Dillistone:

Chapter Eight

FEDERALISM IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY

I

IN the Reformed Confessions of the sixteenth century Covenant-Terminology is seldom used. In fact there is only one example of the Covenant-concept occupying a place of prominence and that is in the title of the Second Scots Confession of 1580. This is designated the “National Covenant,” and for the first time we find a symbol of common agreement being described in this way. Probably the Old Testament record of covenants between the people and their king gave the necessary precedent for such a use.

But, although there are few explicit references to the covenant, the general Church-doctrine of Calvin was being warmly embraced. Nowhere, perhaps, does the true voice of the Reformation ring out with more joyful assurance than in the First Scots Confession of 1560. In this, the most notable of the early Reformed Confessions, there is no attempt to minimize the importance which the Church holds in the providential working of God in history. The Church is the community brought into being by God’s Promise. In the face of man’s defection, the Confession asserts, God made to Adam one most joyful promise, a promise which was made more and more clear and repeated from time to time. But those who have embraced the promise with joy, constitute the one Kirk of all the ages, a Kirk which God has preserved, instructed, multiplied, honored, adorned, and from death called to life throughout the history of mankind. This Kirk is distinguished from the rest of society by the three notes which had already become famous–the true preaching of the Word of God, the right administration of the Sacraments, and ecclesiastical discipline uprightly dispensed. These are the marks of the visible Church in the world. But the source and spring of the whole life of the Church is God’s Promise by which He called the new community into being and by which He renews and restores it from age to age.

With the turn of the century a significant change appears. The Covenant-conception begins to occupy an increasingly, important place in Reformed theology but it is interpreted in a way markedly different from that of earlier Reformed teaching. The new theory of the covenant comes to clear expression in the Irish Articles of 1615. First, reference is made to the Covenant of the Law ingrafted in man’s heart at creation whereby God did promise unto him everlasting life upon condition that he performed entire and perfect obedience to His commandments: but seeing that men broke this covenant of the Law, it was necessary for a second covenant to be inaugurated, the covenant of which Christ is the Mediator and whose purpose is man’s salvation. This is the framework which now receives ever fuller elaboration:– the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace, each in its way a contract between God and man, each promising man life and salvation upon definite conditions. The outstanding difference between the covenants is to be found in the fact that whereas the first demanded unquestioning obedience, the second demanded unqualified faith. It is the same God who made each covenant and it may be assumed, therefore, that the purpose and general structure of each covenant is the same. In other words God is a God who enters into contract with men, who binds Himself to bestow blessings if only they will fulfill certain conditions. The supreme mark of His grace is that when men failed to keep the first covenant, He did not abandon them entirely. Instead He made a second compact, one moreover which might seem at first sight to demand less of man than the first. Obedience having proved impossible, obedience was replaced by faith. So the dialectic between Law and Gospel which Calvin sought to maintain is broken and instead we have two successive eras, in one of which God deals with man in one way, in the second of which He deals with him in another. In all this there is a serious danger of losing the vision of the One personal Living God who at all times and under all circumstances deals with man both in judgment and in grace.

Read the rest of this entry »

Hobson:

1) First, that he died for all, I shall prove it by Scripture, and then show you how; to prove this truth that Christ died for every man, I shall not prove it from these Scriptures, John 3:16, chap. 6:33, 2 Cor. 5:19, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:14, and my reason for it is, those Scriptures though they speak out the word [all] and the word [world] yet there is no safety to make positive conclusions upon doubtful expressions, I mean as to the nature and measure of the word [all] and [world] for sometimes the word [world] includes the whole, as Job 34:18, Psalm 24:1, Psalm 50:12, 98:7, or Her. 10:12, Acts 17:24.

Secondly, the world [world] is taken for a part as well as the whole, as in these Scriptures, John 13:1, chap. 14:17, chap. 15:18, 19, chap. 17:6, 9, Acts 17:6, Acts 19:27, Rev. 13:3.

Thirdly, as the world [world] does include sometimes a part, so sometimes of that part, it does intend properly the wicked of the world, as in Acts, 17:31, Rom. 12:2, 1 Cor. 3:19, chapt. 4:9, chap. 6:2, Hebr. 11:7, 2 Peter 2:5, 1 John 5:19. Again in other places is does also properly intend only the professors or believers in Christ, as in these Scriptures, John 12:19, Rom. 11:12, 15, John 17:21, 23. Now all that can be said or declared from these fore-mentioned Scriptures where the word [world] or [all] is expressed where the death of Christ is declared, or reconciliation by him is to you very doubtful, whether it be to every one, or only believers, and therefore seeing that a doubtful supposition is no foundation for infallibly conclusions, nor to the end any controversy in discourse, because supposition is as strong in the one as the other, and convinces none, but produces disputes in all, and therefore I shall in my Answer not positively conclude from, but set them aside in this discourse, and draw as my proof as I told you before, either from Scripture or reason that does arise no other way than from absolute necessity.

So now to my Affirmation, which is, that Christ died for every man, but not for all alike.

First, that he died for every man, for the proof of that see 1 Tim. 4: 10, he is the savior of every man, but especially, so there is a common salvation by Christ. This truth is also made good in 2 Pet. 2: 1, where he declares some men to be men of destruction, and tells them that they had denied the Lord that bought them; so that wicked men and men of destruction were comprehended in the purchase of Christ, further see Heb. 2: 9.

Read the rest of this entry »

Stam:

5. SHOULD WE SPEAK OF A COVENANT OF WORKS?

Most Reformed explainers agree that God established the covenant already in paradise, before man’s fall into sin. Many of them make a distinction between the covenant before and after the fall, however. Often this is formulated as follows: before the fall, the covenant was a covenant of works, but after the fall it became a covenant of grace. This implies that before the fall man had to earn something, or at least show himself worthy of obtaining more than he had. But now, after the fall, since he lost the ability to earn anything, man can only live by grace.

Underlying all this is an important question. Has our relationship with God ever been built on human works, achievement, or merit? Did our works in the past and do they in the present in any way determine the relationship itself? Our works–or the lack of them–indeed influence the relationship with God and the way it functions at a given moment, but is it ever based on our works or always solely on his grace towards us?

Covenant of works

The expression covenant of works is not found in Scripture. If the Bible draws any distinction between works and grace, it is that we cannot be saved by our works, the works of the law, but only by faith, through grace. This line of thinking is followed by the apostle Paul over against the Judaizers, for example in Romans 3 and Ephesians 2. It is all a matter of grace, so that no man will boast before the LORD (Rom 3:27; 1 Cor 1:31).

It would appear that the term covenant of works was not used until after the Reformation. Some of the underlying elements (such as the probationary command and the idea of freedom of choice) are mentioned by the early church fathers and the Reformers. Augustine called the relationship which Adam had with God a covenant (pactum). Calvin stressed, like Augustine, that salvation is a work of God alone, through grace, and that this was so also under the old covenant: ". . . the covenant by which they [the Israelites] were reconciled to the Lord was founded on no merits of their own, but solely on the mercy of God who called them" (Institutes, I, 370).

In the time after the Reformation the doctrine concerning the covenant was further developed by men such as Bullinger and Olevianus. The idea of a covenant of works now also made its entry. (L. Berkhof gives a review of this development in his Systematic Theology, pp. 211ff.)

Read the rest of this entry »

Fraser:

And finally, the Spirit of God tells us plainly, to put the Matter beyond Debate, that Christ bought Reprobates, 2 Pet. ii. 1, 2, 3, the same words used, Rev. v. 9. and xiv. 3, 4, Gal. iii. 13, not such as gave out themselves, or were thought in the judgment of charity to be really redeemed, but designed and deciphered as such, yet brought on themselves swift damnation, these are said to be bought. And as it would be an incongruous speech to aver of these false prophets, that they denied the Lord who elected them from eternity to Glory (which they say is of equal extent with redemption) tho’ they gave out themselves for elected persons; so is it incongruous to affirm they were redeemed by Christ if they had no interest in Christ’s death at all, more then in God’s gracious and eternal election: besides, let us but thus distinguish and gloss, and what shall ye be able to prove as real from Scripture? It is not far from the distinction of Secundum te est verum; Secundum me est falsum:¹ It’s truly said so, but it is not meant as it is said, but as it appears; then Christ died only in appearance as Mahomet says, then Paul may be said not to be really converted, tho’ it be expressly affirmed in Scripture, only he seemed to be so, and gave out himself to be so, I confess it is a distinction that cannot be insisted upon.

(4.) That however justification, effectual calling, sanctification, glorification are of as large extent as redemption, as some maintain; and that it is a certain truth that he hath elected, sanctified, glorified and justified some of all ranks as well as redeemed them; and that merely upon this account these general terms are used in the matters of redemption, and because of the vast church of Gentiles, to whom the Gospel was preached, and of which the Church of God’s Elect was to consist under the New Testament, and not so under the Old. I ask,

How come it that it’s not said in Scripture that God has elected the whole world, sanctified every man; for in that sense it is as true that God elected, sanctified, justified and glorified them all, as that he died for them all; for he elected, justified and sanctified all sorts and ranks of persons? Why are comprehensive universalities used in the matter of redemption, when such restrictions are used in the matter of election and justification?

Surely (that I may express myself in the ingenuous gentleman Mr. Polhill’s words) it imports this much to us, that redemption has a larger sphere then election has, and therefore the Scripture contracts election in words of specialty only, while they open and dilate redemption in emphatic generalities: These considerations move me to think that there may be a general common redemption of all mankind, I dare not gainstand such light, and express clear and various Scriptures; I conclude then, that as the Lord, if he had pleased, might have made his Son die for all, and having done so, could have expressed it in words sufficient to make us believe it; if words can express and hold out this truth to us, I think we have it. And I ask, “Were it true that Christ died for all, what form of words imaginable is not this holden out to us by that we could desire? And what Expression will not that Distinction in reality and in appearance elide.

James Fraser (of Brea) A Treatise on Justifying Faith, Wherein is Opened the Grounds of Believing, or the Sinner’s Sufficient Warrant to take Hold of what is Offered in the Everlasting Gospel: Together with an Appendix Concerning the Extent of Christ’s Death, Unfolding the Dangerous and Various Pernicious Errors that hath been Vented about it (Edinburgh: Printed and sold by William Gray at Magdalen’s Chappel within the Cowgate Head, 1749), 194-195. [Some spelling modernized; some reformatting, italics original; and underlining mine.]

__________________________

¹ Latin: “According to you it true, according to me it is false.”