After writing the post entitled, "Covenantal Calvinism," I was asked just how this Calvinism was covenantal. I gave a short answer, which was, "the surety of God's grace towards his elect is based on our union with Christ, our Covenant head." But this answer is deficient in that it assumes an audience familiar with Covenant theology. Aaron, my interrogator, had disclaimed such knowledge. So now, I'd like to provide a context for this answer by attempting to explain the basics of Covenant theology. Rather than starting directly with the confession or scripture, I'd like to take a slightly more subjective approach.
My own introduction to Covenant theology came by way of contrast to Dispensationalism. I grew up both as a dispensationalist and a Calvinist. Because I never really studied either one of them, I was able to hold to both without any tension. The stage was set to notice a conflict after we moved to Washington state and joined a nearby church. I was sitting in the 9th grade Sunday School class when the teacher made the statement that God does not choose who he wants to be saved. Heads were nodding as though this were perfectly obvious. I disagreed, but never said anything. Instead, I embarked on a thorough study of Calvinism. The intent was to either confirm myself in this belief or abandon it. I am, too this day, a staunch five-pointer.
At the same time that I was disagreeing with this church's Arminian stance, I was soaking in it's dispensational teaching. The most fundamental teaching of dispensationalism is that God has two distinct peoples: the nation of Israel and the church. The church age, in fact, exists as a parenthesis within God's dealings with Israel. The church is a mystery that was never foretold in the OT. God turned away from Israel after they rejected their Messiah. However, after the rapture of the church, he will once again turn his attention to Israel. This will occur in two stages: a seven year tribulation and a thousand year reign. During this time, all of the promises made to Israel in scripture will be literally fulfilled.
All of this made sense. And then the pastor preached that the various dispensations entailed different means of salvation. The biggest contrast was between the dispensation of law and the dispensation of grace. Israelites under the Mosaic law were saved by works; furthermore, if they failed to live up to the terms, they could lose their salvation. In the church age, salvation is all of grace. Works are not required. It's not even necessary to repent. Just pray the prayer and you're eternally secure. As a Calvinist, I could not agree with either one of these. Still, I attributed it to a fluke in the pastor's theology. I was later to learn that, though in the minority, he was being consistent with classic dispensationalism.
This much is sufficient to provide the needed contrast between the two sytems, so I'm going to skip over the intervening years to the time that I joined the OPC. Whereas Dispensationalism believes that Israel and the church are distinct entities, Covenant theology believes that the church is the fulfillment of Israel. Dispensationalism had drawn a distinction between works and grace. This was valid, but, historically, they drew the line several thousand years too late. In the WCF chapter VII, Of God's Covenant with Man, this covenant is divided into two parts: works and grace. The covenant of works was made with Adam. After Adam breaks it, God enters into a covenant of grace with those who have been "ordained unto eternal life." This covenant of grace covers everything after the fall. The confession affirms a single covenant of grace "differently administered in the time of law, and in the time of the gospel." In keeping with Paul's teaching in I Corinthians 15:22, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive," each covenant, works and grace, has a Federal head (from the Latin foedus- "covenant").
It should also be noted that "works" and "grace" have different referents. "Works" refers to the activity of the Federal head. Had Adam been obedient, all those represented by him in his Federal headship would have been rewarded with eternal life. While this exhibits the goodness of God and represents a large measure of condescension on his part, it has nothing to do with grace. Grace is always presented as the goodness of God toward sinners. The covenant of grace is then the goodness of God shown towards some of those who had sinned in Adam. He did this by providing them with a second Adam, that is, Christ. Yet, while grace is truly exhibited to us, our Federal head must merit salvation for us.
Now that I had given up Dispensationalism, there was no longer any conflict with being a Calvinist. Covenant theology was compatible with Calvinism. Not only this, but both were taught in the WCF. But compatiblity wasn't enough. I wanted to know why the confession taught both of these. Was it just an accident or is there a deeper connection? The answer is definitely in the second option. The focal point is Christ as he fulfills his role as the last Adam. When commenting on the Covenant made with Abraham and his seed, Paul makes an unusual linguistic point. He claims, "Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say, 'And to seeds,' referring to many, but referring to one, 'And to your seed,' who is Christ" (Galatians 3:16). Unusual because even the original context compells one to understand 'seed' in a collective sense. Paul is making a theological point. The promises given to Abraham were not made with his physical descendants. Nor, for that matter, were they made with spiritual descendants considered in themselves. The Covenant was made with Christ. Only insofar as the spiritual descendants of Abraham are in union with Christ does the Covenant apply to them.
Paul is even more explicit about the unity of Israel and the church in Ephesians 2:13-16. He is speaking of the inclusion of the Gentiles into the commonwealth of Israel:
"But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility."
The passage should probably be read in its larger context, at least vs. 11-22. Note what happens here. God is in covenant with the nation of Israel and the Gentiles are left out. Then Christ comes. But, unlike the teaching of the dispensationalists, he doesn't make a separate deal with them. Rather, he makes them fellow citizens with the Israelites. And it isn't merely the sovereign decree of God declaring that we shall now get along. The reconciliation occurrs within and by means of the flesh of Christ. Both Gentiles and Israelites are then reconciled to God through the cross in the body of Christ. The church, or the body of Christ, is the fulfilment of Israel. But Paul does not stop at teaching that Israelites and Gentiles have been reconciled to God by means of a divinely ordained institution. This would be Covenant theology, but only at its most rudimentary level.
The reason that the church, which comprises both Jew and Gentile, can be designated 'the body of Christ' is that we are united to the flesh of Christ. By virtue of his union with us, Christ becomes totally depraved and must endure the punishment of the cross. Christ is the elect one of God. Because we are in union with him, we are elect. Notice the difference here in emphasis between Calvinism considered in abstraction and considered as part of the covenant. "Unconditional election" was Dort's response to the idea that God elects us on the basis of a foreseen faith. There is no reason within ourselves that God has decided to place us into union with Christ. Dort is correct, as far as it goes. However, the biblical doctrine of election is not concerned with the secret decree of God. It is concerned with Christ and, in this sense, our election is very conditional. We are elect because Christ is elect.
By enduring the wrath of God on the cross for what has become his own depravity, Christ makes atonement for his own sin. Our sins are atoned only because we are in union with Christ. Again, the doctrine of limited atonement is not derived from the decree of God (although he certainly did decree the extent thereof); it is limited to all of those who are reconciled to God in the body of Christ on the cross. Atonement for my sin requires union with Christ. Union with Christ guarantees the atonement of my sin. Because Christ has paid the full penalty of his sin, he is declared righteous. Death can no longer hold him and he is compelled to life. Even so, the same Holy Spirit that sovereignly brings Christ back to life works the same life in us. It is not possible that those who are in union with Christ should remain forever dead. One by one, we are are regenerated in a glorious display of irresistible grace.
Finally, we persevere because Christ persevered. He kept perfectly the law of God. Just as our depravity is imputed to his account and paid for in his death, his righteousness is imputed to us. Yet, much more than a forensic declaration of rightoeusness or a moral example for us to follow, we persevere because the Son of God became incarnate in human flesh. When Christ lived on the Earth, we lived the life of the righteous one. Christ now relives his life in us. We cannot finally fall but will one day be glorified in our flesh as he is glorified in his.
The connection of Calvinism to the covenant goes beyond the mere fact that Christ takes on the office of the second Adam. It depends on the fact of our union with Christ. If it were strictly a matter of forensic decrees, then the Angel of the Lord could have filled the role. However, a Christophany will not do. The Son of God must take on the nature of the first Adam; he must become incarnate. In John 17:21, Jesus prays concerning those who will believe, "that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me." The prayer of Christ is that believers will ultimately be united with God himself. The elect are thereby given a double surety of God's grace. Not only are we in union with Christ by virtue of Christ's human nature, but, in Christ, we are destined to be in union with God by virtue of Christ's divine nature.
Posted by kcourter at novembro 8, 2003 6:49 PM