Hoeksema, Schilder, and the URC on the Essence of the Covenant (3)

Hoeksema, Schilder, and the URC on the Essence of the Covenant (3) There are striking parallels between how supporters of Federal Vision and Herman Hoeksema define the essence of the covenant. This alerts us to the importance of systematizing the essence of the covenant and forensic justification. It is my thesis that: It is vital to systematize the essence of the covenant and forensic justification. There is good reason to link these two doctrines. It is within the context of the covenant as a covenant of grace that sola fide can most fully be understood. The converse is also true. The covenant can best be understood within the context of a forensic justification that is sola gratia. Federal Vision and the Essence of the Covenant In The Auburn Avenue Theology PROS & CONS: Debating the Federal Vision, Joseph A. Pipa Jr. gives his reading of what the essence of the covenant of grace is according to the supporters of Federal Vision: They define covenant as a structured relationship of love with the Triune God through Christ. 1 This definition is similar to that of Hoeksema s in that it places the accent on the living relationship between God and His people. According to this definition, some supporters of Federal Vision place the accent on love instead of friendship. There is a further parallel between this definition and that of Hoeksema s disciple David Engelsma. He has added to Hoeksema s definition of the covenant the concept of structure. There certainly is a formal similarity between how Hoeksema and his tradition define the essence of the covenant and the supporters of Federal Vision. Norman Shepherd explains his view of the essence of the covenant: We can describe a covenant as a divinely established relationship of union and communion between God and his people in the bonds of mutual love and faithfulness (Shepherd, The Call of Grace, 12). He describes the various administrations of the covenant in line with this. For example, In the Abrahamic covenant, God entered into union and communion with Abraham and his children, promising them his steadfast love and requiring the same response from them (Shepherd, The Call of Grace, 12). 1 Joseph A. Pipa Jr., The Auburn Avenue Theology PROS & CONS: Debating the Federal Vision, 280. 1

John Frame explains that For Shepherd, the covenant relation is more like a family than like business or school. 2 Richard D. Phillips takes issue with the federal theology of Ralph Smith. Smith redefines the essence of the covenant in light of Social Trinitarian thought. He states: The persons of the Trinity are eternally united in a covenantal bond of love. 3 Smith cites James Jordan, a proponent of federal vision, who describes the essence of the covenant as a personal-structural bond which joins the three persons of God in a community of life, and in which man was created to participate. 4 Richard D. Phillips takes strong exception to the views of Ralph Smith which he traces back to the thought of Abraham Kuyper. Smith takes issue with the Orthodox Reformed who viewed the Trinitarian covenant as a mere agreement entered into in order to respond to the situation of sin. Smith finds support for his view of the essence of the covenant in Abraham Kuyper. Phillips describes Kuyper s novel view: The exception to this is Abraham Kuyper, who insinuates that the economic covenant relations of the Trinity for redemption must signal an ontological relationship between the divine persons. Smith argues that this is indeed the case, that on an ontological level, the relationship within the Trinity is covenant. This views covenant not as an agreement, as is by his own reckoning the overwhelming consensus of the Reformed tradition, but as a form of life, or a community of life. According to Smith, Trinity must therefore serve as the paradigmatic covenant in the place of God s covenant with Adam, which classically has been understood as providing the paradigm for all other covenants. 5 Smith gives three arguments in support of his view. Phillips states that only one argument is relevant to the issue. This is the rule provided by theologian Karl Rahner, that the economic Trinity reveals the ontological Trinity. 6 Since God has dealt with mankind in covenant, Smith believes that this reflects a reality in the ontological Trinity. Phillips takes issue with Smith s methodology. A couple of observations are worth making at this point. The first is that Smith intends a wholesale recasting of covenant theology, not on the basis of any clear teaching of Scripture, nor on the basis of good and necessary consequences from Scripture, but on the basis of an argument from silence involving abstract reflections on the doctrine of the Trinity. He thus concludes 47 pages of argument by doing nothing more than asserting his original premise, that covenant is the basis of the ontological union within the Trinity, 2 P. Andrew Sandlin, editor. Backbone of the Bible: Covenant in Contemporary Perspective ed. Covenant Media Press, Nacogdoches, TX, 2004), ix. 3 Ralph Smith, Paradox and Truth (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2002), 73. 4 James B. Jordan, The Law of the Covenant (Tyler, TX:Institute for Christian Economics, 1984), 5. 5 Richard D. Phillips. Covenant Confusion. http://www.gpts.edu/resources/resource_covconfusion.html., 2. 6 Ibid., 2. 2

then demanding that unless we can prove it wrong we must accept this assertion, for which even Smith has provided no demonstration. 7 Phillips finds a problem with Smith s analogical reasoning. If God does something in history, he says, history must reveal something about the essence of God. So far, so good. But in this case he argues that the structure of God s relations with his creation in history must be assumed as the basis for the ontological inner-trinitarian relations, unless proved otherwise. The problem with this is that the two situations in view are not comparable. The differences between the inner-trinitarian relations and the relation between God and the creation must be accounted for before Smith can simply demand that a direct analogy be assumed. 8 What interests us the most is Phillip s next argument: He believes that there are in fact better explanations for the preponderance of covenant in history than that the Trinity must involve an essential covenant relationship. 9 Phillips presents a counter example that proves that not all of the works of the economic Trinity reveal a truth about the ontological Trinity. The first is that the Creator-creature relationship necessarily involves lordship and lordship expresses itself through covenant, a point Smith himself labors to make. But this situation does not pertain ontologically to the Trinity. Covenant is the outflowing of God s lordship as manifested in commands, sanctions, and promises of blessing. But as the Council of Nicea insisted so long ago, there is no ontological subordination within the Godhead, hence no lordship, and hence no covenant, which is, by Smith s own reckoning, a function of lordship. 10 Phillips then discusses how the economic Trinity in covenanting reveals attributes of the ontological Trinity. Furthermore, the covenants we see in the Bible do inform us about the ontological Trinity, as Rahner demands. What they reveal are the attributes of God that dictate how these covenants work. God is just, and so his covenants have conditions and sanctions. God is good, so he offers blessings through covenant with his creatures. God is true, as his faithfulness to his covenants demonstrates. Moreover, the biblical evidence regarding the fellowship between the persons of the Trinity shows forth qualities such as love, truth, and honor. That these same attributes find expression in God s historic covenants with man shows how the historic covenants reveal truth about the ontological character of the 7 Ibid., 2. 8 Ibid., 2. 9 Ibid., 2. 10 Ibid., 2. 3

Triune God. But this revelation of attributes does not give us warrant to read back covenant into the Trinity itself. 11 Therefore the history of the covenants do reveal truths about the being of God. These adequately explain the preponderance of covenant in history. 12 Although Kuyper viewed his formulation of the essence of covenant as necessary to avoid tritheism, Phillips accuses Smith s formulation of tritheism. As Smith proceeds from this thesis, he seems to be aware of the tri-theistic leanings of his argument. Thus he tries to temper it by advancing perichoreisis, that is, mutual indwelling, as the basis of Trinitarian union in which case there is no need for covenant as the basis of union. Later still, he tries to distinguish covenantal union from ontological union, noting vaguely that in God covenant and ontology intersect or share common ground. But the damage is done: if the three divine persons of the Trinity have an ontological union of essence one based on a shared being and mutual indwelling then it is hard to see how one being is joined together by covenant, unless we totally redefine the meaning of the word covenant, which is the whole point of Smith s exercise. 13 What is the evil result of claiming that the economic covenant relations of the Trinity must signal an ontological covenant relationship? Phillips writes: Following this revisionist approach in which the biblical structures of covenant are removed, Smith proceeds through Eternal Covenant to apply covenant to practically everything with little definition. Covenant is relationship, and so it becomes hard to know what it is about a relationship that makes it a covenant, except that it becomes whatever Smith wants to make of it at any given time. As such, covenant serves as an ideal vehicle for Smith and his cohorts purpose, which, it becomes clear, is a way of defining salvation in such a way to remove the forensic theory of justification as classically understood in Reformed thought. 14 Instead of the legal concepts traditionally included in the covenant of creation, All that now is involved is a mutual commitment to relationship. As a result everything in salvation becomes synonymous with everything else. What is election? Smith says it is the gift of covenant. Similarly, god s commands are the same as God s covenant. Smith says, Keeping the commands is keeping the covenant. Likewise, love equals covenant 11 Ibid., 2-3. 12 Ibid., 3. 13 Ibid., 3. 14 Ibid.,3. 4

equals election. The same is true of law and of righteousness. They are covenant, which is love, which is election, which is holiness. 15 Smith s novel definition of the essence of the covenant is grounded in unsound Trinitarian speculation and results in the supplanting of traditional soteriology with a recharged ecclesiology. 16 What makes a person is his being a baptized member of the church. A novel view of baptism (with a supposed objectivity to the covenant) trumps the traditional ordo salutis. Richard Lusk writes: Baptism is the means through which the Spirit unites us to Christ. No other means is said to have this function; it is the peculiar grace attached to baptism Since baptism is the instrumental means of union with Christ, it is sometimes said to be the instrument of forgiveness and regeneration. 17 Phillips concludes: Before moving on, let us observe again the foundation on which these revisions rest, namely, the speculative theory that covenant is defined by the inner relationship of the Trinity. This comes not from the direct teaching of Scripture, nor from good and necessary consequences, but from an argument from silence emanating from the greatest mystery of all, the inner relationship of the Trinity. On this unsound foundation we are called to recast covenant theology and redefine practically every soteriological term. 18 There is an option that Hoeksema does not recognize. He places us in a false dilemma. Perhaps neither of the three options that he rejects or the one he presents as true are the only options. There is something unhelpful and muddied about Hoeksema s use of the word essence in his definition of the essence of the covenant. The basic problem is that if a friendship relationship is of the essence of the covenant of grace, then apparently the legal relationships Christians have are not of the essence of the covenant. Then even the cross of Jesus is not part of the essence of the covenant as is not the legal headship of the second Adam. The contemporary debate over Federal Vision covenant will serve a useful purpose in the Reformed churches if it leads covenant theologians to reassess the strengths and weaknesses of their respective traditions. 15 Ibid., 3-4. 16 Ibid., 4. 17 Rich Lusk, Some Thoughts on the Means of Grace: A Few Proposals Theologia, 2003, accessed at http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/rich_lusk/some-thoughts-on-the-means-of-grace.htm.. Cited by Phillips on p. 4. 18 Richard Phillips. Covenant Confusion., 6. 5

Engelsma s Defense of Hoeksema s Position In his thesis Trinity and Covenant, David Engelsma argues that the Bible teaches that the covenant of grace is essentially a relationship of fellowship. 19 He adds: It is a structured relationship. 20 He explains the structure: He gives the commandments of His law to direct the covenant people in the way of a thankful life that serves Him. 21 He adds: Only in the way of this faith and its obedience--which itself is the gift of God both as an original empowerment and as a constant activity--do they enjoy fellowship with God. 22 There is nothing distinctively Reformational about defining the covenant of grace as a relationship of friendship with structure. This is not a definition of the covenant of grace that explicitly proclaims and defends and develops justification by faith alone versus the covenant theology of Federal Vision. Although Engelsma states that the covenant is a structured relationship, he also reiterates: But the covenant is fellowship. 23 If the covenant as to its essence is only fellowship, why does Engelsma include in his definition that it is a relationship with structure. If Engelsma is trying to include legal concepts within the concept of structure then he is saying that the essence of covenant is not merely a relationship, but that the constitutive structural elements of covenant include more than a mere relationship. The structure that Engelsma seems to find in the covenant is the structure of law. He is not clear. He does not define explicitly what this structure is. It is true that a definition of the covenant of grace in its widest sense must include a definition of the sanctification enabled and required in the covenant of grace. But if we are only relating the doctrine of sanctification to the essence of the covenant we are leaving out the core doctrines of Christ. It is noteworthy that Engelsma does not say a word about the covenant being a solemn and legal oath. Not a word is mentioned about the legal headship of Christ. This definition of the covenant of grace is Christless and excludes the cross. The issues surrounding sola fide are not explicitly included in Engelsma s definition of the essence of the covenant. This limited definition of the covenant of grace is a form of reductionism. The covenant of grace in all of the richness of its revelation in the Scripture cannot and may not be reduced to a communion of fellowship. This position leaves covenant theology wide open to the New Perspective on Paul and Federal Vision that attempts to separate covenant theology from the legal constructs that underlie justification by faith alone. There is no doubt that it is difficult to define the covenant of grace. Each original theologian will come up with a unique definition of the covenant of grace because such a definition will embody in essence of his whole theology. The need of the hour is always a definition of the covenant of grace that responds to contemporary challenges. In other words a 19 David J. Engelsma. Trinity and Covenant: God as Holy Family. Grandville: Reformed Free Publishing, 2006, 117. 20 Ibid., 117. 21 Ibid., 117,118. 22 Ibid., 118. 23 Ibid., 118. 6

definition of the covenant of grace should be relevant. Or to use a missiological term; it should be contextual. Engelsma believes There is a strong case to be made for the explanation of berith as deriving from a word meaning clasp or bind. The basic meaning of the word for covenant in the Old Testament, then, is binding, putting together, bond. 24 Engelsma admits that diatheses, the Greek word translated covenant does not have the idea of a bond, but it does describe the covenant as the sovereign disposition of God. 25 It is not clear that Engelsma s understanding of berith as a bond necessarily supports his definition of the essence of the covenant. The word covenant is certainly not used in the Bible as synonymous with bond. But even if the word did carry the basic idea of bond that is far from demonstrating that the covenant is a bond of fellowship. It might as well be a legal bond that is established between kings or like the legal bond that marriage involves. In other words the idea of a bond need not be understood exclusively in relational terms. The Son does not voluntarily enter into the communion of the Father. The intra-trinitarian communion is part of the ontological Trinity. By virtue of the personhood of the persons of the Holy Trinity they commune with each other. The relationship between the persons of the Holy Trinity is not prototypical for all covenants. Engelsma then presents the Biblical evidence for perceiving the essence of covenant as a relationship of friendship. First, Engelsma claims that the covenant formula I will be your God (and the God of your children), and you will be my people implies that the covenant is essentially a relationship of fellowship. 26 But this covenant formula cannot be limited to a statement about a personal relationship. For this statement is clearly a solemn, oathlike promise. This is no light promise of God. God swears with an oath in His own name that He will be a God to His people. In addition this statement implies that God places us in legal relationships with Himself. God is King. The believer is made a citizen of the kingdom. With this comes responsibility, but also privileges. Our King takes responsibility for protecting us. In addition God is Father and the believer is a child because he was legally adopted. Engelsma writes: The earthly analogies to the covenant are the relationships of parent and children and marriage. 27 Engelsma is right, but he does not go far enough. The earthly analogies to the covenant are not limited to the personal relationships of a wife and her husband but extend beyond that to the legal headship of a husband over his wife as Christ is the head of the church. In addition, Christ does not live in a marital relationship with His wife without actually entering into a lawful and legitimate marriage. The legal relationship becomes the basis for a shared life and intimacy. Second, Engelsma finds Biblical support for the covenant as a bond of fellowship in the temple. 24 Ibid., 118-119. 25 Ibid., 119. 26 Ibid., 120. 27 Ibid., 120. 7

Both in its old, typical form and in its new, realized form, the covenant consists of God s dwelling with His people. This was the significance of the tabernacle and temple in the Old Testament and this is the significance of Jesus Christ--the temple of God--in the New Testament. 28 Neither in the Old Testament nor in the book of Revelation is it implied that the covenant of grace is to be identified with dwelling in God s temple with Him. Certainly because God established His covenant of grace with Moses and Israel, God will also command them to build a tabernacle and to fellowship with Him in it. It is because of the covenant of grace that worship exists. The concept of worship and the concept of the covenant of grace are two different concepts, although related. There simply is a difference between the covenant of grace and praying and listening to God speak and His word. Because of the covenant of grace that God established with us--we are empowered to hear God speak and respond in prayer. But to call praying and listening to a sermon the covenant of grace makes no sense. How the Reformed Confessions Define the Covenant The Reformed confessions never use the phrase covenant of grace in the limited sense of a relationship of friendship or define it as such. Let us look first at the Heidelberg Catechism. It asks: Are infants also to be baptized? Yes; for since they, as well as the adult, are included in the covenant and church of God. 29 This does not mean that infants are merely in a relationship of friendship. It means that God has chosen and willed to bind Himself to the spiritual seed of the church in such a way that He binds Himself to protect and justify them. The Catechism distinguishes between the old covenant and the new covenant : How many sacraments has Christ instituted in the new covenant, or testament? 30 Certainly this does not refer to just an old relationship of friendship versus a new relationship of friendship. It clearly refers to the administration of the covenant. In other words, the very essence of the covenant is revealed in the fact that it is something that has various administrations. The Catechism refers to the cup at the Lord s Supper as the new covenant in His blood. 31 This cannot mean a new relationship of friendship in Jesus blood. How can we mention the blood of Jesus and limit ourselves to a relational idea at the expense of the judicial? Certainly the new covenant in Jesus blood is a reference to the oath-like character of the covenant and the consequences of being faithless in the covenant. The Catechism teaches that if a person who declares himself unbelieving and ungodly is admitted to the supper by this the covenant of God would be profaned. 32 How could a mere relationship of friendship be profaned? One does not profane relationships. 28 Ibid., 120. 29 Heidelberg Catechism Lord s Day 27. Q. and A. 74. 30 Heidelberg Catechism Lord s Day 25. Q. 68. 31 Heidelberg Catechism Lord s Day 29. Q. 79. 32 Heidelberg Catechism Lord s Day 30. A. 82. 8

Now let us look at the use of the term covenant in the Canons of Dort. Head 1 states that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace in which they, together with the parents are comprehended. 33 In the second Head of Doctrine, the Canons state that it was the will of God that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby He confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to Him by the Father. 34 This quotation makes clear that the very essence of the new covenant is that it involves God s choice to save a catholic church. This certainly goes beyond the notion of the covenant as a mere relationship of friendship. In the rejection of errors section in Head 2 of Doctrine we read the following. Error 2: Who teach: That it was not the purpose of the death of Christ that He should confirm the new covenant of grace through His blood, but only that He should acquire for the Father the mere right to establish with man such a covenant as He might please, whether of grace or of works. Rejection: For this is repugnant to Scripture, which teaches that Christ has become the Surety and Mediator of a better, that is, the new covenant, and that a testament is of force where death has occurred. One is not a surety or mediator of a mere relationship of friendship. The Canons teach that the covenant in its very essence contains the legal concepts that underlie the need for a Surety. Error 4: Who teach that the new covenant of grace, which God the Father, through the mediation of the death of Christ, made with man, does not herein consist that we by faith, inasmuch as it accepts the merits of Christ, are justified before God and saved, but in the fact that God, having revoked the demand of perfect obedience of the law, regards faith itself and the obedience of faith, although imperfect, as the perfect obedience of the law, and does esteem it worthy of the reward of eternal life through grace. The Reformed Form for the Administration of Baptism also does not identify the essence of the covenant with a relationship of friendship. Early on the form states: For when we are baptized in the name of the Father, God the Father witnesseth and sealeth unto us that He doth make an eternal covenant of grace with us, and adopts us for His children and heirs, The Catechism makes clear that a covenant is something that God makes. God establishes His covenant with men. The very heart and essence of a definition of the covenant must involve this 33 Canons of Dort 1a17. 34 Canons of Dort 2a8. 9

aspect of establishment. The Bible clearly identifies the ratification of a covenant or the bindingoath element of covenants as central to them. The first benefit of the covenant of grace that is mentioned is adoption. The legal adoption of a child occurs prior to the parents being able to fellowship with the child in their family life. The Form states that in all covenants there are contained two parts. The second part is that believers are obliged unto new obedience. Is it that in all relationships of friendship that there are these two parts? Is there first of all the gracious establishment of the relationship and then new obedience obliged? The Form is teaching that a covenant is something that is established and that along with the establishment of this legal and personal relationship come responsibilities. These responsibilities are an essential part or component of the covenant of grace. The calling to love the God who has covenanted with us is not a periphery aspect of covenant. It is the second part of the covenant of grace. The Form concludes by exhorting the parents of a covenant infant: Beloved in the Lord Jesus Christ, you have heard that baptism is an ordinance of God to seal unto us and to our seed His covenant; therefore it must be used for that end, and not out of custom or superstition. What does baptism seal? Does it simply seal the fact that God has established a relationship of friendship with us? Or does it seal that God has established a covenant of grace in which He has provided His Son as a bloody sacrifice to atone for our sins? Does not the sacrament seal that Christ s blood was shed for the justification of believers and their spiritual seed? If so, we must not understand the covenant in its essence as limited to a personal relationship of communion. Finally we will look at one reference in the Reformed Form for the Administration of the Lord s Supper. The Form reads: And finally confirmed with His death and shedding of His blood the new and eternal testament, that covenant of grace and reconciliation, when He said: It is finished. The very fact that the covenant of grace is a covenant of reconciliation makes clear that it is not merely a relationship of friendship. It is a covenant that God has established for the purpose of reconciling people so that they might be His children, friends, and servants. God s end in the covenant of grace is reconciling His elect to Himself through the blood of the New Testament. What should be clear is that neither the Reformed confessions nor the minor confessions (the Baptism and Lord s Supper Forms) define the covenant of grace as in its essence a relationship of friendship. Neither should it be expected that these Forms that were written at the time of the Synod of Dort would express this reductionist view of the essence of the covenant. Neither the Reformers nor the fathers at the Synod of Dort held to this view. In fact the use of the phrase covenant of grace and how it is defined in use in the Creeds militate against the attempt 10

by Federal Vision and proponents of the New Perspective on Paul to empty the covenant of legal concepts. 11