Too much covenant?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting article.

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

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
:ditto: 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Ah read you wrong like Rev. Winzer as if you wanted to discard it. My mistake.
The post by Dr. Clark looks excellent.
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
...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?
 
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.

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.

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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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?
 
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).
 
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
 
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).


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?




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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top