Category: Theology

I thought I would provide another post interacting with the same Non-covenantal Pastor (NCP =Jack Baptist) who I interacted with in a recent post. What makes this substantial, but I hope charitable, disagreement more interesting is that this gentleman and I graduated from the same Seminary at just about the same time frame.

The reason that this kind of interaction is so profitable is that it allows people to see the profound differences in two different ways of understanding the Christian faith. In order to underscore the importance of such differences I am going to try and emphasize the ugly implications of the NCP position. Jack Baptist titles his article, What Makes Covenant Theology Legalistic

(Bret responds),

Legalism, in Theology, is formally defined as an attempt to obligate God into owing one his or her salvation on the basis of their achievements. It is the idea that God sets up a system whereby men can earn their way to heaven.

NCP writes,

There are two essential tenets of Covenant theology. The first is that there is an eternal, super-historical covenant forged between the three members of the Godhead, to bring about the salvation of the chosen.

(Bret responds),

Covenant Theology, which starts as supra-historical (counter Jack Baptist’s “super”), following the implicit teaching of Scripture, does indeed teach what has come to be called the covenant of redemption (consilium pacis). The idea is that in eternity past the members of the Trinity made covenant with one another with a view towards securing the gracious salvation for God’s Elect children. In this covenant of redemption (pactum salutis) the Father out of divine love (I John 4:10) gives to the Son a people (a) and the Son determines and agrees that He will, as a Federal Head substitute (b), take upon Himself the personal and just wrath of God against the sins of God’s elect (c) as well as provide for His people the positive righteousness required of the people of a Holy God (d), doing so by His perfect obedience to the requirements of God’s just law.

Scripture — (a)I have glorified thee on the earth; I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do (John 17:4). I do not pray for the world but for those whom you have given me for they are Yours (John 17:9). (b)For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the one Jesus Christ. 18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:17-19) (c) But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5) For the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45)(d)God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (I Corinthians 5:21) It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God-that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. In conclusion, the Covenant of Redemption finds the One Triune God involved in an eternal plan of Salvation where the Father as Sender and Principal, and the Son as the Sent One who will Send on the basis of His successful work as Mediator and The Spirit as The Sent Applier, covenant together in being one to bring the one Salvation to God’s one people.

The attendant reader will notice that in this Theology that is being accused by NCT as being ‘Legalistic’ there is no place for fallen man in contributing to or earning his salvation. Therefore all misguided accusations that Covenant Theology is legalistic must be said to be based on a understandings not well considered. This eternal covenant of Redemption is completely and entirely gracious and for it to be accused of legalistic says more about the accuser (Jack Baptist) than it does about the accused (Covenantal theology).

NCT writes,

The second is that all of the Biblical covenants are differing administrations of this one Covenant of Grace. It’s this second tenet that creates unsolvable tensions and problems for the evangelical.

(Bret responds)

This is really a infelicitous way to speak concerning the one covenant of Grace. For myself as a Covenant Theologian I would prefer to speak about the Covenantal progress of redemption rather then ‘differing administrations of this one covenant of grace.’ NCT’s language makes the covenant sound so mechanical, while the more apt metaphor would be organic. You see the covenant grows in the ongoing progress of redemption much the way my son grows in the ongoing progress of maturity. My Son at 18 is substantially different from when he was newborn but he is still the same son. In the same way the covenant of grace is newborn in God’s words to Adam and Eve upon their fall and as time passes that which is implied in that covenant of Grace comes to maturation just as what was potential in my newborn Son came to maturation with the passing of time. As that covenant of Grace matures it is different but it is still the same covenant of Grace.

The problem with Non-covenantal thinking is that it consistently shows an inability to understand that Covenantal progress in redemption allows a maturation that is significant but still connected to the original covenant. The danger with Non-covenantal (i.e. Baptist) thinking in its inevitable tendency to emphasize total differences between covenants as opposed to maturative inspired distinctions in the one covenant of grace is that they often end up with one way of salvation for the old covenant saints with a new way of salvation for the new covenant saints which and this by necessity implies a God who is janus faced with His stern mien turned to His old covenant people and gentle faced turned to the new covenant people.

NCT writes,

Covenant theology is modalistic, in that each historical covenant is said to be mere modes ( administrations, re-publications) of the saving Covenant of Grace.

Bret responds,

Is my Son, who is about three inches taller than his father now, being a modalistic being when he goes through growth spurts? Is Anthony at 18 only a modalistic representation of who Anthony was when he was 6 months old? Is Anthony now only a modalistic representative of who Anthony will be at 40? The covenant of Grace is no more modalistic when it matures in the context of the progress of redemption then my Son is modalistic as he matures. The accusation of covenantal modalism is just a desperate attempt to impugn, without substance, the covenant of Grace and belies an inability to see how God incrementally reveals the fullness of His salvation in the progress of redemption.

NCT writes,

There is indeed only one plan of redemption, stretching from eternity to eternity.

Bret responds,

First, NCT’s theology keeps insisting that there is only one plan of redemption but his insistence that God’s covenantal framework changes completely in the New Testament will later force him into contradictory language.

For example NCT can write elsewhere that,”If the Old and New Covenants are merely different “administrations” of a meta-historical salvation-covenant — one Covenant of Grace modalistically wearing two hats — then the New Covenant becomes the Old Covenant. This in the end puts you into a theology of salvation by law, even while trying to champion grace.

Please note carefully the assumption. NCT is contending that the Old Testament saints (at least those in the Mosaic covenant) were saved by law keeping, and he is warning against the danger of embracing a covenantal understanding that legitimates what he considers to be a fallacious unitary covenant of Grace. His concern is that if this unitary covenant of grace is embraced then the saints in the Renewed and better covenant, fulfilled in Christ, can only be saved by law, which in his understanding is the same way he believes the Old Testament saints were saved. What NCT has done here is to contradict what he said in his paragraph cited above. According to NCT there are TWO plans of redemption. One plan in the Old Covenant which was salvation by law and another plan in the New Testament which is presumably salvation by grace.

Of course on one hand NCT is correct. There is only one plan of redemption and by that one plan of redemption, which was expressed in God’s covenantal dealings with His People, grace alone secures salvation.

NCT writes,

It’s (Redemtion) not a covenant, though, since (A) the Bible never calls it a covenant, and (B) more importantly, covenantal language is inappropriate to apply to the three members of the Godhead. Redemption is their eternal counsel, not a covenant.

Bret responds,

Referring to (A) — Scripture never uses the word Trinity. Does that mean Trinity isn’t a Biblical teaching regarding God?

Referring to (B) – We must be honest and admit that Scripture nowhere says,”And the Father speaketh to the Son and the Spirit and saith; ‘Arise up and let us make a covenant among myself.’ And the One God did arise up and make covenant among the persons. And He saw it was good.” But to insists on such a requirement does not allow the Scriptures their full teaching authority. If, throughout Scripture we find good and necessary reason to understand something conceptually we must teach that. Besides the passages considered above we have the Scripture putting in the Mouth of the Son declaring,

“Here am I and the children whom God has given me.” (Hebrews 2:13)

When were these children given to the Son if not in eternity?

Clearly, there was some kind of eternal arrangement between the persons of the Trinity. That arrangement we are calling the covenant of Redemption.

NCT writes,

A covenant is a legal agreement. There is no chance of failure between members of the Godhead, therefore no penalties for failing, no bond-in-blood, and no covenant sign. The Godhead did not contract with Himself.

Bret responds,

All because God deigns to enter into a covenant doesn’t mean He does so because He thinks there is a chance for failure if He doesn’t enter into covenant. He may have entered into the Covenant of redemption so as to provide a archetype reality upon which the ectypical covenant of Grace could be understood.

Secondly, a legal agreement does not require that there be no relational agreement at the same time. In other words agreements can be both relational and legal simultaneously. I have a very relational covenant with my wife which also happens to be legal.

Thirdly, a case could be made that the elect themselves were the covenant sign between the members of the Trinity in the covenant.

Fourthly, Jack Baptist doesn’t consider the possibility that covenant was entered into by way of gracious condescending to those who would trust Christ, thus giving them certainty that God does not lie regarding His promises.

Finally, while most covenants were sealed in blood not all covenants were sealed in blood.

NCT writes,

The New Covenant is (obviously) a covenant, but that is established between God and His elect, via the redeemer, Jesus Christ.

Bret responds,

And Jesus Christ was never part of any of the previous covenants? If the Old Covenant was established between God and His elect, without the involvement in some manner of the redeemer, Jesus Christ, then how could they have possibly been saved? Could the elect of any age be saved apart from Jesus?

NCT writes,

The darker consequence of covenant theology is that it breaks down the distinctions between Old and New Covenants. As a result it blends the Law into the New, and/or projects the New backward into the Old.

Bret responds,

The darker consequence of NCT’s analysis is that he keeps believing that the Old Covenant wasn’t at all gracious. If the Old Covenant wasn’t gracious he might have a point but if the Old Covenant isn’t gracious then all of those people who lived under that covenant are damned to Hell. One wonders given his theology how he avoid believing that.

NCT writes,

It treats the New Covenant as the flowering of the Law, when in reality it is the flowering of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Bret responds,

Galatians clearly teaches that the law was certainly not against the promises of God. If the law is not in anti-thesis to the promises of God then the flowering of the one is the flowering of the other. Jack Baptist keeps thinking that God intended the law to be used the way that His enemies thought that the law should be used — to wit – as a means by which salvation could be secured. That was never the purpose of the law in the covenant of grace.

NCT says,

1.This is starkly contrary to the New Testament teaching of antithesis between these two covenants. Covenant theologians simply deny that such an antithesis exists. Their overriding emphasis, to the exclusion of everything else, is that all the covenants are essentially the same (The word “essential” is vague enough to justify practically anything). “The Old and New Covenants aren’t in antithesis,” they claim. “They just…um… a little different from each other, is all.”

Bret responds,

The covenants are essentially the same the same way that my Son now at 18 is essentially the same Son as he was at birth. NCT puts the anti-thesis in the wrong place. The anti-thesis is between those who try to be saved by the covenant apart from Christ and those who receive the Christ offered in the covenant. Those who seek to be saved by the law apart from Christ find the one covenant constantly reminding of sin (Hebrews 10:3) while those on the other end of the anti-thesis, who receive Christ offered in the covenant are constantly reminded of grace (Hebrews 10:12-18).

NCT insisting that the Bible says,

1.)The Law came through Moses, but saving grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17). That “but” is an antithesis. Law vs. grace.

Bret responds,

First, the scripture has been misquoted. The proper reading is “The law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”

So, since this Scripture is obviously being appealed to by NCT in order to prove that grace only came with Jesus Christ we must likewise believe that truth only came with Jesus Christ. Does NCT really want to advocate that no truth existed before Jesus Christ?

More likely what this Scripture is teaching is that the emphasis of the Mosaic covenant was its law characteristic while the emphasis of the covenant come to full flower is grace. Scripture bares that out as part of the beauty of the renewed and better covenant is that in it there is no constant reminder of sin which the Mosaic covenant yet unfulfilled in Christ emphasized (See Hebrews). To say that the emphasis has changed because He who it pointed to has come is hardly to posit an antithesis.

Really, John 1:17 must be understood in some such fashion for if it is not understood in such a way we run into major problems where Scripture can say elsewhere that the ‘law is holy, and the commandment is holy, just, and good,’ and the affirmation that ‘we establish the law,’ and the idea that in the New Covenant the law from the Mosaic covenant is written on the hearts of the New Covenant people,’ and that Jesus did not come to abrogate the law but to fullfil it. The Apostle Peter also makes an amazing statement on this subject. He plainly declares that as Christ’s New Testament church we are “…a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, [and] a people for God’s own possession (1 Peter 2:9). The remarkable thing about this text is that Peter is directly referring to the words of God when He established the Mosaic covenant. Obviously, if the law is something totally old covenant oriented there wouldn’t be such esteeming of the Law by the New Testament writers. This is really the problem with NCT’s interpretation. He doesn’t take into accountALL of the Scripture.

NCT writes,

2.)The Law makes the world guilty (Romans 3:20), while the New Covenant remits sin. Imposition of guilt vs. remission of guilt. Doesn’t sound like “an acorn growing up into an oak tree” to me!

Bret responds,

Does NCT really believe that people were only guilty in the old covenant? Does he really believe that sins weren’t remitted on the day of atonement as the elect looked through that Sacrifice that could never take away sin to the one who the Sacrifice spoke of who could take away sin? It seems unimaginable that anyone would suggest that God’s people in the earlier expression of the one covenant of grace never knew remission of sin.

Second, it is true that the Law shuts people up to sin but that is good news to God’s elect for that realization of guilt causes God’s elect to look to Christ for remission of sin.

NCT writes,

The New Covenant righteousness of God is revealed apart from the Law. Romans 3:21. Justification without law.

Bret responds,

The Law as demand cannot save, yet the Gospel is not contrary to the Law of Moses as Romans 1:2 teaches. The Gospel was already proclaimed in the ‘Law and the prophets.’ BUT NOW (Rmns. 3:21), — (the time filled with redemptive significance because of the coming of Christ v. 26) — God’s righteousness comes to historical realization through Christ and His work.

You know it is scary that week in and week out this guy is entrusted with a pulpit.

NCT writes,

3.)The New Covenant justified, but the Old Covenant did not. Romans 3:20, Galatians 3:11.

Bret writes,

The situation in Galatia swirls around the Judaizers insisting that the Galatian Christians adopt the Ceremonial law in order to be saved. That aspect of the Law was fulfilled in Christ so that to embrace that which Christ fulfilled was to reject Christ. Galatians 3:11 does nothing to remove the idea that the esteeming of the Moral Law in salvation is the natural consequence for justification as Galatians 5:19-21 teaches.

Secondly, in Galatians 3:11 Paul is quoting Habakkuk, a man who lived under the Mosaic covenant. What could Habakkuk possibly have known about being justified by faith if he was one of those who had to be justified by law? There is no anti-thesis here.

Thirdly, Romans 3:21 states a truism that has always held true. The law has always, throughout covenantal history, had a first use that brings knowledge of sin.

NCT writes,

4.)The Old Covenant could not give anyone the Holy Spirit, but the New Covenant does. Galatians 3:2. Spirit vs. no Spirit.

Bret responds,

Certainly one of the benefits of the renewed and better covenant is a more effusive outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon God’s people than in the previous covenant where the Spirit’s outpouring seems to be restricted to those who held representative offices (Prophet, Priest, King) among God’s people, but Scripture clearly teaches that the earlier expressions of the one covenant of grace knew something of the Spirit if only through their leadership. A true anti-thesis would be no Spirit in the Old Covenant and Spirit in the New Covenant, not, some Spirit in the Old Covenant but more Spirit in the New Covenant. We can only conclude, once again, that there is no anti-thesis here.

NCT writes,

5.)The Law curses, but the New Covenant blesses. Galatians 3:10. Blessing vs. cursing. I can’t think of two categories of divine action more clearly antithetical to one another than blessing and cursing!

Bret responds,

Now NCT is suggesting that those in the yet matured covenant of grace didn’t know God’s blessings? All that Galatians 3:10 proves is that no one can keep the law perfectly. Something with which no New Covenant Theologian would disagree and something with which no Old covenant remnant saint would have disagreed.

Also we should note that Scripture teaches that just as the less mature expression of the covenant of grace could bless so the New Covenant has capacity to curse (Hebrews 10:29).
Blessings and cursing of each covenant comes to those who are either the Israel of Israel or to those who are Israel but not Israel.

NCT writes,

6.)The Old Covenant is not of faith. Galatians 3:12. Faith vs. “doing” commandments.

Bret responds,

So, those in the old covenant didn’t have faith? Those in the old covenant were saved by doing? What about all those Old Covenant Mosaic members who are exalted for the very faith that the New Covenant saints are told to emulate? If the Old Covenant was not of faith what do we do with Hebrews 11?

NCT writes,

7.)God made His saving Abrahamic promises to Jesus Christ through Abraham, not through the Old Covenant. Galatians 3:16-17. Abraham, not Moses.

Bret responds,

So lets get this straight. From the time to Abraham to the time of Moses God deals graciously with His people but with the Mosaic economy he quits dealing graciously with His people and forces them into a covenant that only brings guilt and doesn’t provide remission of sin?

What we have here from NCT is a God who deals one way soteriologically with his people through Abraham and then changes to deal with them a different way through Moses and changes AGAIN with Christ. Does NCT believe that God is immutable? O Palmer Robertson might be helpful to NCT at this point.

“Secondly, Paul contrasts the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic periods of the Old Testament (Gal. 3:15-19). The apostle makes plain that the inheritance of God’s blessing is not based on law, but on promise. By such an anti-thesis, he sets the covenant of law over against the Abrahamic covenant. Yet, it must be recognized again that Paul’s ultimate purpose in this entire discussion is to distance the true Gospel of Christ from every approximation of the Judaizer’s false gospel. His discussion focuses on law as isolated from promise and its fulfillment in Christ. Law under Moses never was intended to function apart from promise. Separated from its promise-dimension, which reaced its fulfillment in Christ, law never could provide a way for making sinners righteous. Promise as under Abraham was the only effect way by which sinners could be justified before God throughout the history of the covenant. While the Apostle quite vigorously sets promise over against law, he actually sees a basic unity between the Abrahamic and the Mosaic covenants in contrast with the legalistic proposals of the Judaizers. He emphatically focuses on the legal requirement of circumcision as that point which distinguishes the anti-gospel of the Judaizers from the true gospel of Christ. If the Galatians should receive circumcision Christ will not benefit them (Gal. 5:2). Yet circumcision, it must be remembered, historically found its initial institution under the provisions of the Abrahamic covenant of promise rather than the Mosaic covenant of law. This fact clearly indicates that the ultimate contrast in Paul’s mind is not between the Abrahamic and the Mosaic covenants, but between the way of justification advocated by the Judaizers and the way of justification provided by Christ. Thus the emphatic antithesis in Paul between the ‘law covenant; and the ‘promise covenant’ must not be allowed to detract from the unity of God’s dealings under the covenant of redemption.”

In the end, as I have said earlier, the anti-thesis presented in Galatians is between Judaizers misrepresentations of the Law and the Apostles accurate representations of the covenant of grace.

NCT writes,

8.)The Old Covenant offered eternal inheritance based on works, but the New Covenant offers it based on God’s gracious promise. Galatians 3:18. Works vs. promise.

Bret responds,

Only the Judaizers were insisting that the inheritance is of law. Certainly Moses, who was commended for his faith in Hebrews 11 as one who esteemed the reproach of Christ would be one who would give powerful testimony that the inheritance was always only by promise.

NCT writes,

9.)The Old Covenant was added onto Abraham’s covenant — it is not a re-published version of Abraham’s covenant. Galatians 3:19. Added, not continued.

Bret responds,

Appealing to O. Palmer Robertson again,

“Indeed, it should be acknowledged that law in distinction from promise was given to reveal sin (Gal. 3:19). The radicalness of this exposure of human depravity is seen in the fact that the law, by its very form, was calculated to uncover sinful man’s inclination to self-trust. In this respect, Sinai represents a covenantal administration in sharpest contrast with Abraham’s promise-covenant. BUT this contrast must not be understood as rupturing the unity and progress of the revelation of the covenant of redemption.. Diversity indeed exists in the various administrations of God’s covenants. This diversity enriches the wonder of God’s plan for His people. But the diversity ultimately merges into the a single purpose overarching the ages.”

In the end though even this adding onto can be seen as perfectly consistent with the Abrahamic covenant. By the emphasis on law the Mosaic covenant graciously revealed to the Israel of Israel the need for grace. The Mosaic covenant with it’s emphasis on law was gracious because it reminded the Israel of Israel that the law apart from the promise could never save. The Mosaic covenant worked in God’s elect elect people a steady trust in the scarlet thread of Redemption that was proclaimed in the Sacrifices. God’s law was gracious to God’s people as it worked in them a understanding of their sin nature and so made them pant for grace even more.

NCT writes,

10.)The Old Covenant ended once Christ came, but the New Covenant continues forever. Galatians 3:24-25. Temporary vs. permanent.

Bret responds,

“Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” (Gal. 3:24)

Now can anybody explain to me how a covenant which had as its intent the bringing of God’s people to Christ can be seen to be in anti-thesis with a covenant that gives He whom the previous covenant was leading us to?

The law functioned as a means to separate Israel from the surrounding nations. With the advent of Christ that function of the ceremonial law has now ended.

Finally, it was only temporary because it is fulfilled in Christ.

NCT writes,

Due to this mingling of the Old and New Covenants into one because of the teaching that all the covenants are salvific (they’re not) and mere administrations of a single saving plan (they’re not), Covenant theology becomes legalistic by its very nature.

Bret responds,

If all the covenants were not salvific then how could the apostle say with a straight face that old covenant people were advantaged by being God’s people (Romans 3:1-2)? How much advantage could there be in being in a covenant that could only damn?

NCT writes,

Covenant theology doesn’t sometimes accidentally “veer” into legalism. It is legalistic in its theological DNA, when its essential principles are rigorously played out.

Bret responds,

This is just a stupid assertion. Just plain stupid! In order for NCT to say this he must insist that, Calvin was a legalist. Edwards was a legalist. Owen was a legalist. Warfield was a legalist. Sproul is a legalist. Thornwell was a legalist. Dabney was a legalist. Boston was a legalist. Witsius was a legalist. Hodge was a legalist. Kuyper was a legalist. Bavinck was a legalist. Vos was a legalist. Flavel was a legalist. Brooks was a legalist. Perkins was a legalist, and on and on and on.

We saw right from the beginning that Covenant theology in its pactum salutis contends for the very essence of God alone salvation. We have seen how NCT mishandles and misapplies the Scriptures which inevitably leads him into anti-nomianism and as a anti-nomian he can only conclude that anybody who see’s that the law has a gracious ministry to God’s people are legalist.

NCT writes,

This creates great mental stress for the consistent Calvinist, who must on one hand affirm sola gratia/sola fide, but on the other hand is forced by covenant theology’s basic principles to say that people were saved via the Law — since according to Westminster Puritanism the Law was allegedly a simple re-publication of the Gospel!

Bret responds,

There really is no tension as NCT would see if he took the time to try and understand how the covenants fit as a harmonious whole instead of forcing his a-priori misguided undertandings on both the Scriptural text as well as on those covenant theologians who faithfully handle the text.

NCT writes,

Paul in 2 Corinthians says that the Old Covenant was a ministry of death! This fact clearly distinguishes it in antithesis from the New Covenant.

Bret responds,

First we would note that in II Corinthians 3 it is taught that the covenants in their various expressions share a glory. The degree of that glory is intensified in the renewed and better covenant but it is the same glory and not a different glory that is intensified. There is no anti-thesis here.

Secondly, the glory that is spoken of in II Cor. 3 is a glory that is restricted to the letter apart from the Spirit. There is nothing in II Cor. 3 that teaches that those condemned in the old covenant were not saved by looking to Christ through the Sacrifices. Indeed, if we take Hebrews seriously we would say that the ministry of condemnation that Paul speaks of in II Cor. 3 was before them with every sacrifice (Hebrews 10:2-3). So, we quite agree that the less mature expression of the one covenant of grace was a ministry of death but only in such a way that it caused the Israel of Israel to fix their hope upon the author and finisher of their salvation. There is no anti-thesis here.

The contrast then would be between the un-renewed and worst covenant that was constantly reminding of death and the renewed and better covenant today that constantly reminds God’s people of life. The old covenant saints laboring under the ministry of condemnation looked for the reality that was proleptically promised and given to them in the Sacrifices in a ‘not yet’ fashion while the renewed and better covenant saints experience the reality of the ministry of righteousness. The saints in the un-renewed and worst covenant were constantly reminded of their condemnation on the day of atonement when that sin was provisionally and typically taken away while the saints in the renewed and better covenant are constantly reminded of their righteousness by the fact that the Sacrifice has sat down at the right hand of the Father. Properly understood there is no anti-thesis here.

NCT writes,

Take this equating of the two covenants even further, and you end up saying that saving grace was mediated to Jewish worshipers through the Law’s sacrificial system (I’ve had Presbyterians vehemently insist to me that this was so).

Bret responds,

If we do not conclude that saving grace was mediated to Christian worshipers by grace alone through faith alone as they looked to Christ alone typically and proleptically presented in the Sacrifices it is difficult to see how these brethren were saved and how NCT is not advocating a different way of salvation for those in each of his anti-thetical covenants.

econdly, NCT fails to appreciate the ‘now, not yet’ nature of the less mature expression of the one covenant of grace. In that earlier expression the emphasis obviously falls on the ‘not yet’ of salvation, but an emphasis on the ‘not yet’ of salvation is not the same as saying there was no salvation for these brethren.

Thirdly, NCT must deal with Isaiah 6:6-7 (as only one example) where Isaiah’s iniquity is taken away because a coal is taken from the altar where Sacrifices, that pictured Christ, were offered and placed upon his person. Now, Isaiah lived under the Mosaic covenant. Is NCT insisting that Isaiah was not saved as he looked to Christ in faith through the sacrificial system? God says in that passage that Isaiah’s iniquity was taken away. God took that iniquity away in the context of the sacrificial system. What are we to conclude?

NCT writes,

They show confusion, however, as they move back and forth between saying that the Law pointed the worshiper to the need for forgiveness and the coming Christ (which is absolutely true), and saying that worshipers were saved by means of participating in the Tabernacle services (which is salvation by works!).

Bret responds,

I can only see serious confusion in somebody who cannot see the consistency in somebody saying that the law pointed the old covenant saint to Christ while at the same time saying that the worshipers were saved by means of looking to Christ who was pronounced in the Sacrifices that God required. Indeed this kind of language remains today. The minister in the reading of the law during the Worship service points the congregation for the need of forgiveness and then goes on to say the worshipers are saved by means of looking to Christ who is pronounced in Word and Sacrament.

NCT writes,

God says that the New Covenant is not like the Law (Hebrews 8:9).

Bret responds,

Hebrews very clearly teaches that the not likeness of the new covenant is found in the fact that because Christ has come the old testament ceremonial law is obsolete. All because my Honda civic is not like my SUV doesn’t mean that they aren’t also alike. Contrasting one thing from another does not forbid comparing one thing to another.

NCT writes,

The New Covenant regenerates, causes people to be adopted as God’s children (v.10), causes a saving knowledge of God, and justifies of sin (v.11-12). The Old Covenant was only for Jews, the New Covenant is for everyone. The Old Covenant didn’t atone for all sins, the New Covenant expiates everything wrong we’ve ever done. The Old Covenant was only concerned with foods and drinks, various washings, fleshly ordinances, and only sanctified the flesh (Hebrews 9:9-10, 13). It only provided shadows of future redemption, but never the redemption itself (Heb. 10:1-4).

Bret responds,

Hebrews 8 teaches that the law that is written on our hearts is God’s old covenant law. I know of no better repudiation to the above argument then simply noting that.

NCT writes,

A sign that points to my house, is not my house. The Old Covenant pointed to the New Covenant, but was not the New Covenant, not in “seed-form” or any other form.

Bret responds,

Well, first if the old covenant is pointing to the new covenant then it obviously isn’t in anti-thesis to it.

Secondly, if the old covenant as a sign has some of the same materials out of which the new covenant is constructed then that the sign has in it the reality to which it points even if it itself is not the reality itself.

NCT writes,

It shows its deplorable non-grasp of the book of Galatians, or Paul’s theology of Law all-around.

Bret responds,

Let the reader decide where that which is deplorable lies.

I continue to maintain if people on both sides of the Federal Vision debate would read and understand what Bavinck is getting at in this quote we would have far fewer debates.

With respect to the doctrine of justification there is no difference between Lutheran and Reformed theology as far as the essence is concerned; however, the doctrine does occupy a different place and does receive a different emphasis in the latter. This manifests itself first of all in the Luther pushed predestination steadily into the background, while Calvin placed it increasingly in the center and viewed justification also from that perspective. “The Lord, when He calls, justifies, and glorifies, does nothing other than to declare his election;” it is the elect who are justified. For that reason, it is entirely correct to say that Calvin never weakens either the objective atonement of Christ or the benefit of justification; but nevertheless, his perspective results in the righteousness of Christ being presented to us much more as a gift bestowed by God than as something which we accept through faith. The objective gift precedes the subjective acceptance. In the second place, Calvin maintains “justification without merits” not only because of the motivation derived from Christ’s work of satisfaction and the comfort extended to the faithful, but also no less strongly because of the “glory of God.” Calvin feels himself as if in the presence of God and placed before his judgment throne; and looking up at the majesty and holiness of God, he does not dare, with reference to insignificant, sinful man, speak of works, merits, and self-glory any longer. On the contrary, for such a creature, humility and trusting in God’s mercy are the only proper thing; to that end are the elect justified, that they should glory in him and not in something else. In the third place, Calvin distinguishes sharply, and especially over against Osiander, between justification and sanctification, because the first is a purely forensic act; yet he does not separate them for a moment and continually maintains them in closest connection. Surely Christ cannot be divided any more than light and heat in the sun, though they perform functions distinct from one another. Christ justifies no one whom He does not also at the same time sanctify. Therefore we are not justified “by works,” but neither are we justified “without works.” Indeed, we do not behold Christ from a distance in order that his righteousness might be imputed to us, “but because we have been clothed with him and have been ingrafted into his body, he deigns to make us one with himself; therefore we glory in the fact that we have communion in righteousness with him.” Thus justification in Calvin retained its place and value, yet it did not become the one and only element in the order of redemption. It came to stand between election and the gift of Christ on the one hand, and sanctification and glorification on the other; it was “a kind of transition from eternal predestination to future glory.”

But even though Calvin proved his independence as well in the doctrine of justification, he did not resolve the problems which arise with this article of the faith. In particular is respect to the relation in which justification stands to election and atonement on the one hand, and to sanctification and glorification on the other. When justification occupies a place between these pairs, then there is always a tendency to connect it more with either the first or the second pair of benefits; and to the degree that this happens, to the same degree the doctrine itself acquires a different meaning. If the purpose is to maintain the objective forensic character of justification, then it is natural to establish a close connection with election and atonement; it then becomes an imputation of the righteousness of Christ, which has taken place long before, in the gospel, in the resurrection of Christ, or even from eternity, and which is only much later accepted by the subject in faith. Such faith is then nothing but a vessel, an instrument, a “merely passive something,” so that it becomes difficult to derive from it the new life of sanctification. On the other hand, when one takes into account more the practical rather than speculative interests, it follows as a matter of course that one seeks to establish a close connection between justification and faith. Justification coincides then with the benefit of the forgiveness of sins which is received and enjoyed in faith, and faith becomes a communion with Christ. Faith causes Christ to indwell us through his Spirit; it assures us of the “divine good-will toward us” and pours out new life and new powers into our hearts.

“With Calvin we still find both representations united with one another, but they are soon separated in Reformed theology and each developed in a one-sided direction. Under the influence of Socinianism and Remonstrantism, Cartesianism and Amyraldianism, there developed the neonomiam representation of the order of redemption which made forgiveness of sins and eternal life dependent on faith and obedience which man had to perform in accordance with the new law of the gospel. Parallel with this development, Pietism and Methodism arose which, with all their differences, also shifted the emphasis to the subject, and which either demanded a long experience or a sudden conversion as a condition for obtaining salvation. As a reaction against this came the development of anti-neonomianism, which had justification precede faith, and antinomianism which reduced justification to God’s eternal love and which dissolved sin and atonement into merely inadequate conceptions from which man had to liberate himself through the better insight of faith.

Reformed theologians usually tried to avoid both extremes, and for that purpose soon made use of the distinction between “active” and “passive justification.” This distinction is not found in the reformers; as a rule they speak of justification in a “concrete sense.” They do not treat of a justification from eternity, or of justification in the resurrection of Christ, or in the gospel, or before or after faith, but combine everything in a single concept. Consequently they offer support in some of their statements to those who place justification before faith; but they can be presented with no less ground as a proponents of the view that justification always takes place by and as a result of faith. But when nomism and antinomianism arose, the obligation was felt to analyze the conception, and the distinction was made between an active and a passive justification in order to avoid both errors. On the one hand nomism, which only recognized the benefit of forgiveness through faith, experience, or the conversion of man was rejected; but on the other hand, one was on guard against antinomianism and rejected virtually unanimously the doctrine of eternal justification. Consequently, it was generally accepted, that, if there was any ground at all to speak of justification in the decree of God, in the resurrection of Christ, or in the gospel, the active justification took place first in the “internal call” prior to and unto faith; but that the proclamation thereof, the intimation or insinuation in the consciousness, or in other words, the passive justification, occurred only through and by faith. Efforts were made to keep both elements as close together as possible, while accepting only a logical and not a temporal distinction. However, even then, there were those who objected to this distinction inasmuch as the gospel mentions no names and does not say to anyone, personally: Your sins have been forgiven. Therefore it is not proper for any man to take as his starting point the belief that his sins have been forgiven.

From a Reformed viewpoint there would appear to be even less ground for such boldness since the atonement of Christ is particular rather than universal. The preacher of the gospel can assure no one that his sins have been forgiven since he does not know who the elect are; and the man who hears the gospel is neither able nor permitted to believe this, inasmuch as he cannot be aware of his election prior to and without faith. As a result, the conclusion appeared rather obvious that the boldness to know one’s sins to have been forgiven and to have assurance of eternal salvation only came about after one has been burdened with a deep sense of guilt, has fled unto Jesus in faith, has surrendered to him and finally, slowly, and through self-examination has become convinced of the reality of his faith as taking refuge in Christ. In other words, man must first believe, that is, he must become active with Christ in order thereafter to be justified by God. But in this manner the ground of justification shifted once again from God to man, from the righteousness of Christ to saving faith; from the gospel to the law. As was the case in Lutheran theology, there was no unanimity in Reformed theology. Soon after the Reformation two schools of thought developed which have existed ever since and which to this day make themselves felt in doctrine and life.

If, then, not faith in its quality and activity, but the imputed righteousness of Christ is the ground of our justification, the question arises with all the more emphasis: What is then the place of faith in this benefit? There is no doubt the Scriptures connect faith most intimately with justification: faith is imputed for righteousness, Gen. 15:6, Rom. 4:3, Gal. 3:6; the righteous man lives by faith, Hab. 2:4, Rom. 1:17, Gal. 3:11; the righteousness of God is revealed through faith, Rom. 3:22; and we are justified through faith, Rom. 3:26, 5:1, 10:4, 10, and Gal. 2:16, where it even says: we have believed in Jesus Christ, in order that we should be justified; Gal. 3:6-18, 22-24, compare Acts 10:43, 13:39, Hebr. 10:38, etc. And what is always meant here is saving faith, which has as its object the person of Jesus Christ with his benefits, whether it be as in the days of the Old Testament, where He was promised as seed to Abraham, Gal. 3:16, or as in the fulness of time, when He appeared in the flesh, died, and rose again, Rom. 8:34. With this question, as to the place of faith in justification, the other question is therefore immediately and most intimately connected, namely, whether justification takes place in eternity or in time, and if the latter, whether it takes place in the death or resurrection of Christ, in the preaching of the gospel, prior to, or at the same time as, or after faith.

The first position was asserted by the real antinomians, such as Pontiaan van Hattem and his followers. According to them justification was nothing else than the love of God which is not concerned about the sins of man, which does not require atonement in Christ, and which only needs to be proclaimed in order to enable man to believe. Faith is nothing but a renouncing of the error that God is angry and a realization that God is eternal love. This pantheistic school of thought should be distinguished sharply from the views of the so-called antineonomians who in England, Scotland, and in the Netherlands opposed the change of the gospel into a new law as well as the idea that faith was a co-operating factor in our justification, and who from this perspective sometimes came to confess an eternal justification. In addition to differences in many other doctrines (such as election, the person and work of Jesus Christ), there is this difference between these schools of thought in the doctrine of justification: The first group held eternal justification as being everything and left no place for a justification in time; it was complete in itself, had its total being in eternity needing only to be proclaimed in time. However, the second group saw in eternal justification only the beginning, the principle, and the ground of justification as it occurred in time; they were moved to acknowledge it only by their desire to keep the gospel of grace pure and to protect it against any blending with the law; therefore they only granted the terminology a subordinate place.

Thus presented, this doctrine of eternal justification contains a valuable truth which cannot and may not be denied by anyone who is Reformed. Election is from eternity. The “counsel of redemption” which includes the substitution of the Mediator for his people is from eternity. Everything that happens in time, specifically also the work of redemption, is constantly in Scripture referred back to God’s decree from eternity. Justification could not take place in time were it not anchored in eternity. However, that is no reason to recommend speaking of eternal justification or of a justification from eternity. The reason is that Scripture nowhere sets an example for us in this. Reformed theologians were virtually unanimous in their opposition to it, and distinguished between the eternal decree of justification and the execution thereof in time. If one says that “justification as an act immanent in God” must of necessity be eternal, then it should be remembered that taken in that sense everything, including creation, incarnation, atonement, calling, regeneration, is eternal. Whoever would therefore speak of an eternal creation would give cause for great misunderstanding. Besides, the proponents of this view back off themselves, when, out of the fear of antinomianism, they assert strongly that eternal justification is not the only, full, and complete justification, but that it has a tendency and purpose to realise itself outwardly through the providence of God, so that therefore the elect are not in fact, that is, actually, justified from eternity, but only in his plan and counsel. This amounts really to the usual distinction between the decree and its execution. The counsel of God and all decrees contained therein as a unit are without doubt eternal “immanent acts”, but the external works of God, creation, preservation, governing, redemption, justification, etc., are in the nature of the case “transient acts.” As works they do not belong to the plan of God’s ordering but to the execution of it.

In addition, there is frequent mention of a justification in the death or resurrection of Christ. For this view the Scriptures offer a firmer ground when they witness in 2 Cor. 5:19 that God reconciled the world to himself in Christ, not imputing to them their sin, and in Romans 4:25, that Christ died because of our sins and was raised for our justification. This latter expression can be understood this way, that Christ was raised because we have been justified in and through him, in the same way that He died because we were sinners and He was made sin in our place. But it also permits the view that Christ was raised because, being reconciled through his death, we also had to be justified. Dia with the accusative is then not intended retrospectively but prospectively. This interpretation deserves preference in view of Paul’s doctrine of the resurrection of Christ. Christ did not rise because we are justified through his death; but rather, Christ had to rise and has risen because He fully atoned through his suffering and death for our sins; that is, He had completed the task which his Father had given him. Thus for Christ the resurrection was the divine approval of his completed work, the proof that He was the son of God, Rom. 1:4, that our sins are atoned for by him, I Cor. 15:17, and that we shall be raised spiritually and physically in and through him, Rom. 6:7-10, 8:11, 1 Cor. 15:20-23, 2 Cor. 4:14, Col. 1:18.

Yet there exists according to 2 Cor. 5:19 an intimate connection between the atonement in Christ and the non-imputation of the world’s sin which has always been recognized in Reformed theology. Even J. van den Honert, who was a fierce opponent of Comrie, acknowledged freely that the justification of the elect had taken place at the resurrection of Christ, long before they were born, and this by virtue of the legal representation by their sponsor and covenantal head Jesus Christ. From his side, Comrie admitted that the elect are not fully, “actually,” and as persons, justified in the resurrection of Christ, but only “virtually.” In essence there is no difference. In the same way that the entire human race objectively fell and died in Adam when he transgressed the commandment of God, so also the entire body of Christ’s congregation objectively died with him, rose, and was reconciled and justified in his death and resurrection. Therefore the gospel is not: God will be reconciled if you, 0 man, believe, repent, and fulfill his commandments; but rather, because God was reconciling the world unto himself in Christ, He does not impute their sins to them and He charges the apostles with the ministry and the word of reconciliation. The content of this word is: God has been reconciled; He has forgiven sins; believe this gospel, 0 man; participate in this reconciliation, renounce your enmity, be reconciled unto God. To this extent justification lies objectively before us in the gospel of Christ as this has been proclaimed since paradise in ever clearer language. Forgiveness of sins does not come into being through faith and is not obtained through our activities but lies entirely in Christ; it precedes faith and is simply accepted by faith. As it is stated in the Apostles’ Creed: I believe in the forgiveness of sins.

In order to maintain this complete righteousness of Christ and the full riches of the gospel, Reformed theologians distinguished in “actual justification” between active and passive justification. Justification was viewed to have taken place in principle in the decree of God, and virtually in the resurrection of Christ; objectively it was viewed as contained in the gospel and only in the last judgment would it receive its full scope and significance; at all those points, active justification retained its own important place. The application of salvation through the Holy Spirit is not to be made in any way into an acquisition of salvation because the Holy Spirit takes everything from Christ; yet the application is as essential in her sphere and of equally great importance as the acquisition. Therefore Scripture makes entry into the Kingdom of God dependent on being born again, faith, and repentance. And in this matter acquisition and application relate so closely to one another that the former can neither be conceived of nor exist without the latter, and conversely, the latter cannot be conceived of nor exist without the former. Acquisition leads of necessity to application. Through his suffering and death Christ also obtained the application of all his benefits, including the forgiveness of sins, to his people personally and individually. Christ’s purpose as Savior is not only objective atonement, but also the subjective redemption of his people from their sins. This does not come into existence through an objective justification in the decree of God or in the resurrection of Christ, but only comes to pass when man both in his being and consciousness is liberated from sin and is thus regenerated and justified. This is the justification of which Scripture speaks continually and it is of this justification that Comrie acknowledges that it is the “communication and actual participation.”

However, under the influence of Remonstrantism and Salmurian theology, and of Pietism and Rationalism, the understanding of this actual justification gradually became that man had to believe and repent first, that thereafter God in heaven, in “the court of heaven,” sitting in judgment, acquitted the believer because of his faith in Christ., because of his acts of faith or good works, whereupon He had the verdict announced on earth, in “the court of earth,” through his Spirit in the heart of the believers. To avoid this nomism, the distinction between active and passive justification served a purpose. The former took place already in a certain sense in the proclamation of the gospel, in the external calling, but especially in the internal calling when God through his word and Spirit called the sinner efficaciously, convincing him of sin, driving him to Christ and causing him to find forgiveness and life with Him. In the logical sequence this active justification then precedes faith and is, as it were, the efficacious preaching through the Spirit of God that sins have been forgiven, so that man is persuaded in the innermost part of his soul, accepts the word of God in faith, and dares to accept and is able to accept Christ with all his benefits. And when that man first goes out to Christ so to speak (“direct act” of faith) and thereafter returns to himself with a “reflexive act of faith” and acknowledges thankfully as a child, that his sins have also been forgiven, then the passive justification takes place therein, whereby God acquits man also in his conscience, and man through the Spirit testifies with his own spirit that he is His child and an heir to eternal life.

Against this distinction the objection is made from the nomistic point of view that then the active justification is not a justification by and through faith, as is expressed continually in Scripture, but unto faith, and also that this faith totally changes in character under this representation, since it is then no longer an activity with respect to the person of Christ but only an understanding acceptance of the sentence that the sins have been forgiven. However, these objections are easily countered. One should, namely, take into account, that the distinction mentioned has a logical but no temporal significance. There is here no “priority of order,” but a “simultaneity of time.” Concretely they coincide and are always coupled with each other. The active justification carries, so to speak, the tendency in itself to communicate itself in faith and to be accepted by faith. What good would a benefit be to us, if it did not come into our possession? What good would acquittal be to a prisoner, if it were not communicated to him and the door of the prison unlocked? And what good would justification in the decree of God, in the resurrection of Christ, in the gospel be to us, if God himself did not make us a participant in the internal call through faith? In addition, as the internal call directly and immediately, without a time lapse, results in regeneration with “habitual faith,” so also does this faith include from the very beginning of its existence, according to its character and being, the assurance, that is, the consciousness, that not only to others but to me also forgiveness of sins has been granted. This assurance does not need to be added through a special revelation, as asserted by Rome, if at least it is not forever lacking, but it is inherent in saving faith from the very beginning and develops from it organically. Thus active and passive justification cannot be separated for a moment and are contained in one concept in the Scriptures, in the writings of the Reformers, and in practical instruction.

When now the Scriptures say of this justification in “a concrete sense” that it takes place by and through faith, then it does not intend to say that it is produced and wrought through that faith, since Jesus Christ is all our righteousness and all benefits of the covenant of grace are the fruits of his labor and of his labor alone; they are entirely contained in his person and are not in any need of any addition on our part. The prepositions by and through therefore signify only, that Christ with all his benefits becomes our personal possession only by faith. The terminology, that active justification takes place unto and passive justification by and through faith may have some value against nomism; but the Scriptural language is entirely adequate, provided it is understood Scripturally. Justification in a “concrete sense” is entirely justification by and through faith because, contained objectively in Christ it is only accepted, appropriated, and enjoyed personally by means of faith. But that faith which thus accepts Christ with all his benefits, is not a dead, but a living faith; it is not a mere intellectual agreement with the sentence that God has forgiven sins, but it appropriates for itself what is held out and offered in the word by the call, external and internal, so also-what it says about our guilt and depravity, about the person and work of Christ, about the activity of the Holy Spirit. In one word, saving faith directs our eyes and heart from the very beginning away from ourselves and unto God’s mercy in Christ.

The logical distinction between active and passive justification offers therefore various advantages which are neither to be despised from the perspective of the confession nor from that of experience. In the first place, it enables us to maintain, over against all nomism, the rich and joyous content of the gospel, that God is gracious and great in mercy, and that He has established a perfect righteousness in Christ in which we can rest both in life and death, and which is in no need whatsoever of supplement or addition on our part. The forgiveness of all our sins is granted to us as an unmerited gift; God himself establishes, voluntarily, out of undeserved mercy, a relation with us, accepts us through Christ into his fellowship, our transgressions notwithstanding, and assures us of his eternal and unchangeable favor. He establishes out of sheer mercy his covenant with us, in order that we should walk thereafter according to the demand of that covenant; religion becomes the foundation of morality. Secondly, it explains the basis on which the believer derives the right and the boldness to appropriate for himself this benefit. From the Romanist viewpoint, objection is raised against “special faith” as understood by the Reformation in that the gospel does not name anyone by name and that therefore anyone who believed “that his sins had been forgiven” could not derive this faith from the gospel but only from himself. And indeed many have in later years, when the confessional power of the Reformation weakened, entered the way of self-examination, in order to be assured of the sincerity of their faith and their salvation. Thus was the focus shifted from the promise of God to the experience of the pious. But if we understand the meaning of active justification properly, the issue appears in a different light for us. It is not we who approach the judgment of God, after self-examination, with the sincerity of our faith, in order to receive there the forgiveness of our sins; God does not sit in judgment by himself in heaven to hear the parties and to pronounce sentence, a representation which is according to Comrie, too anthropomorphic and unworthy of God. But He himself comes to us in the gospel, with the free offer of mercy and gives the right to anyone to accept forgiveness of sins with a believing heart; and this special appropriation is not added from the outside to the universal offer as a foreign element, but is included therein and is only an individual application thereof. “The general promise of the gospel includes the special.” So then does the foundation of faith lie outside ourselves in the promise of God; whoever builds thereupon shall not be ashamed.

Thirdly, the distinction mentioned makes it possible for us to conceive of faith at the same time as a receptive organ and as an active force. If justification in every respect comes about after faith, faith becomes a condition, an activity, which must be performed by man beforehand, and it cannot be purely receptive. But if the righteousness, on the ground of which we are justified, lies wholly outside of us in Christ Jesus, then it can obviously only become ours through our childlike acceptance of it. “Remission of sins is the thing promised on account of Christ. Therefore it cannot be accepted except by faith alone, for a promise cannot be accepted except by faith alone.” Faith is therefore not a “material cause” or a “formal cause,” it is not even a condition or instrument of justification, for it stands in relation to justification not as, for example, the eye to seeing or the ear to hearing; it is not a condition, upon which, nor an instrument or organ, through which we receive this benefit, but it is the acceptance itself of Christ and all his benefits, as He offers himself to us through word and Spirit, and it includes therefore also the consciousness, that He is my Lord and I am his possession. Faith is therefore not an instrument in the proper sense, of which man makes use in order to accept Christ, but it is a sure knowledge and a solid confidence which the Holy Spirit works in the heart and through which He persuades and assures man that he, not withstanding all his sins, has part in Christ and in all his benefits.

But if this faith is saving faith, then it cannot be “historical knowledge” or a “bare assent;” it is at bottom a living and active faith, and it does not stand opposed to all work in every respect. It forms a contrast with the works of the law in a double sense, namely therein, that these works can be neither the “material cause” nor the “instrumental cause” of justification. It also stands opposed to the works of faith (infused righteousness, obedience, love) the moment these are to any degree viewed as the ground of justification, as forming as a whole or in part that righteousness on the ground of which God justifies us; for that is Christ and Christ alone; faith itself is not the ground of justification and thus also neither are the good works which come forth from it. But faith does not stand opposed to work, if one were to mean by that, that only a dead, inactive faith can justify us. For the quarrel between Rome and the Reformation did not have to do with whether we are justified by an active or inactive faith, or by a living or a dead faith. But the question was, just as it was for Paul, whether faith with its works, or whether faith apart from its works, justifies us before God and in our consciences. And further, faith does not stand opposed to the works of faith, in so far as these, as the fruit of faith are used by the Holy Spirit as a means to assure the believer of the sincerity of his faith and thus of his salvation. In this sense faith itself is a work, John 6:29, the best work and the principle of all good works. Therefore the Reformed also said that it is indeed “faith alone which justifies, but however, faith which justifies is not alone,” and they spoke in addition to the “justification of the sinner” also of a “justification of the just.” In this sense also Paul and James are not in contradiction to each other. It is indeed not right to say that Paul speaks only of the “justification of the sinner” and James of the “justification of the just.” Rather, both deny that the ground of justification lies in the works of the law, and both recognize that faith, living faith, faith that includes and brings forth good works is the means by which the Holy Spirit assures us of our righteousness in Christ. In this there is only this difference, that Paul contends against dead works and James declaims against dead faith. The faith that justifies is the assurance wrought in our hearts by the Holy Spirit of our righteousness in Christ. And therefore, not the more passive, but the more lively and the more powerful it is, so much the more does it justify us. Faith works together with works and is perfected by works, James 2:22.

BAVINCK ON FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION
H. Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, Vol. IV
(4th ed.; Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1930), pp. 182-186, 198-207.

“I believe that there is timeless moral law in the Old Covenant, and that it passes over (so to speak) from Old to New. There was also time bound laws (ceremonial law, civil law, etc.) that don’t pass over. Our guide to defining what passes over — what is or isn’t moral law — is the New Testament.”

Where is the clear Scriptural teaching that divide Scripture up this way? Surely we can agree that Scripture clearly forbids the passing over of the those ceremonial laws dealing with redemption but even here we still believe that God still requires the shedding of blood. The final shedding of blood by the Lord Christ unto redemption fulfills all the proleptic blood shedding before Christ. While the ‘blood of bulls to take away sin’ is no longer required, the shedding of blood has not been done away with for without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Listen to what Greg Bahnsen has to say on this;

You see the ceremonial law prescribed the necessity of blood for atonement (Lv. 17:11) and accordingly when Christ made atonement for our sins once for all, ‘it was therefore necessary’ that he shed His blood for us (Heb. 9:22-24); the OT redemptive system called for a Passover lamb to be sacrificed, and Christ is that lamb for us (I Cor. 5:17, I Pt. 1:19). The ceremonial law separated Israel from the nations by requiring a separation to be drawn between clean and unclean meats and prohibiting the unequal yoking of animals; in the NT the outward shadow form of such laws has been surpassed — the spreading of the Redeemed community to the Gentiles renders all meats clean (Acts 10), and the sacrifice of Christ has put the system of ordinances which separated the Jews and Gentiles out of kilter (Eph. 2:11-20) – BUT their basic requirement (the eternal principle we might say) of holy separation from the unclean world of unbelief is still confirmed and in force (I Cor. 6:14-7:1). The ceremonial law is therefore confirmed forever in and by Christ, even though not kept in its shadow form by NT believers.

(Bret continues),

So, the outward form has changed but the requirement for blood, or holiness has not been removed (cmp. Heb. 10:1-18), and so the emphasis falls on a covenantal continuity that realizes distinctions and not a covenantal discontinuity that manufactures differences. Likewise none of the Moral law {(a)Covenant (b)Case} has been decommissioned though some of its outward form may have been altered. This is where the idea of general equity enters into the discussion. For example, we may not build fences around rooftops but applying the principle of the case law as it incarnated the 6th commandment we may very well see scripture requiring building a fence around a swimming pool.

So we conclude that Jesus has forever confirmed the Covenantal Law of God. How could he not, given the fact that God’s Covenantal Law was only the eternal reflection of His character? Jesus affirms the Covenantal Law both in their summary expressions (Decalogue) as well as their case law applications and following our Lord we likewise affirm the case law applications as we implement their general equity.

The law was never to be a means by which an individual obtains righteousness, but it has always been a standard by which we measure righteousness, and this is as true now as it was in the Old Covenant.

However, even though there is only one plan of redemption, the New Covenant is certainly different from the Old Covenant.

(Bret responds,)

Not anymore different then my 6-year-old son would be from the same son when he is 19. They are distinct but without being different. In the progress of growth my son is still my son though maturity may make him look different. It is just so with the one Covenant of grace in its various expressions.

They are not just the same guy wearing two different hats, as if we were applying a modalistic approach to the covenants.

(Bret responds,)

Isn’t it odd that I was thinking of the same type of analogy for dispensational like approach except that I would reach for the idea that such dispensational approaches do to the covenant what tritheism does to the trinity? Even in the analogy you use you presuppose that the two covenants are really two different guys wearing different hats. This is explicit overwhelming discontinuity on your part.

Just as there is one God but the Persons are not mere “modes” of His existence, so also there is only one plan of redemption, but the Old and New Covenant are not mere “versions” of each other. A modalistic view of the covenants is a bad thing.

(Bret responds),

And no covenant theologian worth is salt would ever embrace such a modalistic notion.

The two covenants are often set in contrast to each other — by the Apostle Paul in many places (Galatians, parts of 2 Corinthians) and the book of Hebrews in particular.

(Bret responds),

In Hebrews what is set in contrast throughout is the ceremonial expression of the law that those people were tempted to going back to embrace with the fulfillment of that ceremonial law in Christ. The Moral law in its covenant and case expressions is NEVER contrasted with some kind of NT law. Consider in Hebrews 8 for example where in the new covenant God says He will write His LAWS on their heart. What laws could those be except God’s covenantal law since there was no Canon yet where God’s new NT laws could be found? So in Hebrews the distinction isn’t between a new and different Covenantal law vs. an old decrepit covenantal law but rather the distinction is between a new empowerment with respect to the one same covenantal law.

You’ll notice in Hebrews that whenever there is a mention of a different law it is invariably connected with the ceremonial aspect of the law. That is where the contrast lies.
In Galatians the Apostle is not denigrating the Law except as it was wrongly used as a ladder to climb into God’s presence or where it is still being posited as something, in its ceremonial expression, that the Gentiles are required to keep. A quick look at Galatians 5:19-21 reveals that the covenantal Law of God is still in force. Now couple this with the inspired testimony of Paul in Romans that the Law is Holy Just and good not to mention the esteeming of the Law in Romans 7 and it is difficult to see how a case can be made that God’s covenantal Law is eclipsed in the Renewed and Better covenant.

Just because there is only one eternal plan of redemption doesn’t mean that Moses’ Covenant is the same as the New Covenant. They are two covenants, and the latter supplants the former.

(Bret responds),

No, the latter does not supplant the former. The latter fulfills the former. Between those two ideas is a vast chasm that no man can cross.

Let me ask you Jack Baptist, do you really think that in the Mosaic covenant the faithful Jews were supposed to be saved by the Mosaic Law apart from the anticipated work of Christ?

This principle of covenantal contrast seems to be something that traditional covenant theologians are very loath to acknowledge, for some reason I still don’t understand.

(Bret responds),

But even using the word ‘contrast’ suggest that the emphasis should fall on discontinuity, and of course we would insist that the emphasis must fall on proper continuity and proper discontinuity and so would complain that dispensational theologians, whether they are traditional Dallas Theological Seminary types, or Progressive Dispensationalists, or Bullingerites, or New Covenant Theology types do profound mischievousness to the unity of God’s unbroken Word.

There seems to be a stubborn theological colorblindness on this subject among covenant theologians. They use the eternal to efface or erase real points of historical change. This habit of denying historical and doctrinal differences between the covenants comes off to me as quasi-Platonist.

(Bret responds),

“You certainly realize that we might say the same thing of your school only in reverse. Indeed we might hurl the same accusation of Platonism at Dispensationalists as they are forever making this incredible distinction between the New Covenant being more ‘Spiritual’ while the Old Covenant is more earthly… and EVERYONE KNOWS HOW SUPERIOR THE SPIRITUAL IS OVER THE CARNAL, and Non-Spiritual.

For instance, the idea that Moses’ Covenant ended seems to throw them for a loop, and they immediately begin shouting about “antinomianism”, even though there’s nothing antinomian about saying that Moses’ Covenant ended — as long as you acknowledge that there is moral law in the New Testament.

(Bret responds),

But the Moral Law hasn’t ended (cmp. Mt. 5:17f) though it was fulfilled and comes to us now through the hands of Christ. Through His hands that law is a greater terror to sinners then it was in the Mosaic covenant and a greater guide to righteousness to the covenant elect then it was in the Mosaic covenant.

Let me ask you Jack Baptist… where do you find the NT moral law? How did God change as it pertains to the law between the two covenants? Is God nicer in this covenant? Is He sterner? Why would His law need to change? Was there something imperfect about God’s law in the previous covenant? Would fault with God’s law imply fault with God? Should we not preach Psalms 1, 19, or 119 as they esteem the Law, teaching our people, that such reverence to the Law was only fit for the old and worst covenant?

There are so many questions left unanswered in your approach Jack.

In that sense, there are many dispensationalists who indeed are antinomians, because they (ridiculously) deny the existence of moral law in the New Testament. But saying (as I do) that obeying moral law as it is given in its New Covenant context, is part of what it means to be a Christian, makes me not an antinomian.

(Bret responds), What troubles a covenant theologian though is what looks like subjectivism in your system. Whereas God clearly gives His Covenant law in the Old covenant what I have seen is a subjective hunting and choosing for some idea of covenantal law in the New Testament among Dispensationalists since there isn’t one text where that Law is laid out in the New Testament Scriptures such as one finds in Exodus 20. Also, you have the problem with a lack of specificity in this dispensational schematic. The New Testament (as only one example) never says incest is sin. Do you believe it is sin? How can you believe it to be sin given the fact that your New Testament Law nowhere forbids incest? Now, I have no doubt you would say that incest is sin but given your approach I see you only having a subjective authority when you insist that it is sin. Finally, in the end Christ clearly said that he did not come to destroy the Law.

There is only one eternal plan of redemption, from beginning to end, though the amount of detailed information increased as the centuries of Scriptural revelation moved forward. The Mosaic Covenant, even though it couldn’t justify, still served the plan of saving grace by defining God’s holiness more exactly, bringing in a sharper conviction of sin, and prefiguring/illustrating the atoning work of Christ through the priestly system.

(Bret responds),

Were there no justified people who lived under the Mosaic covenant? If there were justified people who lived under the Mosaic covenant were they justified apart from or outside the context of the Mosaic covenant?

In 1962 Thomas Kuhn shook the academic and science world with his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. One of Kuhn’s main thesis was that change in Science Theory doesn’t happen cumulatively or incrementally but by revolution in theory. Kuhn posited that a previously accepted scientific paradigm becomes questioned due to the non-fitting anomalies that exist in all scientific paradigms. Kuhn’s elaborated that what happens in Revolutionary paradigm shifts is that those heretofore unexplained anomalies are seen as more and more significant by certain scientific practitioners with the result that new paradigms are launched in order to better explain the previous anomalies in the old paradigms.

Now, implicit in Kuhn’s critique is the idea that Science is based on something that isn’t completely scientific. A careful reading of Kuhn allows one to see that what drives Scientific Revolutions is not Science but Theology, for it is a shift in Theology that explains why those who are seeking to craft a new paradigm do not accept certain assumptions that existed in the previous paradigm. Now, if this is so, then it is easy to suggest that Kuhn’s work could be re-titled to “The Structure of Theological Revolutions,” and it would be just as easy to apply Kuhn’s observations in the realm of Theology proper, and I think there are those who are trying to do just that. There are those today within the Reformed community that have isolated what they believe to be anomalies in the Reformed paradigm and are trying to launch a new Theological paradigm to replace the Reformed paradigm.

What typically happens in a paradigm shift is that those who inhabit the prevailing paradigm are forced to defend and explain what are often difficult anomalies within their paradigms. I think this is fitting and proper AS LONG AS the ‘newer’ paradigm that is offering itself as replacement is forced to defend and explain its own difficult anomalies. It only stands to reason that if we are going to abandon one paradigm because of its problems in not explaining all of reality well enough, that we should expect the new paradigm that is offering itself as replacement to show that the plausibility structure that it offers is one that can take in and account better for all of reality.

With this background in mind, I would like to examine newer Reformed Theological paradigms that are offering themselves as substitutes to what one advocate in their group has called, ‘the exhausted Reformed Worldview.’ In order to do this I am going to interact with a summary piece that was offered online by one of those who are numbered among those who believe that the Reformed faith needs a new paradigm and whose goal in writing was to give as accurate description of the various approaches to the doctrine of justification that exist within FV circles as he could.

Before we press on there are those who might be asking how a change in thinking concerning the doctrine of justification ends up being a Theological paradigm shift. The answer to that is by realizing that in many respects Justification is at the center of Reformed thinking. Now, when one changes the center everything around the center changes as well. So, a substantive change in the doctrine of justification is really a Theological paradigm change against the whole. It is hoped that as we move through this analysis this will be more clearly seen.

Finally, methodologically, I am going to enumerate the problems that the new paradigm proponents have with the old paradigm and then will follow by examining the problems with their proposed better way. By its insistence on faith alone the old paradigm relies, according to the newer paradigm, on inert or dead faith in order to save. Those thumping for the new paradigm insist that our obedience is necessary for justification though that necessary obedience isn’t the ground of our justification, which can only be Christ alone and His righteousness. The problems here are at least three,

A.) It seems with this arrangement that justification is pushed away from God’s declarative verdict of imputed righteousness for the sake of Christ’s substitutionary atonement to a process that ends with justification due to an ongoing obedience on the part of the ‘being justified one.’ So, in the older paradigm Justification is front-loaded so the Church can say, ‘We are justified,’ while in the newer paradigm justification is at the end and so the Church can only say, at best, ‘We are being justified if our faith remains obedient.’ This would seem to play havoc with any notion of assurance, as the earnest disciple would be forever wondering if his offered obedience would ever be enough obedience.

B.) Though the insistence is that obedience is necessary though not the ground for justification one can’t help but note that in this arrangement it doesn’t seem possible to be justified without obedience. Now, if that is true it is difficult to see, protestations to the contrary, how personal obedience in some sense isn’t being made the ground of our standing before God.

C.) Scripture clearly teaches that,”To him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the wicked, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to who God imputes righteousness apart from works.”

Here, works are clearly being contrasted with a faith that is apart from works. Evidently, justifying faith can be both obedient and yet without works and still not be inert or dead. The position of the newer paradigm then is that we are only justified by an obedient faith. Now, any right-minded Biblical Theologian would agree with this 100%. The question that arises though is what should obedient faith look like as it concerns justification. The premise among some of those advocating the newer paradigm (you can seldom speak in universals with the newer school as they are quick to tell you that all of this is just a conversation and not a set theology) seems to be that a ‘resting in Christ for all faith’ is by definition disobedient faith or non-working faith or inert faith. The newer paradigm seems to insist that in order for faith to be legitimate that it must work. Once again, we would agree, noting though that in justification faith that rests from working is doing its proper work. We would wonder if the resting faith of the Israelites at the foot of the Red Sea was a faith that wasn’t working all because it did nothing but trust God to part the Sea? In the same way we would ask if the faith that justifies is not doing its proper obedient work when it rests in Christ for all? So, in the end we agree with our newer paradigm brethren that dead faith can never justify. Our disagreement is over what constitutes dead faith. They seem to be teaching that the historic Reformed teaching that justifying faith which rests in Christ for all is dead faith. We would charitably but earnestly disagree continuing to contend that justifying faith is to be defined as an act that is no way contributory to justification but rather is purely receptive of the person of Christ in all of His righteousness.

Problem # 2 — The Old paradigm so focuses on justification as initiatory act that it neglects justification in its present and eschatological dynamic. Norman Shepherd, an advocate of the new paradigm, has an emphasis on justification that is eschatological. Shepherd writes, “The term ‘justification’ may be used with reference to the acquittal and acceptance of a believer at his effectual calling into union with Christ, or with reference to the state of forgiveness and acceptance with God into which the believer is ushered by his effectual calling, or with reference to God’s open acquittal and acceptance of the believer at the final judgment (Matt. 12:36, 37; Rom. 3:22,24; 5:1; 8:1; Gal. 5:5).” Now, I think Dr. Shepherd has done the Historic Reformed camp a favor by reminding us of the eschatological nature of Justification, and I think we can learn from this emphasis even if Dr. Shepherds conclusions are incorrect. We should keep in mind that Justification is and will be eschatological in the sense of God’s justified people will be vindicated. Further we should remind ourselves that justification as initiatory declaratory act is God’s decreed eschatological justification brought into the present reality of the believer because of the vindication of the Son by the Father and due to the Son’s obedience in that task of His redemptive work. Dr. Shepherd reminds us that we have yet to be justified and we agree as long as that is understood as “vindicated,” but we would go on to add that that is so in light of the fact that we have been justified. Further, we would insist that all those who are eschatologically justified (vindicated) in final judgment are exactly, person for person, those who were set apart for justification from eternity, were justified in Christ at the Redemption event and were justified upon faith alone as the Holy Spirit applied our accomplished redemption. There are zero people who are initially justified who are not also vindicated. Justification does not lapse.

Now, the newer paradigm insists that works are absolutely necessary for future justification. The older paradigm has no problem with this as long as it is admitted that the works that are absolutely necessary for future justification (vindication) are only present because initiatory justification is absolutely necessary for all future works. Second, we must always be careful of thinking overmuch regarding our own works, faithfulness, or obediential faith. R. L. Dabney reminds us that “all the defects in evangelical obedience are covered by the Saviors righteousness, so that, through Him the inadequate works receive a recompense.” So, yes, we agree that since works are the consequence to justification they are normatively required for salvation, but we still insist that our good works are only good because they themselves are imputed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ. On this matter where we would differ with the new paradigm is where each respectively places repentance and new obedience. The new paradigm wants to place repentance and new obedience as preliminary to or concomitant with the anticipated pardon of justification that will only come in the final judgment. The older paradigm would insist that repentance and new obedience is required in salvation and so is consequent to the pardon of a justification that is promissory of repentance and new obedience precisely because in its initiatory declarative expression it is proleptic of the future eschatological justification (vindication). It is only in this way that faith and faithfulness can be kept distinct without divorcing them from one another thus resulting in a anti-nomian theology or confusing them with one another thus resulting in a Theology rife with either neo-nomianism or legalism.

Mark Chambers is a good friend. He is one of the few guys that I’ve met who I don’t have to roll my eyes every time he open his mouth. We don’t always agree but we do so often enough that I always pay attention when he speaks.

Below he offers his insights on Piper.

When it comes to two wills in God what we have is a God that decrees one state of affairs while leaving men culpable when they disobey since He has made His revealed will known by way of command and precept.

Piper’s problem is a hopeless confusion expressed in his equivocation of the word will. He consistently conflates want, desire, intent, precept and command with will. God’s command is not his revealed will. God’s command is exactly that, His command. God commands one thing and decrees events that are fully contrary to the command. There is no contradiction there since the ability to obey is not a constituent aspect of the command. God commands all men everywhere to repent. Is this His revealed will? Or course not since all men everywhere do not repent. He cannot will that all men repent while also willing that only some men repent. This gets us tangled up in the absurd “some sense” language of Piper.

Piper says:

To avoid all misconceptions it should be made clear at the outset that the fact that God wishes or wills that all people should be saved does not necessarily imply that all will respond to the gospel and be saved. We must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what he actually does will to happen, and both of these things can be spoken of as God’s will.

No they can’t and clearly Piper is daft. God’s will is always effected; he wills to save the elect and does so. It is doing that expresses volition. Piper sounds like an Arminian. For a Calvinist to say that God’s willing does not imply the accomplishment of what is willed is just astounding. And worse he says that God does what he does not want and wills what he does not will. Even the Arminian argument makes more sense than this. At least the Arminian has a sound reason for saying that God doesn’t get what He genuinely wills i.e. the free will of the creature. Here Piper posits a God who wills contradictory propositions.

Piper again:

The question at issue is not whether all will be saved but whether God has made provision in Christ for the salvation of all, provided that they believe, and without limiting the potential scope of the death of Christ merely to those whom God knows will believe.

Potential scope? Exactly what is “potential scope”? There is no such thing, at least as Piper would have us think. The potential in the work of Christ, or in anything that God does, is identical to the thing accomplished. There is no potentiality in God. The will of God is fully actualized. He does what He intends. Potential is the figment of a temporal imagination.

Piper who is obviously out of his mind and writing cross eyed says:

The betrayal of Jesus by Judas was a morally evil act inspired immediately by Satan (Luke 22:3). Yet in Acts 2:23 Luke says, “This Jesus [was] delivered up according to the definite plan (boule) and foreknowledge of God.” The betrayal was sin, and it involved the instrumentality of Satan; but it was part of God’s ordained plan. That is, there is a sense in which God willed the delivering up of his Son, even though the act was sin.

SOME SENSE IN WHICH HE WILLED IT? I can’t take this. Decreeing the death of Christ and abhorring the evil in it does not constitute a duplicitous will. The will is reflected only in the decree. How can any 5 point Calvinist say that there is “a sense” in which God willed the death of His Son? I’m flabbergasted. GOD WILLED THE DEATH OF HIS SON PERIOD. He was delivered up ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITE PLAN AND FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD WHO WORKS ALL THINGS AFTER THE COUNSEL OF HIS OWN WILL. There is a sense in which He did it all right. It was exactly what He intended and that from eternity. Piper appears to be afraid to say that God is the ultimate cause of all things. If something happens it happens by divine decree. The only logically sound alternative is the finite god of open theism. I’d like to say that this is because Piper is a Baptist but stuff like this I’m sure has John Gill rolling over in his grave.