In another thread one contributor made this comment regarding Covenant theology:
Dannii Willis - 17 October 2008 12:45 PM
Covenant Theology is about the “Covenant of Grace”, not the New Covenant… it is a supposed extra-Biblical covenant and I believe it seriously confuses people about the real Biblical covenants. It reduces them to being mere expressions of this Covenant of Grace, rather than being the wonderfully amazing promises God made to real people.
Now I’ve never heard Covenant Theology described quite that way. It sounds like a caricature to me, but I thought it would be worth hearing what others have to say on this topic, which clearly has profound implications for our understanding of the whole of the Bible.
Thoughts anyone?
Good post. It’s a topic which interests me a fair bit!
Contra to Dannii, actually, Covenant Theology in the eyes of the reformers was referred to in three main categories: Covenant of Redemption (inter-trinitarian covenant), Covenant of Works (Adamic covenant), and Covenant of Grace (Post-Fall set of covenants). These are three categories to understand Scripture in a salvation-historical way. The covenant of redemption refers to the agreement of the Father to Son the son to save His elect. The covenant of works (also referred to as the covenant of creation) is simply the Creator-Creature obligations placed on all men. The covenant of grace is God’s acts of grace post-fall towards humanity (included in this covenant are the other covenants such as Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, New Covenant).
It seems to me that as per Dannii’s concern (though I do think he’s mixed up his terminology a bit), collapsing everything into a so-called covenant of grace - mono-covenantal system - we lose something serious. This is a good, reformed theology which is not commonly even understood! J.I. Packer’s written a great (excellent!) introduction on covenant theology - check it out (or check out the section on it @ www.monergism.com/directory:
Jim Packer on covenant theology: http://www.gospelpedlar.com/articles/Bible/cov_theo.html
And for the best contemporary summaries on Covenant Theology, read Michael Horton or O. Palmer Robertson. There are slight differences (eg, O Palmer robertson on the covenant of redemption), but they are great places to start. I reckon Michael Horton’s book, God of Promise is excellent and introduces everything VERY well.
Hope this is helpful!
Mark
PS - I think one reason that we’ve got a fuzzy view of covenant theology is due to the influence of Karl Barth. A.T.B McGowan shows that Barth misunderstood the reformers when criticising covenant theology (see his chapter in Engaging with Barth).
It is a topic I’ve been thinking of looking at for a while now. Someone suggested I get Two Covenants by Andrew Murray. Which I did BUT unfortuntaely it is still on my ‘to read one day’ pile.
I would agree we are certainly under Grace rather than the Law which I learnt from my recent Bible Study of Romans. Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law so the Old Covenant hasn’t been abolished but satisfied.
MT 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”
I don’t think I am into MONERGISM. While I understand and to a certain extent accept the working of the Holy Spirit in drawing people towards God in Christ, I think MONERGISM looks like an extreme form of pre-destinationism.
The proposition of a Covenant of Redemption, a Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Grace might seem like a nifty framework but I think they are an unecessary overlay on the Biblical covenants of which we have evidence.
I think, from by brief perusal of the web-sites referred to, that it perhaps has become a bulwark of argument about the pre-eminence of the Word over Sacrament - it is enough for the word to be proclaimed; the Holy Spirit will then take over and bring the hearers to an understanding. I understand that this would be highly regarded in evangelical and Calvinistic circles.
There is a countervaling theology to MONERGISM and it’s propostiion of “pre-destination” that is called SYNERGISM. This theological view asserts that the human will must co-operate with the will of God for salvation to happen. In my earlier tradition of faith among Churches of Christ, we called it being Arminian - after a Dutch reformer of the 16th century whose views became very strong amongst the Methodists - but it means that we receive God’s salvation through our free-will assent to God’s call rather than through some notion of our salvation being predestined as per John Calvin. These two strands of thought are evidently both represented within the Anglican church, and I feel most comfortable with free-will.
My understanding of Covenant Theology, not referenced to any particular author, is that God bound himself to various humans and their families at various stages in Biblical pre-history - Adam, Noah and Abraham are particular examples - and this was done in the form of covenant.
Then God bound himself to the people of Israel in various declarations and actions, and they bound themselves to God, who for them became the Great I AM, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The story of the Eqyptian captivity and the Exodus set the stage for the great covenant of God with the people expressed in the giving and receiving of the Ten Commandments. This mutual binding was iterated and reiterated through the periods of the Judges, Kings and prophets.
Finally God sought a covenatal relationship with all people through his Son Jesus - this is the New Covenant that we celebrate each time we meet at the Lord’s Table.
The problem with the idea of a Covenant of Grace is that there is no Biblical warrant for it - it is the product of our much later theological reflection. I guess we are always doing that, but let us not create too many new problems by our new ideas.
I think I agree with Dannii in the suggestion that this framework detracts from the amazing covenant material we have in the Bible.
Hi John
Predestination is not John Calvin’s idea.
It is clearly taught throughout Scripture, and was taught by Augustine and Aquinas and many others long before John Calvin came along.
Most theological ideas have some Biblical warrant, and that particular one has been debated obviously for many years. Many, however, have questioned it on a number of grounds, at least so far as how far you apply the idea of it. At its extreme, it is nothing more than fatalism - what will be will be - and our salvation has nothing to do with us, rather it has to do with whether or not we are numbered among the elect.
There is similar Biblical warrant for the idea that God offers salvation to all and that they receive that salvation as a gift of God’s grace in response to their act of faith in believing that Christ is the source of their salvation.
I think that the theological formularies associated with predestinationism are the result of a misapplication of the idea of God’s complete foreknowledge. It is philosophically and theologically true to say that God knows everything before it happens; therefore he knows who will be saved. This, however, does not create an “elect” who are predestined regardless of will for salvation.
I have found that it is very often the case that when we try to take ideas that seem to be evident in Scripture and apply them to the logical extent, we actually end up in error. My Church History professor used to say “Heresy is simply TRUTH taken to its logical extreme.” All the heresies in the early church about the humanity and divinity of Jesus were the result of applying the truth of the idea that Jesus was Divine or Jesus was fully human to such an extent that what they were saying was no longer true.
I accept there is some validity to the idea of predestinationism, but please do not push it too far for fear of creating a world in which none of us has a say - God’s eternal will, after all, will always be worked out - NOT! There is always the opportunity for human beings to thwart that will by non-cooperation. God in his grace then starts creating PLAN B.
I think, from by brief perusal of the web-sites referred to, that it [Covenant Theology / Monergism?] perhaps has become a bulwark of argument about the pre-eminence of the Word over Sacrament - it is enough for the word to be proclaimed; the Holy Spirit will then take over and bring the hearers to an understanding.
John
I don’t think that history bears out this particular observation, when one considers that classic, Calvinistic Presbyterianism which is strongly monergistic and covenantal in its theology has also had a strong emphasis on and a high view of the sacraments.
Regards,
Bob
[Ed. A most recent example of this was the speech at Synod on Wednesday by Bishop Glenn Davies during the ‘theology of Christian assembly’ debate. Not that Glenn is a Presbyterian, of course, but he is a strong advocate of Covenant Theology—and he did train at Westminter Seminary, PA!]
Contra to Dannii, actually, Covenant Theology in the eyes of the reformers was referred to in three main categories: Covenant of Redemption (inter-trinitarian covenant), Covenant of Works (Adamic covenant), and Covenant of Grace (Post-Fall set of covenants).
Yes that’s correct. I hadn’t mentioned the covenants of redemption or works because they’re generally less controversial and have a smaller impact on our understanding of scripture. I still disagree with them though.
I firstly object to calling them covenants. Of course God has a single theology and his MO is grace, but he has not made a “Covenant of Grace”. Covenants are contracts, made between two parties at specific places on specific days, and in the Bible they’re usually accompanied by a sign. When in Hebrews 6 the author talks about the Abrahamic covenant, he says that “since he could swear by no one greater, he swore by himself.” Abraham’s covenant is probably the second greatest collection of promises God has ever made, and he made them in a historical covenant. The author goes on to say he made a covenant to show to the covenant heirs how unchangeable his purposes are, and that it’s in this historical covenant way that God made the New Covenant. Covenant Theology says that the covenants are only expressions of some ahistorical covenant. It makes the word covenant meaningless. If the specific terms of the covenant keep changing and the people of the covenant weren’t participants of the covenant giving process (because there was no process), how can it be one? About the only thing they keep is the sign, but even that changes from circumcision to baptism…
but worse than that, it diminishes God’s swearing by himself. God spoke to Abraham… he passed between the halves of the sacrifice himself. Seriously, WOW!
Covenant Theology says “meh, happens all the time. God’s always making new expressions of the Covenant of Grace, and they’re really all the same. No big deal.”
Other problems I have:
I’m not sure there was a covenant of redemption either. As the active working Word of God, it is entirely natural that it was Jesus who took on flesh and died. I’m willing to be proved wrong here, but I don’t know anywhere that says an actual agreement was made between the godhead.
Noah’s covenant was also to everything with land creature of the earth. How can it be part of the Covenant of Grace when the CoG is all about Jesus and his salvation of humanity? Are we to exclude the animals from Noah’s covenant, or include them in the New?
Everyone forgets poor Phinehas and his eternal covenant.
You can see in this recent topic what this theology produces. No offence to Craig, but the children of Christians are sinners as much as the rest and there is nothing that entitles them to a place in the Kingdom of God other than receiving God’s word and trusting his son. I believe this idea has come from CT which conflates all the covenants into the CoG. Abraham’s covenant certainly was communal, and being a descendent of Abraham entitled you to the blessings. But despite those who say individualism was foreign in Biblical times, the New Covenant is an individual covenant. Being born into a Christian family is a huge blessing, but it means nothing in terms of the covenant.
That’s enough for tonight. Maybe another night I’ll get started on Graeme Goldsworthy or John Dickson… ;)
Presbyterians might hold a high view of sacrament but they still celebrate it once a quarter rather than on each Lord’s Day. The rest of the time they gather for worship the Word is central to what they do. You only have to look at the architecture of traditional Presbyterian churches in which the PULPIT is the central visual feature.
I hold that the Monergist view does not completely satisfy as an explanation of God’s gift of grace in salvation. Too much is dependant on our decision to accept the gift, our belief in the first instance and in an ongoing way in the efficacy of God’s saving acts in Jesus. The Monergistic view seems to relaget these matters to the sidelines.
And if this view provides the basis for the three nifty kinds of covenant described above, then I suggest that the scaffolding is built with bamboo. They are talking about theoretical frameworks, not Covenant Theology.
Hi Again John!
I think the practice of quarterly Communion actually elevates its importance—just as we celebrate Easter and Christmas once a year. Not that I intend to emulate the Presbyterian model. But frequency of Communion may be a discussion for another day. :-)
Bob
Probably being the only full blooded Calvinist on this forum, being Presbyterian, “covenant with promises” was drummed into us at College as a golden thread running through linking Old and New, just think about
Gen 12:1-3, 15, 17, 22, Ex 6, 19, Deut 4, 2 Sam 7, Jer 31, Matt 26 (Last Supper), 2Cor 3, Heb 7-10, think of the Prophets as God’s covenant messengers, and on and on.
Presbyterians might hold a high view of sacrament but they still celebrate it once a quarter rather than on each Lord’s Day. The rest of the time they gather for worship the Word is central to what they do. You only have to look at the architecture of traditional Presbyterian churches in which the PULPIT is the central visual feature.
Interesting comment John.
Most Presbyterians retain the Quarterly Communion and its a grand affair when well done - white line on the table and across pews in some fashion signifying that people in pews are at the table, the method of serving, invitation cards, fencing the table, etc . Many have gone over to a monthly communion. Unfortunately Presbyterians suffered a bad bout of teetotalism somewhere along the way and we have to put up with grape juice.
Unfortunately too, many of my ministerial colleagues have not embraced Calvin’s high view of the Lords Supper for a more typical evangelical memorial view. It Anglican clergy keep to the Prayer Book, they are spared this unfortunate truncated inadequate understanding of the Lord’s Supper.
John’s comment is correct re the pulpit position, though in the early 20th century there was a modest Catholic revival in the Presbyterian church which saw pulpits put to the side in both existing and new churchs. Post 1977 whenever a new church building is erected or the furniture rearranged in an existing building the pulpit (more often a simple lecturn) is repositioned front and centre. John is spot on re the preaching which is expository, working through books of the Bible not according to a Lectionary, but celebrating Christmas and Easter, Pentecost maybe, and Reformation Sunday (last Sunday in October, again may be). According to my observation not all that different to Sydney Anglicans.
I’d like to comment more but today is an outdoor day.
Despite the fact that God made a covenant with various people in the Old Testament it is wonder ful to see various accounts where God stepped outside the covenant as we find in the account of King Hezekiah.
God said to Moses:-
EX 33:19 And the LORD said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
This is demonstrated in 2Chronilces30. I will only post a small section of this. Here is the overview. King Hezekiah (King of Judah) just started his reign. He decided to repair the temple and celebrate passover. Now Israel being a separate kingdom for ages at this time would not have come down to the temple in Judah and celebrate passover. King Hezekiah not only calls the people of Judah to celebrate the passove but invites people from Israel to do so as well. Couriers are sent out throughout Israel and greeted with mocking etc.. but SOME Israelites HUMBLED themsleves and went down to Judah for the passover. When they got there they hadn’t concencrated themselves to either kill their passover lamb or to partake of the Passover meal. However, King Hezekiah prays for them and God accepts his pray and heals His people.
Basically my point is they did not follow/fulfill the LAW but God atill accepted them anyway. God had mercy and compassion on them. Which I see as GRACE and it is demonstrated to us here in the Old Testament.
2CH 30:15 They slaughtered the Passover lamb on the fourteenth day of the second month. The priests and the Levites were ashamed and consecrated themselves and brought burnt offerings to the temple of the LORD. 16 Then they took up their regular positions as prescribed in the Law of Moses the man of God. The priests sprinkled the blood handed to them by the Levites. 17 Since many in the crowd had not consecrated themselves, the Levites had to kill the Passover lambs for all those who were not ceremonially clean and could not consecrate their lambs to the LORD. 18 Although most of the many people who came from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulun had not purified themselves, yet they ate the Passover, contrary to what was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, “May the LORD, who is good, pardon everyone 19 who sets his heart on seeking God--the LORD, the God of his fathers--even if he is not clean according to the rules of the sanctuary.” 20 And the LORD heard Hezekiah and healed the people.
Great post, Dannii. Although I would probably disagree with you on its application in some points. Theologians have the tendency to invent abstract theology, divorced from the text and contained merely in their own terminology. Most seminaries teach this stuff instead of the Bible, and when they do teach the Bible it’s often dissected into mostly disconnected little parcels. Then when they argue over what a particular passage means, it’s like trying to figure out what that strange object featured on Collectors each week is! They try to find its meaning with the greater context hidden in the shadows. Its never as complicated as they make out. Oh for more Bible teachers and less theologians.
Well put Michael B. We all too easily forget that God wants above all else for mankind to be reconciled with Him. Thank God even a little child can recieve salvation because it is that simple.
