but I'm confident that what I say is an accurate summary of the mainlines of Reformed federalism in the 16th and 17th centuries. There have always been idiosyncratic approaches.

There was a bewildering variety of approaches to covenant theology among the English in the 1640s but how many of them were influential? Not all writers were equally influential or important. If you look at the most important writers in Europe and Britain you'll see a remarkable agreement on the mainlines of Reformed federalism.

I think my explanation above is essentially what Boston did.

rsc

In your opinion, who were the principal covenant theologians between 1630 and 1750?

 

[mvdm]

It is erroneous to say that the URC has rejected the FV. The URC has not formally made a statement on the FV itself. Rather, the URC's Synod 2007 appointed a committee to STUDY the FV and to present a report to Synod 2010. Given the caliber of membership of that committee, I expect a fair and thorough examination of the FV, the churches of the federation will have an opportunity to study the report, and then Synod will act on it.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Great summary Dr. Clark!

 

[py3ak]

John Brown (of Haddington) in Questions and Answers on the Shorter Catechism under Q.20.

Q. Is the covenant of grace, and that of redemption, one and the same covenant?
-A. Yes; the scripture mentions only two covenants that regards man's eternal state, of which the covenant of works is one, and therefore the covenant of grace must be the other: and the blood of Christ is in scripture called the blood of the covenant, but never of the covenants, Gal iv.24.30.
Q. How do you further prove that what some call the covenant of grace made with believers, and distinct from the covenant of redemption, is no proper covenant?
-A. Because it hath no proper condition, faith being as much promised as any other blessing, Psal. cx. 3.
[And skipping a bit...]
Q. Is the making of it the same which some divines call the covenant of redemption?
-A. Yes, Psal. lxxxix. 3.

So John Brown is defining the covenant of grace in the making as being what some call the covenant of redemption, and the administration of it what some call the covenant of grace made with believers (the next question).

Is this an idiosyncratic approach?

 

[R. Scott Clark]

No, this isn't problematic at all.

I addressed this in the first response. From the POV of Christ, the pactum salutis was a covenant of works. From the pov of the elect, for whom Christ would obey and die, the same covenant can be called a covenant of grace (as the shorter catechism does). That's why the PS is the "covenants before the covenants." See the chapter David VanDrunen and I wrote in CJPM.

rsc

John Brown (of Haddington) in Questions and Answers on the Shorter Catechism under Q.20.

Q. Is the covenant of grace, and that of redemption, one and the same covenant?
-A. Yes; the scripture mentions only two covenants that regards man's eternal state, of which the covenant of works is one, and therefore the covenant of grace must be the other: and the blood of Christ is in scripture called the blood of the covenant, but never of the covenants, Gal iv.24.30.
Q. How do you further prove that what some call the covenant of grace made with believers, and distinct from the covenant of redemption, is no proper covenant?
-A. Because it hath no proper condition, faith being as much promised as any other blessing, Psal. cx. 3.
[And skipping a bit...]
Q. Is the making of it the same which some divines call the covenant of redemption?
-A. Yes, Psal. lxxxix. 3.

So John Brown is definind the covenant of grace in the making as being what some call the covenant of redemption, and the administration of it what some call the covenant of grace made with believers (the next question).

Is this an idiosyncratic approach?

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Hi Tim,

See my Brief History of Covenant Theology.

rsc

I will re-read Brown, but I'm confident that what I say is an accurate summary of the mainlines of Reformed federalism in the 16th and 17th centuries. There have always been idiosyncratic approaches.

There was a bewildering variety of approaches to covenant theology among the English in the 1640s but how many of them were influential? Not all writers were equally influential or important. If you look at the most important writers in Europe and Britain you'll see a remarkable agreement on the mainlines of Reformed federalism.

I think my explanation above is essentially what Boston did.

rsc

In your opinion, who were the principal covenant theologians between 1630 and 1750?

 

[fredtgreco]

John Brown (of Haddington) in Questions and Answers on the Shorter Catechism under Q.20.

Q. Is the covenant of grace, and that of redemption, one and the same covenant?
-A. Yes; the scripture mentions only two covenants that regards man's eternal state, of which the covenant of works is one, and therefore the covenant of grace must be the other: and the blood of Christ is in scripture called the blood of the covenant, but never of the covenants, Gal iv.24.30.
Q. How do you further prove that what some call the covenant of grace made with believers, and distinct from the covenant of redemption, is no proper covenant?
-A. Because it hath no proper condition, faith being as much promised as any other blessing, Psal. cx. 3.
[And skipping a bit...]
Q. Is the making of it the same which some divines call the covenant of redemption?
-A. Yes, Psal. lxxxix. 3.

So John Brown is definind the covenant of grace in the making as being what some call the covenant of redemption, and the administration of it what some call the covenant of grace made with believers (the next question).

Is this an idiosyncratic approach?

Ruben,

It is standard to either have a two-covenant schema (Works/Grace) or a three schema (Works/Redemption/Grace). Thomas Boston held to the former (for example) and Rutherford to the latter. If the former, usually one simply describes the CoG as having both an eternal and an "in time" aspect.


Essentially, they are the same.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Mark,

You and I have been round this pole a few dozen times on the co-URC list.

The URC adopted two different statements relative to the FV:

1) Affirming the imputation of active obedience and sola fide -- which was a direct response to the errors of the FV. Synod would never have adopted this position at Calgary and again in Schereville without the FV. It is the FV that has notoriously corrupted the gospel by conflating faith and works in the act of justification and by denying the imputation of active obedience. Synod did not act in a vacuum.

2) Synod adopted a Nine Point Statement, which I have exposited at length.

It is hard for me to imagine any other way to take the language adopted by Synod:

Therefore Synod rejects the errors of those....

In each of the 9 points, Synod expressly rejects the errors of the FV.

Synod rejects certain errors
The errors are those of the FV
Ergo, Synod rejects the errors of the FV

There can be no doubt about the middle premise since each of the 9 points is a point advocated by the FV and rejected by Synod.

I don't believe anyone thinks that the study committee is going to come back with a fundamentally different view of the FV than expressed in the 9 points. I think most delegates to Synod knew what they were doing and God bless them for doing it!

rsc

It is erroneous to say that the URC has rejected the FV. The URC has not formally made a statement on the FV itself. Rather, the URC's Synod 2007 appointed a committee to STUDY the FV and to present a report to Synod 2010. Given the caliber of membership of that committee, I expect a fair and thorough examination of the FV, the churches of the federation will have an opportunity to study the report, and then Synod will act on it.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It is erroneous to say that the URC has rejected the FV. The URC has not formally made a statement on the FV itself. Rather, the URC's Synod 2007 appointed a committee to STUDY the FV and to present a report to Synod 2010. Given the caliber of membership of that committee, I expect a fair and thorough examination of the FV, the churches of the federation will have an opportunity to study the report, and then Synod will act on it.

I agree with Dr. Clark having read the nine points.

What, do you suppose, a rejection of the FV will look like? Are they supposed to name actual people or say, precisely, "We reject the FV"?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

John Brown (of Haddington) in Questions and Answers on the Shorter Catechism under Q.20.

Q. Is the covenant of grace, and that of redemption, one and the same covenant?
-A. Yes; the scripture mentions only two covenants that regards man's eternal state, of which the covenant of works is one, and therefore the covenant of grace must be the other: and the blood of Christ is in scripture called the blood of the covenant, but never of the covenants, Gal iv.24.30.
Q. How do you further prove that what some call the covenant of grace made with believers, and distinct from the covenant of redemption, is no proper covenant?
-A. Because it hath no proper condition, faith being as much promised as any other blessing, Psal. cx. 3.
[And skipping a bit...]
Q. Is the making of it the same which some divines call the covenant of redemption?
-A. Yes, Psal. lxxxix. 3.

So John Brown is definind the covenant of grace in the making as being what some call the covenant of redemption, and the administration of it what some call the covenant of grace made with believers (the next question).

Is this an idiosyncratic approach?

Thomas Boston, A View of the Covenant of Grace, p. 24:

So the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace are but two names of one and the same second covenant, under different considerations. By a covenant of redemption, is meant a bargain of buying and selling: and such a covenant it was to Christ only; forasmuch as he alone engaged to pay the price of our redemption, I Pet. i.18, 19. By a covenant of grace is meant a bargain whereby all is to be had freely: and such a covenant it is to us only, to whom the whole of it is of free grace.

Thomas Ridgeley, A Body of Divinity, Vol. 2, pp. 180-181:

When we consider this covenant, as made with Christ, whether we call it the covenant of redemption, or of grace, still we must look upon it as made with him, as the Head and Representative of his elect, and consequently it was made with them, as is observed in this answer, as his seed; therefore if the question by only this, whether it be more or less proper to call this two covenants, or one, I will not contend with them, who in compliance with the common mode of speaking, assert, that they are two distinct covenants: but yet I would rather choose to call them two great branches of the same covenant; one whereof respects what Christ was to do and suffer, and the glory that he was to be afterwards possessed of; the other more immediately respects that salvation, which was to be treasured up in and applied by him to the elect; and therefore I cannot but think, that what is contained in this answer, that the covenant of grace was made with Christ, as the Head, and, in him, with the elect, as his seed, is a very unexplicable explication of this doctrine.

Wilhelmus a'Brakel, The Christian's Reasonable Service, Vol. 1, p. 262:

Thirdly, the covenant of grace and our covenant transaction with God in Christ has its origin and basis in this covenant of redemption between God and Christ.

Abraham Hellenbroek, A Specimen of Divine Truths:

Of the Counsel of Peace

1. Q. How could God predestinate to salvation a portion of fallen mankind, since He can have no communication with sinners?

A. In order for God to be consistent with His holiness and righteousness, Christ intervened with His ransom, from eternity. This is usually called "The Covenant of Redemption, or The Counsel of Peace."

Nicholas Greendyk, An Explanation of Rev. A. Hellenbroek's Catechism "A Specimen of Divine Truths, Vol. 1, pp. 136-137:

But before we explain the Counsel of Peace, or Covenant of Redemption, we must emphasize that the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace are not two distinct covenants, but they are one and the same. Even among sound theologians, some have advocated that there are three covenants respecting man, namely, the Covenant of Works, the Covenant of Redemption, and the Covenant of Grace. They hold that the Covenant of Redemption was made with Christ, and the Covenant of Grace with believers. The Netherlands Reformed Congregations, however, maintain the doctrine of two covenants; namely, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace. As Rev. Kersten says, "The Covenant of Grace lies firm in the Covenant of Redemption, and is the application and execution of it in the elect."[1] In respect of Christ it is called the Covenant of Redemption, forasmuch as in it He engaged to pay the price of redemption for His elect; but in respect of us, it is called the Covenant of Grace, forasmuch as the whole of it is free grace to us, God Himself having provided the ransom. He has given life and salvation to poor sinners, that is, His chosen by free promise, without respect to any work of theirs to entitle them to it.

[1] G.H. Kersten, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. I, 147.

 

[py3ak]

Thanks, Andrew. That seems to show quite definitely that John Brown's treatment is not idiosyncratic.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Dr Clark,

Thanks for the great essay on the FV. It was very clear and concise. I do have one question about the following:

At the same time, the FV movement also re-defines covenant theology to say that there is but one covenant. Historic Reformed theology had affirmed three covenants:

1) a pre-temporal covenant between the Father and the Son (and implicitly the Holy Spirit) to accomplish the redemption of and apply it to the elect;

2) a covenant of works before the fall;

3) a covenant of grace after the fall.

Is it appropriate to say that "Historic Reformed theology" affirmed 3 covenants? Shouldn't the phrase "Historic Reformed theology" refer to the limits set by the official confessions? I'm not wanting to deny the 3 covenants, but wouldn't it be truer to say that in the mature reformed thinking 3 covenants came to be affirmed, but not officially codified?

This is because one can be confessionally reformed without having to affirm the 3 covenants. The first official confession to affirm the 3 covenants was the Savoy. The WCF only affirms the 2 covenants. And the 3FU only affirms 1 basic covenant.

Every blessing dear brother.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Thank you, Dr. Clark! I did "dial in" late to the show - greatly appreciate your summary.

one "proofreading" comment:

This is denomination led by Douglas Wilson, an articulate but confused and confusing religious and social and educational conservative.

You need to an add an "a" after "is" -

 

[Robert Truelove]

Dr Clark,

Thanks for the article. As a former 'Reformed' Baptist gone paedobaptist; I was never enamored by FV but I was easily lead into holding to paedocommunion primarily because I had not taken the time to become more broadly studied in Reformed Theology (you mentioned those like me in your article). As I continued in my studies, I realized I had moved too quickly on paedocommunion. I have since reversed my understanding of the subject (see My Defense of Credocommunion).

I know a handful of churches that practice or hold to paedocommunion. In most cases they or their pastors were formerly baptists and adopted a view for paedocommunion within 3 years of becoming paedobaptists.

My advice to former baptists considering adopting a position for paedocommunion...continue in prayer and study and wait at least a decade after you initially became a paedobaptist before making a change to paedocommunion (especially if you are a pastor). It is a serious matter to go against the entire history of Protestantism. Certainly 500+ years of Protestant history (and not only Reformed) on the issue of the sacrament deserves at least a decade of prayerful consideration before going against it.

 

[mvdm]

It is erroneous to say that the URC has rejected the FV. The URC has not formally made a statement on the FV itself. Rather, the URC's Synod 2007 appointed a committee to STUDY the FV and to present a report to Synod 2010. Given the caliber of membership of that committee, I expect a fair and thorough examination of the FV, the churches of the federation will have an opportunity to study the report, and then Synod will act on it.

I agree with Dr. Clark having read the nine points.

What, do you suppose, a rejection of the FV will look like? Are they supposed to name actual people or say, precisely, "We reject the FV"?

The context not given is that adoption of the 9 points as "pastoral advice" was preceded by Synod's REJECTION of an overture asking for adoption of a report that was a specific examination and condemnation of FV teaching. This was followed by Synod deciding to appoint a study committee to *actually* examine the FV itself. If the URC believed that the 9 points was their answer to the FV, then it was senseless to appoint a committee to spend the next 3 years crafting a proposed "URC position" on the FV. Bottom line, Synod 07 did NOT say the 9 points rejection of errors are referencing the "errors of the FV". So until it does, we should be careful not to state that the URC has taken a position on an identified movement until is has actually done so.


What would a such a rejection look like? I expect it will have the look of the OPC's exhaustive work, interacting fairly, thoroughly, and specifically with the positions taken by identified FV leaders. It will be a report disseminated to the churches for their study in advance of Synod, so that the delegates will be prepared for reflective discussion. I would also expect the report to include reference to the 9 points of "pastoral advice", examining where they can apply to the FV, or where they may not.

I also expect via formal appeals that the hasty and inapposite manner of adoption of the 9 points will be addressed by Synod 2010, so as to avoid a repeat of the current confusion as to what the URC has or has not done.

In the meantime, Dr. Clark is certainly free to give HIS exposition and application of the "pastoral advice" to the FV controversy {and one is free to agree that such exposition is accurately being applied} but it should be understood his exposition and application do not {yet} speak for the federation as a whole.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

No, it isn't. I didn't mean to give the impression that identifying the PS with the C of G is idiosyncratic. I just wasn't sure at the moment, based on what you provided (my copy of Brown is at work and I'm at home marking papers) what Brown was doing.

When I mentioned the WSC, I was thinking of the WLC 31:

Q. 31. With whom was the covenant of grace made?

A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed

The only thing is that this language needs to be balanced with the language used in WCF ch. 8 which emphasizes Christ's voluntary assumption of a human nature etc, i.e. the legal side of the PS which he fulfilled for the elect.

rsc

This is not idiosyncratic.

John Brown (of Haddington) in Questions and Answers on the Shorter Catechism under Q.20.

Q. Is the covenant of grace, and that of redemption, one and the same covenant?
-A. Yes; the scripture mentions only two covenants that regards man's eternal state, of which the covenant of works is one, and therefore the covenant of grace must be the other: and the blood of Christ is in scripture called the blood of the covenant, but never of the covenants, Gal iv.24.30.
Q. How do you further prove that what some call the covenant of grace made with believers, and distinct from the covenant of redemption, is no proper covenant?
-A. Because it hath no proper condition, faith being as much promised as any other blessing, Psal. cx. 3.
[And skipping a bit...]
Q. Is the making of it the same which some divines call the covenant of redemption?
-A. Yes, Psal. lxxxix. 3.

So John Brown is definind the covenant of grace in the making as being what some call the covenant of redemption, and the administration of it what some call the covenant of grace made with believers (the next question).

Is this an idiosyncratic approach?

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Thanks. Got it.

rsc

Thank you, Dr. Clark! I did "dial in" late to the show - greatly appreciate your summary.

one "proofreading" comment:

This is denomination led by Douglas Wilson, an articulate but confused and confusing religious and social and educational conservative.

You need to an add an "a" after "is" -

 

[py3ak]

Thanks all for the clarification and documentation.