Vos on Calvin's approach to the covenant.

[Stephen L Smith]

In Vos' insightful essay "The doctrine of the covenant in Reformed theology", he makes this insightful comment "In Calvin, too, mention is frequently made of the covenants. However his theology was built on the basis of the Trinity, and therefore the covenant concept could not arise as a dominant principle in his case."

I was wondering why Vos made this comment? Covenant theology surely is Trinitarian. Therefore if his theology is built on the basis of the Trinity as Vos asserts, surely it can be Trinitarian and Covenantal.

I am aware that the Puritans developed covenant theology more, but can Calvin be seen as a father of covenant theology?

 

[Dachaser]

In Vos' insightful essay "The doctrine of the covenant in Reformed theology", he makes this insightful comment "In Calvin, too, mention is frequently made of the covenants. However his theology was built on the basis of the Trinity, and therefore the covenant concept could not arise as a dominant principle in his case."

I was wondering why Vos made this comment? Covenant theology surely is Trinitarian. Therefore if his theology is built on the basis of the Trinity as Vos asserts, surely it can be Trinitarian and Covenantal.

I am aware that the Puritans developed covenant theology more, but can Calvin be seen as a father of covenant theology?

Would it not be more proper to see him as being the father of Calvinism?

 

[Taylor]

I was wondering why Vos made this comment?

I remember reading the very beginning of Morton Smith's Systematic Theology, and he was talking about the various ways in which theologians have organized there systematic treatises throughout history. He placed Calvin under the "Trinitarian" model. In this model, the theologian views theology through the work of each individual of the Trinity. You can see this through the various titles he gives the four books of his Institutes—namely, "The Knowledge of God the Creator" (Book I) and "The Knowledge of God the Redeemer in Christ" (Book II).

I think all Vos is saying here is that Calvin did not formulate his system in viewing redemption as much through the lens of covenant as others after him did. it doesn't mean that Calvin didn't utilize or even advance the concept, of course, it just wasn't the "hinge" on which his theology rotated. But we see a real utilization and advancement in the area of covenant theology more overtly in, say, Cocceius and Witsius.

Some better Reformed historians here could help/correct me, of course.

 

[jwright82]

Didn't Peter Lillback write his dissertation on this?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The notion of the Reformed holding to covenant theology as a central dogma is a mistaken one. Reformed theology has a doctrine of the covenant(s), but, judged by our confessions, it is not a "dominant principle." Geerhardus Vos's opinion on this subject seems to be shaped too much by 19th-century German approaches to viewing one theological topic as the central teaching of a system.

 

[Taylor]

...19th-century German approaches to viewing one theological topic as the central teaching of a system.

Building off what I said in my reply above, I believe I remember Dr. Smith making this exact criticism of any attempt to find in others and/or utilize for oneself a "central theme" in doing theology. This is, for example, one common criticism of John Frame and his triads.

 

[Solparvus]

I don't know much about Calvin in respect to this matter, but it sounds like the most appropriate frame in which to view covenants. I will want to ponder this. Thanks Stephen!

 

[JTB.SDG]

Good question. My inclination would be to say that Calvin didn't necessarily develop covenant as much because he was earlier and there was a lot of groundwork to lay before theological concepts could be built on and further clarified. Calvin though does talk more about covenant than most people give him credit for, which I think is more apparent outside of the institutes and in his commentaries, and in his sermons. He has an exhaustive sermon series through Deuteronomy (over 200 sermons) where he often comes back to the covenant.

The Puritans developed the concept of covenant before Witsius (and even Cocceius). John Ball's treatise was published in 1645, five years after his death. In 1657 Francis Roberts published what I'm sure is the longest, and what I consider the best volume on the covenants ever produced in the English language; a 1700 page masterpiece on the covenants, called The Mystery and Marrow of Divinity.

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

Please forgive me for the lengthy quote but I think it adds to this discussion. The following is from Andrew Woolsey's Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought:

"In the past there has been much scholarly discussion as to what constitutes the central theme in Calvin’s theology. 1 The sovereignty of God and the doctrine of predestination have been most closely associated with the Reformer in this respect. 2 Others have looked to the rule of law 3 and Calvin’s Christology as central to his thought. 4 The more likely truth is that Calvin never consciously attempted to make any one doctrine central to his theology. This was Göhler’s opinion: “There is no central doctrine in the theology of Calvin; rather all his doctrines are central in the sense that their aim is to aim to understand independently from their several viewpoints what is central and essential.” 5 Others have come to agree with him. 6 Calvin saw the interrelatedness of biblical doctrines and dealt with them accordingly. Consequently, every one of the doctrines mentioned are key themes for Calvin, and are so interwoven in his treatment of themes that it is difficult to single any out for individual examination without doing violence to the whole. When, therefore, the questions are asked, Was Calvin a predestinarian theologian? Was Calvin a “legal” theologian? or Was Calvin an eschatological theologian?, the answer is both positive and negative. The answer is negative if the question assumes any one of these issues dominates his theology; it is positive if it is meant that these aspects are vital, essential, ever-present factors within the entirety of his theological work. Was Calvin a covenantal theologian? No one has ever suggested that Calvin made covenant the dominating feature of his system in the manner of some later theologians such as Cocceius or Witsius, but interestingly, the two major studies which appear to have been undertaken on the subject have demonstrated that the covenant is a continuing and integral part of Calvin’s entire theological thought. 7 Without it the unity of his entire system would be seriously undermined. Both Van den Bergh and Lillback concluded that Calvin deserves to be labeled a “covenant theologian.” The articles by Hoekema and Eenigenburg lend qualified support to this contention. The former insisted that Calvin’s use of covenant was so widespread in his work that it occupied a distinctive place in the organization of his theology in the Institutes from 1539 onwards, and also in his commentaries and sermons. 8 Eenigenburg rejected the designation from an historical point of view, but regarded it as having significance from an exegetical perspective. 9 At the opposite end of the spectrum a few writers have ventured to suggest that “covenant theology does not appear in the writings of…Calvin.” 10 Perry Miller saw it as a Puritanical addition to Calvinism which must have caused Calvin’s ghost to shudder. 11 Other writers fit somewhere in between, practically all recognizing that the concept of covenant, particularly the covenant of grace, plays a more or less important role in Calvin’s work. Certainly the idea of covenant is very widely dispersed throughout Calvin’s writings and impinges upon practically every area of doctrine. A glance at the lemmatic index of the Battles and Miller Computerized Concordance to Institutio shows that Calvin used the word foedus no fewer than seventy-seven times and immediately related words ( foedera , etc.) a further seventy-four times. 12 He used pactum fifteen times in his Institutes , and related words, including pactio and the homonym pacisci , twenty times. 13 Testamentum was used twenty-nine times, and related words fifty-four times. 14 To employ specific “covenant” terminology 269 times in one work is a significantly high usage, and this calculation does not take account for words such as coniunctio (union, association, affinity), obstringere (“to bind up,” or “lay under an obligation”), vinculum (bond, fetter), or vincire (“to bind”), which Calvin often used synonymously. 15 By no stretch of the imagination can it be agreed that “the covenant element in the Institutes is relatively minor.”

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

In 1657 Francis Roberts published what I'm sure is the longest, and what I consider the best volume on the covenants ever produced in the English language; a 1600 page masterpiece on the covenants, called The Mystery and Marrow of Divinity.

I am torn between Robert's magnum opus or William Strong's A Discourse of the Two Covenants as being the best treatment of Covenant Theology penned in English. Theologians today would undoubtedly do well to study these two treatises carefully.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The notion of the Reformed holding to covenant theology as a central dogma is a mistaken one. Reformed theology has a doctrine of the covenant(s), but, judged by our confessions, it is not a "dominant principle." Geerhardus Vos's opinion on this subject seems to be shaped too much by 19th-century German approaches to viewing one theological topic as the central teaching of a system.

Apart from this caveat, I would add that Geerhardus Vos's essay on the doctrine of the covenant is excellent.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I found this.... https://francisrobertsproject.wordpress.com/
It looks really good.
Francis Roberts....
https://reformedtheologybooks.files...-mt-sinai-as-a-covenant-and-that-of-faith.pdf

Thank You

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I found this.... https://francisrobertsproject.wordpress.com/
It looks really good.
Francis Roberts....
https://reformedtheologybooks.files...-mt-sinai-as-a-covenant-and-that-of-faith.pdf

Thank You

Thanks for bringing that blog to my attention. Francis Roberts's The Mystery and Marrow of the Bible looks pretty outstanding, but I have only dipped into a bit of it. If I recall correctly, it is something like 1,000 pages long. Mind you, I could think of worse ways to spend my time than reading 1,000 pages of Roberts.

I have a handful of quotes from Francis Roberts on my blog, if anyone cares.

 

[JTB.SDG]

Roberts is simply outstanding. Buried treasure is the only way to describe it.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Andrew Woolsey's Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought

Fun fact: his brother and sister in law live around the corner from me.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I think all Vos is saying here is that Calvin did not formulate his system in viewing redemption as much through the lens of covenant as others after him did. it doesn't mean that Calvin didn't utilize or even advance the concept, of course, it just wasn't the "hinge" on which his theology rotated. But we see a real utilization and advancement in the area of covenant theology more overtly in, say, Cocceius and Witsius.

Thanks. That clarifies it quite helpfully.

Some better Reformed historians

I know you drink of great pastor-theologians such as Martyn Lloyd-Jones. You are trained by the best

 

[Stephen L Smith]

The notion of the Reformed holding to covenant theology as a central dogma is a mistaken one. Reformed theology has a doctrine of the covenant(s), but, judged by our confessions, it is not a "dominant principle."

I am not fully convinced. The WCF places the doctrine of the covenant at chapter 7 because it forms the theological framework for the rest of the confession. It gives the plan of salvation - the pactum salutis, the historia salutis and the ordo salutis - the creator-creature distinction (WCF 7:1) etc.

Apart from this caveat, I would add that Geerhardus Vos's essay on the doctrine of the covenant is excellent.

Actually Vos goes on to defend covenant theology as an important "organising principle". He argues, for example, that the WCF is the first Reformed confession to take the covenant from the side, and place it in the heart of the confession. He builds his argument from there.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

The Puritans developed the concept of covenant before Witsius (and even Cocceius). John Ball's treatise was published in 1645, five years after his death.

Good point.

In 1657 Francis Roberts published what I'm sure is the longest, and what I consider the best volume on the covenants ever produced in the English language; a 1700 page masterpiece on the covenants, called The Mystery and Marrow of Divinity.

How does this compare with Witsius on the subject of the covenant?

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Please forgive me for the lengthy quote but I think it adds to this discussion. The following is from Andrew Woolsey's Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought:

Great insight. I think it confirms my belief that Calvin held to all the essential Reformed doctrines and these were expanded/developed by the Puritans and the theologians on the continent.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I am not fully convinced. The WCF places the doctrine of the covenant at chapter 7 because it forms the theological framework for the rest of the confession. It gives the plan of salvation - the pactum salutis, the historia salutis and the ordo salutis - the creator-creature distinction (WCF 7:1) etc.

Westminster Shorter Catechism
Q. 3 What do the Scriptures principally teach?
A. The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.

There is no notion here of the covenant of grace as the central dogma. The scriptures principally teach us what we are to believe concerning God; the doctrine of the covenants is an important means to that greater end. You are correct to note that the Westminster Confession recognises that the doctrine of the covenant(s) is an important subject, but not the "dominant principle" as Vos alledges. The dominant principle of the Westminster Standards is what we are to believe concerning God, and what duty he requires of us.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Westminster Shorter Catechism

I shall go one step further and use the majestic Larger Catechism The WCF devotes Q 30-88 to the covenant of grace. The Westminster Larger Catechism seems to use the covenant of grace as an organising principle. Note I said an not the. I agree in one sense the doctrine of God comes first. We need the doctrine of God to build the concept of covenant.

There is no notion here of the covenant of grace as the central dogma.

As I said in my previous post the doctrine of the covenant in the WCF is placed in ch 7. Obviously the chapter on God is before this. But I would equally argue that ch 7 on the covenant forms the theological framework for the rest of the confession.

I forgot to mention in my previous post, Packer's "Introduction to covenant theology" is very helpful in this regard https://heritagebooktalk.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/witsius-economy-1-sample.pdf

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I shall go one step further and use the majestic Larger Catechism The WCF devotes Q 30-88 to the covenant of grace. The Westminster Larger Catechism seems to use the covenant of grace as an organising principle. Note I said an not the. I agree in one sense the doctrine of God comes first. We need the doctrine of God to build the concept of covenant.

As I said in my previous post the doctrine of the covenant in the WCF is placed in ch 7. Obviously the chapter on God is before this. But I would equally argue that ch 7 on the covenant forms the theological framework for the rest of the confession.

I forgot to mention in my previous post, Packer's "Introduction to covenant theology" is very helpful in this regard https://heritagebooktalk.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/witsius-economy-1-sample.pdf

Fair enough; I have no issue with the covenant of grace being seen as an organising principle. I do still think that Vos was perhaps using terms in a manner more reminiscent of 19th-century German theologians (not that he was in full agreement with them by any means).

 

[JTB.SDG]

Good point.

How does this compare with Witsius on the subject of the covenant?

No comparison

Okay, let me answer a bit more thoughtfully. Witsius is very good. But Roberts is just amazing. At a loss for words. Witsius is helpful and doctrinally sound. Roberts is all of that plus amazing insights you have never heard before, profound quotes; not only rich and solid doctrinally but he preaches to your heart.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

The notion of the Reformed holding to covenant theology as a central dogma is a mistaken one. Reformed theology has a doctrine of the covenant(s), but, judged by our confessions, it is not a "dominant principle."

I acknowledge I may have overacted to your statement about covenant theology as a dominant principle. If you had said the dominant principle I could have understood the concern.

Fair enough; I have no issue with the covenant of grace being seen as an organising principle. I do still think that Vos was perhaps using terms in a manner more reminiscent of 19th-century German theologians (not that he was in full agreement with them by any means).

Now we are in agreement. Coming from a dispensational background I have come to see the beauty of covenant theology and how it strengthens a number of doctrines.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Witsius is helpful and doctrinally sound. Roberts is all of that plus amazing insights you have never heard before, profound quotes; not only rich and solid doctrinally but he preaches to your heart.

I understand Witsius wrote his work a couple of decades after Roberts. In the 17th century, covenant theology developed and matured quite significantly. For example, by the end of the 17th century, the Covenant of Redemption was seen as 'separate' yet 'the same' from the Covenant of Grace' in the sense that the Covenant of Redemption was used to describe the pact between members of the Trinity in eternity past, which was theologically worked out in the covenant of grace. From my reading of Witsius, he reflects this later and mature development. I assume this is true of Roberts also?

As a matter of interest, one of the most helpful books I have read on the relationship between the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace is "Jonathan Edwards and the Covenant of Grace" by Carl Bogue. There is a useful summary of Dr Bogue's argument here.