Morphemics

Apologetics in Context

The defense of a theological system must be consistent with that system. It is the goal of Presuppositional Apologetics to provide a defense consistent with the Reformed Faith. Recognizing that, just as the Reformed Faith starts with God, so must a consistent apologetic, Presuppositionalism takes as its starting point the Ontological Trinity. Yet, it does so with no attempt to understand and declare this Trinity within a covenantal context. Reformed Theology is, at its heart, covenant theology. Consequently, all of its doctrinal claims should be understood in a covenantal context. But Presuppositionalism assumes that the Ontological Trinity stands above the covenant. As a result, this apologetic fails as a consistent defense of the Reformed Faith;- it does not define its own starting point within the thoroughly covenantal context of Reformed Theology.

It is not my intent to argue against Presuppositionalism. Instead, I would like to see if it can be given a more consistent starting point. This will require establishing the extent of the covenantal context. Reformed doctrine is currently a minority consensus within Christian thought. Within the arena of broad evangelicalism, many do not even believe in the validity of the covenant for the church. I cannot address this segment of Christendom but must confine my thoughts only to those of a Reformed persuasion. At a minimum, Reformed theology begins with the conviction that the covenant defines the church. This is most readily seen in the initiatory sacrament of baptism.

Nevertheless, if the covenantal context is limited to the church; if those who are outside of the church do not also exist within the context of the covenant, then this context would provide no meaningful point of contact. Without this point of contact, apologetics would be impossible. The question now concerns the nature of covenant theology. Just how covenantal is it? To find out, we need to press backward out of the Covenant of Grace. We need to see the covenant as it existed before the creation of Adam and his inauguration as the Federal Head of the Covenant of Works. It is necessary to consider the pre-temporal Intratrinitarian Covenant, which is often termed, “The Covenant of Redemption.”

The common conception of this covenant goes along with its popular name. It is limited to the redemption of God’s elect and the role that each person in the Trinity would play to secure this redemption. There is support for this in John 17. Jesus says that he is only praying for those whom God has given him. He is not praying for the world. However, in this particular prayer, Christ is fulfilling the office of a priest. But what of the equally covenantal office of a king? The second Psalm identifies the Son, that is, Christ, as a king. He is told to ask God, and the nations will be given to him as an inheritance. Note carefully what he does with them- he dashes them to pieces with a rod of iron. This is a promise made by the Father to the Son; a promise that, I believe, is a part of the Intratrinitarian Covenant. It is not the purpose of this covenant to give only the elect to Christ, but to give everyone to Christ. The covenant extends beyond the church. It is as comprehensive as whoever and whatever, by right, belongs to Christ.

The Intratrinitarian Covenant was forged in eternity. Creation, far from being a neutral template upon which the covenant was superimposed, was the first step in carrying out the terms of the Intratrinitarian Covenant. It is, therefore, reflective of that Covenant. In his Images of the Spirit, Meredith G. Kline identifies a model for the creation. He finds it in Genesis 1:2 where the Spirit of God is hovering over the face of the waters. This presence of the Spirit is actually, according to Kline, a manifestation of the Glory-cloud: the same cloud that led Israel through the wilderness. This cloud, in turn, is the visible representation of a greater reality. Hidden within it is the throne room of God with the angelic host in attendance. This throne room is itself a created reality; however, because it is permeated by the Holy Spirit, it is permanent and unshakeable.

The Spirit infused throne room, serving as a model for this level of creation, has a covenantal structure. To see this, consider that a covenant is, in its most basic form, promises and obligations carried out within an authority structure. From a throne room, God is declaring his intentions and then fulfilling everything that he has said. If the model for creation is covenantal in nature, then the covenant provides the context for the creation. Nothing exists as a meaningless fact prior to the imposition of a subjective interpretive grid. Instead, all things are created into a previously existing interpretation. The Intratrinitarian Covenant, in order that it might be fulfilled, has been extended beyond the confines of the Trinity. Consequently, if there is to be any true knowledge, it must be considered within the context of this covenant.

In keeping with the necessity of a covenantal context for any true knowledge, special revelation is also given in the form of a covenant. We again turn to Kline. In The Structure of Biblical Authority, he argues that the Bible consists of two canons, each of which is an expanded form of the ancient Suzerain-vassal treaty. He makes the case that the various literary genres of scripture correspond to the different sections of this treaty type. The most prominent sections are the historical prologue, the obligations, and the promise of blessing or curse connected to those obligations. Contained within these treaties were all the conditions of a covenant. It is important to note that the biblical concept of the covenant is not modeled after the treaties of ancient cultures. Rather, God superintended history in such a way that these treaties would reflect his own covenant. The covenant is the means whereby the activity and Word of God are made intelligible to us.

I need to return to my original contention that the Ontological Trinity is not an adequate starting point for a defense of the faith. Consider Van Til’s reasons for stating otherwise. He claims that we must presuppose the Ontological Trinity in order to make any fact intelligible. Or, as he would phrase it, the Ontological Trinity “is the presupposition of all possible predication.” He starts from what he calls “the whole problem of philosophy,” which is, “the relation of unity to diversity.” This is otherwise known as the problem of the one and the many. The basis for predication must correspond to both of these poles. This means that, within this basis, unity and diversity must be equally ultimate. Van Til finds this equal ultimacy in the Ontological Trinity.

Note that there is nothing covenantal in this paradigm. Rather, the basis for predication is philosophical. But, what is the connection between explaining the whole problem of philosophy and defending covenant theology? If we have not really given an answer for the hope that lies within us, does it really matter that we have solved the world’s philosophical problems?

Apologetics must be consistent with Reformed Theology; consequently, it must faithfully declare the covenant as the only way to begin with God. Van Til is correct to think of apologetics in terms of the presupposition for any true knowledge. There first must be a sufficient basis for any predication before we can hope to understand the Gospel. Van Til goes straight to the Ontological Trinity to provide the basis for such predication. I agree, but only if the Ontological Trinity is understood in terms of the covenant. And here is where a major objection to my position comes in. The covenant can only describe the activity of God, not the being of God. We can think of the Economic Trinity in covenantal terms because this term describes the function of each person of the Trinity as God performs the work of redemption. But, the Ontological Trinity, which speaks of God’s essence, is, by definition, outside of the covenant.

This non-covenantal definition of the Ontological Trinity requires a view in which the members of that trinity are equal as to their person. The personal hierarchy within the Economic Trinity is then seen as arising from the will of God. It is, in a sense, arbitrary. There is, in this view, an admirable attempt to stay away from heresies; the chief of which, in regards to the Trinity, has been some form of subordinationism. However, subordinationism involves the claim that the substance and, consequently, the deity of the various persons are different from one another. Yet, no such claim need be connected with the belief in a hierarchy of persons within the Ontological Trinity. And this belief is orthodox. Consider the mode of existence of each person within the Trinity as described in the Athanasian Creed:

"The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
The Son was neither made nor created;
He was begotten from the Father alone.
The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
He proceeds from the Father and the Son."

The covenant is intimately tied, not only to the activity of the Trinity, but also to its existence. The authority structure necessary to the Intratrinitarian Covenant is found in the Ontological Trinity. The activity of promise and obligation within that structure is found in the Economic Trinity. The Ontological Trinity, the Economic Trinity, and the Intratrinitarian Covenant are co-extensive. The Intratrinitarian Covenant does not come into existence as a result of the Trinity, having decided to redeem the elect, now determining which person gets to perform what task. We need to push the concept of the covenant further back, not merely into the will of God, but into the nature of God. When we strip this covenant of anything contingent, that is, anything relating to the created order; when we consider it as it exists purely within the Trinity, then we see it for what it is. The covenant, that is, covenantal being and activity, is an attribute of the triune God. The communication of this attribute in fashioning Adam as a self-consciously covenantal being constitutes his creation in the Image of God.

If apologetics is to be consistent with Reformed Theology, it must be self-consciously covenantal. But, what does this mean for the actual performance of the apologetical task? In order for the content of our theology to be understood and defended, it must be presented in a covenantal context. To see how this is done, consider the manner in which God has revealed the covenant. In both creation and Scripture, the covenantal context is given simultaneously with the specific content. The explanation and defense of the faith should be no different. Content and context are inseparable.

Although a consistently Reformed defense of the faith requires a covenantal context, this context can only be communicated by means of the Reformed Faith itself. A faithfully Reformed presentation of the Gospel is, at one and the same time, a presentation of its covenantal context. The order of presentation is not a point of indifference. The defense of the faith cannot occur any earlier than the declaration of that faith. The Gospel is its own apologetic.

The power of a thoroughly Reformed apologetic is not found in the brilliance of its argument, but in its connection with the ministry of the Holy Spirit as he works through the proclamation of the Word. Apart from the ministry of the Holy Spirit, the covenant is lifeless and without power to provide the context for anything. Consider again the Glory Cloud as the covenantal model for creation. It is infused with the Holy Spirit. This same Spirit communicates the covenant into the creation. Special Revelation, covenantal in structure, is authored by the Spirit. The preaching of this revelation is turned into a means of grace by the Spirit. The Spirit applies it to those who hear it. The presentation of the Reformed Gospel is made acceptable to the minds of those who hear it only by the active work of the Spirit in applying it to them. The Spirit fulfills his covenantal role in Redemptive History by acting within the context of the covenant as it is faithfully declared.

Posted by kcourter at outubro 7, 2003 3:56 AM