|
A Brief History of Covenant Theology © R. S. Clark, 2001. All Rights
Reserved.
Introduction
The roots of Reformed covenant theology are as deep as the
Christian revelation and tradition is old. Its importance to
the Reformed faith cannot be overstated. The great Princeton
theologian, B. B. Warfield called federal (covenant) theology,
"architectonic principle" of the Westminster Confession
of Faith
(1647).
Early Fathers: Present But Undeveloped.
Until the Pelagian controversy (late 300's) and the semi-Pelagian
(early 400's) controversies following that, the church did not
have a highly developed doctrine of salvation. The early church
also had a theology of the covenant which is best described as
latent, but undeveloped. The early fathers used the doctrine
of the covenant in five ways:
1. To stress the moral obligations of Christianity;
2. To show God’s grace in including the Gentiles in the
Abrahamic blessings;
3. To deny that Israelites received the promises simply because
they were physical descendents of Abraham;
4. To demonstrate the unity of the divine economy of salvation;
5 To explain the discontinuity between the old and new covenants
in Scripture.
The greatest of all the early fathers, however, was Augustine
of Hippo (354-430 AD), the giant upon whose shoulders the rest
of the church has stood. In his greatest work, The City of God
(16:27), he clearly taught the outlines of what would become
central elements in classic Reformed theology, the covenant of
works and the covenant of grace.
But even the infants, not personally in their own life, but
according to the common origin of the human race, have all broken
God’s covenant in that one in whom all have sinned. Now
there are many things called God’s covenants besides those
two great ones, the old and the new, which any one who pleases
may read and know. For the first covenant, which was made with
the first man, is just this: "In the day ye eat thereof,
ye shall surely die." Whence it is written in the book called
Ecclesiasticus, "All flesh waxeth old as doth a garment.
For the covenant from the beginning is, Thou shall die the death."
There are two Adams in the history of salvation. As the Puritans
had it, "In Adam's fall, sinned we all." He was our
federal representative. Christ, of course, is the Second Adam,
the federal representative of all the elect. Augustine considers
that God made a legal covenant with Adam, that he was under the
Law and he distinguishes here and later in the chapter, between
the Law and the Gospel. This distinction was largely lost in
the Medieval church, but it was one of the great recoveries of
the Reformation.
Considering the history of salvation, the old and new covenants
are both expressions of the Gospel. Most importantly we must
note that Augustine turned to covenant theology against the Pelagians
(who denied original sin) and against the semi-Pelagians, who
affirmed original sin, but who argued that we could cooperate
with divine grace for our righteousness before God.
Medieval Period
For most of the Medieval period, the Western (Latin) church
and the major theologians agreed that God says what he says about
us, because we are what we are. That is, God can only call people
righteous, if they truly are righteous, inside and out. This,
they thought, will happen when sinners are infused with grace
so that they become saints. Justification was a matter of cooperation
with divine grace, faith is obedience and doubt is of the essence
of faith.
The major development in medieval covenant theology was the
proposition by great Franciscan theologian, William of Ockham
(1285-1347) and later by Gabriel Biel (1420-95) that God does
not say what he says (e.g., "you are just") because
we really are just, but rather, because we have met the terms
of the covenant to cooperate with God. This is known as the Franciscan
Pactum theology. Their slogan was, "To the one who does
what he can, God will not deny grace." You know this teaching
as, "God helps those who help themselves."
Ockham and Biel were teaching that God rewards sinners with
a kind of merit when they do their best. He overlooks their sins
and treats them as if they had fulfilled the terms of the covenant,
i.e., as if they had kept the Law. It was against this very teaching
that Martin rebelled in the Protestant Reformation.
Covenant Theology in the Reformation
Though Martin Luther (1483-1546) came to hate the covenant
theology of the Franciscans, he did not abandon every part of
it. Though he did not work out a complete covenant theology,
as he became a Protestant (1513-19) Luther taught Paul's doctrine
of original sin, absolute divine sovereignty in salvation (double
predestination), the imputation of our sin to Christ and his
righteousness to us and faith as the alone instrument of justification.
According to Luther, we are not justified because we are sanctified.
He, with Calvin and all the Protestants, did not reject the idea
of merit, but he learned that it is not our merits produced by
grace which satisfies God, it is Christ who merited our justice
and his merits are imputed to sinners.
Luther expressed these truths in his distinction, in justification,
between Law and Gospel. The latter is the good news about what
Christ has done for sinners. The former is bad news for
sinners. Any time Scripture says, "Do this and live"
(Luke 10:28) it is speaking Law. Whenever it says, "I have
done that you might live" it is speaking Gospel. Though
some Reformed theologians have suggested that we disagree with
Luther on this principle, B. B. Warfield reminded us that it
is "misleading to find the formative principle of either
type of Protestantism in its difference from the other; they
have infinitely more in common than in distinction." Our
doctrine of justification is one of those things we have in common.
One reason why Luther did not speak much about covenant in
his later writings was that the idea had come to be associated
with the Franciscan theologians whom he had publicly repudiated.
Another possible reason is that Huldrych Zwingi (1484-1531) spoke
more about the covenant. Zwingli, however, also taught a covenant
of works before the fall and a covenant of grace after the fall.
He especially described the sacraments in terms of the covenant,
and our response to grace. His emphasis on our responsibility
in the covenant made it sounds to Luther as if he agreed with
Ockham.
One of the lesser-known Protestants between Luther and Calvin
was Johannes Oecolampadius (†1531). For the time, Oecolampadius
taught a remarkably mature covenant theology including the doctrine
of the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works and the
covenant of grace. Indeed, the great Reformed theologian Amandus
Polanus considered Oecolampadius the first Reformed covenant
theologian.
For example, the covenant of redemption, though a relatively
new doctrine and though not worked out in detail, is found more
fully in Oecolampadius' than in other theologians of the period.
In 1521 He spoke of the Father's covenant with the Son, and taught
that the covenant of grace is an outworking of this covenant.
As it came to be expressed in 17th century Reformed theology,
the covenant of redemption (pactum salutis or consilium
pacis, the counsel of peace) taught that the Father required
that the Son should obey in the place of the elect, that he should
be their surety, i.e., he would meet the legal obligations of
the elect, to atone for their sins, to bear the punishment for
their sins and to meet the demands of the covenant of works (Law)
and to merit the forgiveness of sins and positive righteousness
(imputed) to his people.
The Son, as the second party to this covenant, graciously,
freely, willingly accepted the terms of this covenant. The Father
promised several things, among them a sinless humanity, the Holy
Spirit without measure, cooperation in the Son's work, the authority
to dispense the Holy Spirit and all authority on heaven and earth,
numerous rewards for completing the probation as the 2nd Adam.
Should the Son meet the terms of this covenant, he would merit
the justification of his people and be vindicated by his resurrection.
His most important work on covenant theology were his lectures
on Isaiah delivered in 1523-24. In those lectures he described
the covenant of grace as one-sided in origin and two-sided in
administration. Therefore, the covenant of grace, considered
as God's Gospel offer to sinners, must be said to be unconditional
in the sense that we do not prepare for it, nor do we cooperate
with it. We simply believe the Gospel promise. The covenant of
grace can be said to be conditional when we consider the administration
of the covenant in the life of the church. Christians are obligated,
as a response to grace to attend to the preaching of the Gospel
and the administration of the sacraments. These are the basic
lines of all Reformed covenant theology through the 19th century.
Like Luther, John Calvin (1509-1564) taught the substance
of the more highly developed federal theology. Like Bullinger,
most of his discussion of the covenant concerned the history
of redemption from Adam to Christ and the continuity of the covenant
of grace. Nevertheless, he taught the substance of what became
classic Reformed federal theology: the covenant of redemption
in eternity (pactum salutis), the covenant of works before
the fall and the covenant of grace after the fall.
Some scholars deny that Calvin taught the same covenant theology
as the later Reformed theologians since he did not use the same
vocabulary as they did. This is ironic since Calvin himself complained
about the Romanists who would not allow him to use the expression
"faith alone" (Institutes, 3.11.19) since the
word "alone" (sola) is not used expressly in
Scripture. For Calvin the Law (covenant of works) kills sinners
and the Gospel (covenant of grace) justifies and sanctifies them
through faith alone, in Christ alone. He used the covenant to
express those fundamental truths.
Beginning with the basic distinction between Law (guilt) and
Gospel (grace) he also used the covenant to include a more prominent
place for sanctification or gratitude. We know these as the three
parts of our catechism.
Heinrich Bullinger (1504-75) published perhaps the first treatise
devoted to explaining the covenant in 1534. Like Calvin and the
early fathers, he used the covenant to teach the unity of God
and his salvation. He contributed to the Reformed tradition of
using the covenant of grace as a summary of biblical theology.
Caspar Olevian (1536-87) would later do this same thing in three
works, chiefly in his book, On the Substance of the Covenant
of Grace Between God and the Elect (1585) and Johannes Cocceius
(1609-69) and Herman Witsius (1636-1708) write entire systematic
theologies structured by the covenants of redemption, works and
grace.
Covenant Theology in Reformed Orthodoxy
The two most important Reformed covenant theologians of the
late 16th century were the chief authors of our catechism, Caspar
Olevian (1536-87) and Zacharias Ursinus (1534-83). Ursinus lectured
on the covenant theology of the catechism in Heidelberg for about
fifteen years and later, until his death, at his school in Neustadt.
His covenant theology is clear from his lectures and Larger Catechism
(1561) which he used in his seminary and university classes.
Ursinus defined covenants in general in terms of the covenant
of works, since the Gospel can only be understood against the
background of the Law. In the covenant of works, God placed conditions
upon Adam, the head of all humanity, which he accepted, to obey
his covenant God. The sign of the covenant was the tree of life.
If Adam had kept the covenant, he would have entered a state
of eternal blessedness. For the same reason, transgression of
the Law covenant meant eternal punishment.
According to Ursinus (and all the classic Reformed theologians)
Christ, the representative of all the elect, fulfilled this covenant
in his active and passive (suffering) obedience. Because Christ
obeyed the Law for his people, there is a Gospel covenant. Unlike
the covenant of works made with sinless Adam, the covenant of
grace is made with sinners, who need a mediator, a covenant keeping
Savior, who fulfilled the Law, satisfied God's just wrath for
sinners. This is the difference between Law and Gospel (Larger
Catechism, Q. 36).
For Ursinus, as for Olevian and the mainstream of Reformed
Orthodoxy, the covenant of works stands for the Law, which is
not gracious but relentless in its demand for perfection. The
covenant of grace stands for Gospel, which means that Christ
our Mediator and substitute has met the terms of the Law for
us. It was a covenant of works for Christ and he has made and
Gospel covenant for us.
In his On the Substance of the Covenant, Caspar Olevian
argued that the covenant can be considered in a broader and narrower
sense. In the narrower sense, the covenant can said to have been
made only with the elect. It is the elect who are united to Christ
by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, who receive
the benefits of the covenant, strictly speaking.
Considered relative to the administration of the covenant
of grace, the covenant must be said or thought to be with all
the baptized, since only God knows who is elect. Therefore we
baptize on the basis of the divine command and promise, and we
regard covenant children (before profession of faith) and all
who make a credible profession of faith as Christians until they
prove otherwise. Those who are in the covenant in the broader
sense or externally, do receive some of the benefits of the covenant
(Hebrews 6:4-6), but they do not receive what Olevian called
the "substance of the covenant," or the "double
benefit of the covenant: justification and sanctification. Only
those who are elect actually appropriate, by grace alone, through
simple faith alone, the "double benefit" of the covenant.
Both Olevian and Ursinus taught the pactum salutis, the
covenant of works as a Law covenant and the covenant of grace
as a Gospel covenant.
Why is the covenant not more prominent in the Heidelberg Catechism?
The answer is in two parts. One of the chief aims of the catechism
was to present the Reformed faith to Lutherans in the Palatinate.
By 1562, when the work on the catechism was underway, the Lutherans
had strongly criticized Reformed covenant theology. Therefore,
the committee wanted a more ecumenical tone for the catechism.
The second reason is that Ursinus and Olevian were commissioned
to the explain the catechism in the schools in terms of what
we know as the classic Reformed federal theology: covenant of
redemption, covenant of works and covenant of grace. Even though
the catechism did not use the technical covenant language, the
authors of the catechism clearly understood the catechism to
teach the substance of covenant theology.
The theology of the early 17th century Reformed theologians
William Ames (†1633), Johannes Wollebius (†1629) and
Amandus Polanus (†1610) was written in the same direction
as that of Olevian and Ursinus. The high point of Reformed federal
theology was doubtless the work of Johannes Cocceius (†1669),
Francis Turretin (†1687), J. H. Heidegger (†1698) and
Herman Witsius (†1708).
Cocceius is notable for writing the most comprehensive account
of the Biblical covenants, perhaps in Christian history. He was
opposed in several respects by Gisbert Voetius (†1676).
Cocceius' chief work was his Summary of the Doctrine Concerning
the Covenant and Testament (1648). He is most famous for
doctrine of the progressive abrogation of the covenant of works
in history. This along with his rather more liberal view of the
Sabbath along with his support of the new philosophy of Rene
Descartes (†1650), provoked a strong reaction from the Voetians.
He was primarily a Biblical theologian interested in the progressive
revelation of the accomplishment of salvation. His opponents
were more interested, perhaps, in systematic theology and the
application of redemption to sinners.
Like most of the earlier federal theologians, he saw the history
of salvation as the expression of the eternal covenant of redemption.
He distinguished strongly between the covenant of works as Law
and the covenant of grace as Gospel. On these main points, he
found complete support in Heidegger, Turretin and Witsius.
Francis Turretin is most famous for his Institutes of Elenctic
Theology (1679-85) which was the theology text for Princeton
Seminary until Charles Hodge wrote his own system in English.
Turretin supported the mainlines of Reformed covenant theology
and defended them against the Socinians, Arminians and Amyrauldians,
all of whom attacked Protestant theology and Reformed federalism
because they believed it would give Christians an excuse to sin
and because they thought it unreasonable.
J. H. Heidegger and Turretin produced the Helvetic Consensus
Formula (1675), a brilliant summary of Reformed covenant
theology in the late 17th century. In Canon VII they taught that,
"Having created man in this manner, he [God] put him under
the Covenant of Works, and in this Covenant freely promised him
communion with God, favor and life, if indeed he acted in obedience
to his will." If Adam kept the covenant, he would enter
into eternal blessedness, which was signified by the Tree of
Life (Canon VIII). What Adam refused to do Christ the Second
Adam did for us. They explicitly criticized the Arminians who
rejected the covenant of works (Canon IX). Following the Reformed
mainstream, they also taught the eternal covenant of redemption
(Canon XIII). Against the Remonstrants, they upheld faith (sola
fide) as the only condition for entering the covenant. Obedience
flows from justification out of gratitude. "In accordance
with these two ways of justification the Scripture establishes
these two covenants: the Covenant of Works, entered into with
Adam and with each one of his descendants in him, but made void
by sin; and the Covenant of Grace, made with only the elect in
Christ, the second Adam, eternal. [This covenant] cannot be broken
while [the Covenant of Works] can be abrogated."
Herman Witsius attempted to explain, summarize and develop
Reformed covenant theology, trying to build bridges between the
Cocceians and the Voetians. Like the tradition before him, he
identified the covenant of works with the Law and the covenant
of grace with the Gospel. The difference between the two covenants
is that Christ our Mediator has met the terms of the Law for
all elect sinners.
One of the tensions, which remained unresolved in the 16th
and 17th centuries, was the matter of the nature of Israel's
relations to the covenant of works. All the classic theologians
took some account of the works language, while maintaining the
essential unity of the covenant of grace. Some, such as Cocceius
and Witsius suggested that Israel was in a sort of probation
relative to the land, but not justification.
Since Calvin, Reformed theologians have also spoken of God's
graciousness in entering into covenant relations with Adam. This
language has often been misunderstood. John Owen and John Ball
(like Herman Bavinck later) called attention to the disproportionality
between God and Man and God's freedom in making the covenant
of works. None of these theologians, however, denied that the
covenant of works was a legal covenant and none of these theologians
said that the covenant of works was a gracious covenant.
This important distinction has sometimes been ignored.
Modern Developments
In the United States the Princeton theologians e.g., Charles
Hodge (†1878), B. B. Warfield (†1921) G. Vos (†1941)
and J. G. Machen (†1936), and in the Netherlands H. Bavinck
(†1921) followed the main lines of the classic view, teaching
the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works (Law) and the
covenant of grace (Gospel).
The single greatest influence on covenant theology in the
20th century has been that of the Swiss theologian Karl Barth
(†1968). Having rejected genuine historicity of Scripture
in favor of a theology of personal encounter with the Word, Barth
rejected much of classic Reformed covenant theology as "scholastic"
and unbiblical. He rejected the covenant of redemption and the
classic distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant
of grace as "legalistic." In Barth's theology, grace
overwhelmed Law. Many contemporary Reformed theologians, including
T. F. Torrence and G. C. Berkouwer followed this critique of
the Reformed tradition.
In the Netherlands, with the 1892 merger of the Afscheiding
(1834) and the Doleantie, (1886) tensions grew between the followers
of Abraham Kuyper (†1920) and some of the Secession theologians,
culminating with the deposition of Dr. Klaas Schilder (†1952)
near the end of Synod Sneek-Utrecht (1939-43). Like the tradition,
Kuyper taught the three-covenant view, distinguishing between
those who were in the covenant only outwardly and those who were
in the covenant inwardly. He also revised the traditional views
in certain places.
Whereas some in the Reformed tradition had discussed the possibility
of eternal justification, Kuyper elevated that speculation to
a central place in his doctrine of the covenant, identifying
it with the covenant of grace, concluding that we baptize on
the basis of presumed regeneration rather than on the basis of
command and promise. From the perspective of the tradition, this
was a move bound to provoke a reaction.
Worried about the possibility of moral laxity among the covenant
people, Schilder rejected the Kuyperian distinctives, emphasizing
the unity of a gracious covenant before and after the fall, and
the responsibility of those within the covenant to appropriate
its benefits. In so doing, he also rejected important aspects
of the traditional view including the covenant of redemption
and the distinction between the covenants of works and grace
as well as the distinction between the broader and narrower senses
of the covenant of grace.
In the controversy between the Kuyperians and the Schilderites,
however, covenant theology turned away from relating covenant
to justification in favor of relating covenant to election.
In the first half of the 20th century, in the United States,
M. J. Bosma and Louis Berkhof (†1957) upheld the classic
view. At Westminster Seminary, however, John Murray (†1975)
was also re-formulating covenant theology. He rejected the terms
"pactum salutis" and "covenant of works,"
though he continued to teach the substance of both. In reaction
to fundamentalist dispensationalism which rejected the unity
of the covenant of grace, Murray emphasized the continuity of
the covenant by defining the covenant primarily in terms of grace.
Nevertheless, he taught the Protestant doctrine of justification.
As in the case of Schilder, Murray's revision of the tradition
left a tension between his covenant theology and his doctrine
of justification. Professor Norman Shepherd, also of Westminster,
resolved the tension by proposing a revision of the doctrine
of sola fide, which created a serious controversy culminating
in his departure from the seminary in 1981.
In reaction to Murray and Shepherd, Meredith Kline of Westminster
Seminary in California has returned to the classic correlation
between the Law and Gospel dichotomy and the dichotomy between
the covenant of works and grace. To answer the liberals and dispensationalists,
he has argued that there is one covenant of grace in the history
of salvation, but that the Mosaic covenant, though gracious with
respect to justification, had a works element relative to Israel's
tenure in Canaan. In this way, the Mosaic theocracy becomes a
re-publication of the covenant of works and a foreshadowing of
Christ, the obedient 2nd Adam. Though it appears novel in our
time, this view is quite traditional. His view that the Mosaic
Covenant was a temporary, legal, superimposition upon the covenant
of grace, though hinted at in the earlier tradition, is an development
of the earlier theology.
Conclusion
It is clear that, through the 20th century, the great consensus
which had been sustained since the Reformed covenant theology
since the 1520's has fragmented. The causes seem to be three:
The influence of Barth, even among confessional theologians has
been greater than many recognize. Second, in reaction to Modernity,
many have become practical fundamentalists, little interested
in the Reformed tradition and third, we have forgotten our Protestant
ABC's in the doctrine of justification. Certainly, a first step
toward repairing the consensus is to take a serious look back
at our greatest covenant theologians. |
|
Contact Information
Email Dr Clark: clark at wscal dot edu
760.480.8474
Office Hours:
Wed 10:40 AM-12:40 PM
Personal Links
Prof. Clark's Home Page
Bio
Syllabi
Office Hours Podcast
The Heidelcast Podcast
Heidelblog
Recovering the Reformed Confession
Audio and Video
On the Writing of Essays
Class Handouts
Historical Theology
Systematic Theology
FV and NPP
Reformed Confessions
Covenant Theology
Exegetical Theology
Reformed Worship
Publications
Curriculum Vitae
Reviews
Practica
Recursos Reformados
Disclaimer
The statements, views and opinions...more
|
