Kingdom Through Covenant—Round Two

by Harrison Perkins on August 10, 2021 | 12 Comments

Introduction

Kingdom Through Covenant (henceforth KTC) is a massive work of biblical theology written from a Baptistic perspective, now in its second edition.1 My very first attempt at public writing was a review of KTC’s first edition, which I did while in seminary, and which Dr. Clark very graciously posted on The Heidelblog. With more experience, I have often looked back with acute awareness of that review’s weaknesses and wished I could redo it. I am thankful for the chance to review the second edition on the same platform with hopes to improve my comments and assessment concerning this work.

This is not an academic review but a guide for pastors and interested lay people to know what this large book argues and some first responses. My main purpose is to provide a Reformed perspective on what this book contributes to the discussion about covenant theology. Gentry and Wellum would no doubt be frustrated with this post, as they clearly were with the majority of reviews of their first edition, but I hope they would recognize my purpose is not to address them but to help Reformed readers know about their book.2

My main claim throughout this review is that Reformed covenant theology would appreciate and endorse the bulk of KTC’s exegetical arguments but has problems with its non-specificity. The likely reason why Reformed theologians have not engaged in significant exegetical response is because the raw exegesis itself is mostly not problematic or opposed to our covenant theology. Rather, those holding Reformed theology are left wondering about how that exegesis truly connects to progressive covenantalism’s theological inferences, and about more specific details concerning how progressive covenantalism understands each covenant to function in redemptive history. In other words, the Reformed viewpoint has more questions about how Gentry and Wellum’s arguments relate to and/or supposedly overturn our position than objections to particular exegetical claims.

The main issue that causes more questions than disagreement for Reformed readers is a lack of engagement with our categories of covenant theology. So, Wellum stated, “We enter the discussion with a singular focus: a careful investigation of the nature of the biblical covenants and their relationships to each other, since we contend that it is this point that is central to the debate.” (pg. 108; italics original) Wellum’s point likely holds for progressive covenantalism’s pushback against dispensationalism. In this respect, Wellum and Gentry land numerous blows against the dispensational school, demonstrating repeatedly that God administers his kingdom through covenants that drive the overarching biblical narrative.

On the other hand, Reformed covenant theology happily accepts the basic thesis that God’s covenants drive Scripture’s narrative and facilitate progressive revelation. Wellum and Gentry, however, do not reckon with our distinction between the substance of the covenant and its external administration. They seem to believe that covenant theology’s view of the one covenant of grace entails that the biblical covenants function identically in redemptive history. Their focus remains on how the biblical covenants advance redemptive history in different ways. But Reformed covenant theology accepts this premise as well. The various administrations all advance redemptive history by their own unique contribution.

In this respect, it is not what Wellum and Gentry do argue but what they do not address that remains the point of disagreement between covenant theology and progressive covenantalism. They have not grappled with our additional claim that each of the biblical covenants distribute the same substance of salvation in Christ by faith alone. Elsewhere, they have affirmed that the one way of salvation, including for Old Testament saints, is through faith in Christ.3 Still, they have not related that affirmation to their explanation of the covenants or connected to covenant theology’s primary contention that this soteriological emphasis is the major point of our explanation of the covenants. So, although Wellum and Gentry have ably argued that the biblical covenants advance the biblical narrative, they have not disproved covenant theology’s additional and central premise that these diverse administrations all deliver the same substance of salvation in Christ. Until they disprove this premise, their argument has not overturned covenant theology, leaving its relationship to covenant theology vague rather than as a definitive via media between covenant theology and dispensationalism.

I have divided this review under subheadings for easier navigation and accessibility, since KTC itself is a large book. I am conscious that Gentry and Wellum’s main complaint with previous reviews is that they did not engage the book’s arguments. I hope that the following subsections clearly summarize and reflect upon what I understand their arguments to be.

Prolegomena: Part 1

In KTC, Stephen Wellum, a systematic theologian rightly becoming well known for his excellent publications in Christology, joins with Old Testament scholar, Peter Gentry, in a biblico-theological endeavor to unpack how the covenants relate to one another, argued from a Baptistic perspective.4 The authors statedly argue a via media between covenant theology and dispensationalism, claiming that both have misunderstood how covenants inform typology. Covenant theology misunderstands typology in relation to the “genealogical principle,” dispensationalism in relation to the land promises. Their stated argument is covenant is “central and foundational” for the Bible’s “narrative plot structure” and the way that theologians relate the various covenants explains differing theological conclusions (pg. 31). Wellum and Gentry title their via media “progressive covenantalism,” arguing “the Bible presents a plurality of covenants that progressively reveal our triune God’s one redemptive plan for his one people, which reaches its fulfillment and terminus in Christ and the new covenant.” (pg. 35) Their main claim is that covenant theology and dispensationalism have both mistakenly understood the proper way the biblical covenants unfold, but now their model of progressive covenantalism has unlocked the true way to relate each of the biblical covenants as they drive the Scripture’s fulfillment in Christ.

This statement of their main thesis demonstrates how the continuing problem Reformed covenant theology has with progressive covenantalism is the non-specificity of its argument. Covenant theology wholeheartedly agrees that the covenants drive the overarching biblical narrative and that they administer God’s kingdom on earth. Covenant theology also affirms progressive revelation as distributed through the covenants. So, the thesis of progressive covenantalism itself does not say enough to cause Reformed covenant theology to tangle with its premise. The vast majority of exegesis in part 2 supports this point, so again the Reformed have no reason to refute those exegetical claims. Our reservation is about how that specific thesis without further detail entails Baptistic ecclesiology.

The bulk of part 1 focuses on describing dispensationalism and covenant theology, as well as unpacking the hermeneutical method in KTC. Wellum has engaged with far more Reformed sources to describe covenant theology than he did in the first edition, for which I commend him. The reservation I have concerns his use of writers from the Federal Vision movement without noting their different stance on issues involved. Particularly, his use of their view of the internal-external relationship of covenant members to covenant blessing inaccurately describes the mainstream Reformed understanding. Perhaps from a Baptistic perspective, he does not know the debates. But readers should know that his response to their view of the church’s mixed nature does not equal a response to classic Reformed federalism.

The Noahic Covenant

The chapters in part 2 work through the various biblical covenants. Concerning the Noahic covenant, which is treated first since Scripture’s first explicit mention of covenant occurs at Genesis 6:18, Gentry presents it as primarily concerning the promise of preservation for creation after the Flood with the sign of the rainbow (pg. 202–4). From the Reformed perspective, there is nothing in Gentry’s case that is inherently at odds with our covenant theology. Some, such as this reviewer, see Genesis 6 and 9 as containing two distinct covenants, but that is not the universally held Reformed position.5 Gentry’s view that the Noahic covenant upholds the covenant between God and Adam is more at odds with Reformed theology, but that disagreement also depends upon how Gentry explains that Adamic covenant. So far, however, Gentry’s exegesis of the Noahic covenant itself does not pertain to his disagreement with covenant theology as much as he seems to suggest (pg. 204–5).

The Adamic Covenant

Concerning God’s covenant with Adam, Gentry well argues that there is a covenant in Genesis 1–3, providing thorough examination of how the image and likeness of God entails a covenantal relationship, even according to the meaning these terms bore in the ancient Near East. One need not agree with all the details, perhaps specifically concerning how Gentry understood two distinct meanings referred to by “image” and “likeness,” to appreciate the force of his argument. He further demonstrated that the Garden of Eden served as sacred space and the first temple, which supports covenantal connections to Adam’s priestly role. He also sees Hosea 6:7 and Jeremiah 33 as most likely indicating a covenant at creation. Gentry then provided powerful arguments to support a covenant between God and Adam.

From a Reformed perspective, the reservation with Gentry’s arguments concern not what he did say, but what he did not say.6 Reformed readers should thoroughly appreciate his case for a covenant with Adam. But his conclusions are not specific enough to show how his understanding of Adam’s covenant relates to our doctrine of the covenant of works. He argued that the goal of this covenant was rest (pg. 244–45). This might be good, but what kind of rest? Is it rest in the eschatological life that the Reformed see offered to Adam by the covenant (1 Cor. 15:44–45)? Is it even eschatological? Is it permanent? Gentry also argued that the covenant terms related to Adam’s breach of the law concerning the tree of knowledge of good and evil (pg. 253–54). In both respects, the Reformed will agree wholeheartedly with Gentry’s overall point. Although he provided abundant exegetical detail, his theological specificity lacks enough for us to know if he agrees with what we understand the covenant between God and Adam to be about.

Since the argument is that the Noahic covenant reestablishes the creation covenant, however, it is unlikely that Gentry would articulate the covenant of works. On the other hand, Wellum elsewhere has articulated something very close to the covenant of works, specifically concerning an explanation of the need for Christ’s active obedience.7 Perhaps the reason why Gentry’s treatment seems vague is because he did not treat Genesis 2:15–17 in detail or look at the biblical theology of the tree of life, both of which the Reformed have seen as intimately connected to the creation covenant. Wellum’s other discussions highlight these points but their absence in KTC leaves a thoroughly vague description of the nature of this covenant and its roll in redemptive history. The authors’ rejection of the distinction between conditional and unconditional covenants combined with the argument that the Noahic covenant reaffirms the creation covenant runs the risk of blurring the distinction between our pre- and post-fall situations, specifically regarding what that entails for our covenantal relationship with God. Certainly, I believe that both authors affirm the historical fall, original sin, and all its traditionally understood implications, but their formulations lack precision and clarity on this issue as they explain the creation covenant in KTC.

On this point, Gentry would no doubt note his exegesis of Genesis 6:18 as evidence that the Noahic covenant establishes a prior covenant. He argued that the specific phrasing of “establishing” rather than “cutting” refers to a prior existing covenant (וַהֲקִמֹתִי אֶת־בְּרִיתִי). Not all Reformed theologians accept this grammatical distinction, but many do. Yet, there are still many explanations for which covenant is being upheld with Noah. Gentry assumes and asserts that it is the Adamic covenant, and as he understands it, rather than tangling with the options Reformed theology has posed to explain this exact construct. Non-specificity remains the problem.

As progressive covenantalism tries to steer between covenant theology and dispensationalism, the Reformed position rests fundamentally upon the distinction between the covenants of works and grace. Covenant theologians, then, will not be convinced by any treatment of the covenants that does not thoroughly address this issue, which has ramifications for how we understand creation, Christology, and salvation. Progressive covenantalism is driven by Baptistic concerns about ecclesiology but needs more attention to how it relates to these issues that are more central to covenant theology’s priorities in framing Christ and the gospel.

Wellum circled back to the Adamic covenant in part 3 but did not clarify matters much (pg. 666–85). Most of his treatment repeats Gentry’s arguments that Adam was in covenant with God, which is well and good. He does argue for a probation built into the tree of knowledge of good and evil (pg. 667n29), for an eschatological new creation offered in this covenant (pg. 669, 672–75), and for the requirement of obedience. These seem to be the basic elements of the Reformed doctrine of the covenant of works. Still, he rejected the title “covenant of works” in favor of “covenant of creation” (pg. 668) because he understands the covenant of works to be too contractual (pg. 676) and the covenant of works “tends to create too sharp a disjunction between creation and subsequent redemptive covenants, [so] it is better to view the covenant of creation in more continuity with later covenants, as foundational to them and not as their foil.” (pg.677; italics original) There are a few issues here.

First, the Reformed do not understand the covenant of works in any sort of coldly contractual sense. John Colquhoun described it as a “covenant of friendship.”8 Colquhoun and Francis Turretin both argued that happiness characterized the covenant of works.9 In offering Adam a higher reward for the obedience he already owed his Maker, God was infinitely kind and generous, showing that God can always outgive himself in promising even better eschatological life if Adam simply did what nature required him to do anyway.10 Although Wellum is no Barthian, he has repeated the old Barthian critique of the covenant of works that has no grounding in the tradition.11 Even his criticism that the covenant of creation should be seen as having “more continuity with creation itself” rather than added to creation does not land (pg. 676). The Reformed tradition is not unanimous on this issue but many have argued this exact point concerning the covenant of works. As with their treatment of the moral law’s abiding role, here too it is clear that Gentry and Wellum have not reckoned with the Reformed tradition’s understanding of natural law in relation to the covenants, which is supremely important for the exact issues Wellum is trying to parse.

Second, Wellum’s argument for the continuity between the creation covenant and the subsequent redemptive covenants is not helpful. He explained this point, writing:

The creation covenant is foundational for all future covenants since all subsequent covenants unpack Adam’s representative role in the world. Adam – indeed, all humanity – is created as God’s image-son, a priest-king to rule over creation. Adam is created in relationship with God as he mediates God’s rule to the world; he does not need to merit favor before God. Yet God, as holy and just, demands perfect obedience from his covenant partner. All subsequent covenant heads function as subsets of Adam, who, in God’s plan, points forward to Christ, the last Adam, who by his obedience ushers in a new covenant. (pg. 672; italics original)

There are many points in this passage that the Reformed celebrate and simply point out that we have been saying these things for a very long time already. On the other hand, the way that Wellum makes the creation covenant foundational to all other covenants is that the covenant head of every subsequent redemptive covenant seems to be back in Adam’s role. From the Reformed perspective, this continuity does not deny the covenant of works at all but merely makes every covenant a covenant of works. It suggests to us that every covenant held out the possibility of the eschatological new creation if only the covenant head could provide the required perfect obedience, and it just so happens that Christ was the Adamic figure who finally succeeds: “As with previous covenant heads – whether Adam, Noah, Abraham, or corporate Israel – God demands obedience, yet none of those mediators were truly obedient.” (pg.702) True enough, but how that point is applied makes all the difference: “Yet God also continues to demand perfect obedience from his covenant partners as represented by the covenant heads.” (pg. 702) Again, “Yet in the Old Testament, it is clear that all the covenant mediators (sons) fail and do not fulfill God’s promises; all of them are not obedient sons.” (pg. 771) True, but was it possible that they could be in light of original sin? Precision is again the issue. Some Reformed theologians have made similar points in reference to typology, which is where this sort of argument must go.

If this repetition of the Adamic role is a genuine renewal of the covenant of creation, even as described by Wellum, then this redemptive-historical structure veers dangerously close to a Pelagian understanding of pre- and post-fall continuity. Wellum and Gentry are not Pelagians and their soteriology in no way manifests that point, so my argument is not to diminish their understanding of the gospel itself. My point is, rather, that I do not think they have thought through the implications of their argument and I do not think their redemptive-historical outline is fully coherent with their more fundamental commitments, which are plain throughout Wellum’s writings. They are not Pelagian, nor wrong on the gospel, but have used a poor formulation of redemptive history that resembles something incredibly unhelpful. I have no illusion that Wellum and Gentry will read this post, they are busy with far bigger things, but I hope they would receive this point, not as an accusation but as a brother attempting in charity to highlight what seems to be to be a potentially very problematic inconsistency.

This issue manifests the pattern in KTC that Gentry and Wellum have not deeply engaged with the actual issues and categories of traditional covenant theology. They seem to be responding to the surface issues in hopes of constructing a covenant theology that supports Baptistic ecclesiology. Yet, they repeatedly seem to be at a halfway point of trying to respond to covenant theology but often never grasping the heart of the theological matters that drive our system or the basic categories that operate in it. Our fundamental concern is not the “genealogical principle” for baptizing babies, as they seem to think at times, but the law and the gospel, Christ and salvation, and then the implications for ecclesiology.

KTC has not recognized or reckoned with the basic issues and arguments of covenant theology, especially regarding the covenant of works. It provides substantial exegesis, affirming mostly things that Reformed people have long said, as if Reformed people never bothered to do lots of exegetical works, then assumes that their exegetical work means they have tangled with all the theological issues involved. That last premise is incorrect. Their exegesis has not remotely touched upon the most relevant theological matters in covenant theology, focusing mainly on outlining that there was a covenant with Adam built into the image of God rather than deeply unpacking the nature of that covenant. Since Reformed people have argued that for centuries, KTC’s exegetical work does not support, if it even addresses, their theological claims about the nature of the creation covenant. They seem to have stepped into a multi-millennia long debate with some recent reflection upon the issue and presumed that it was enough to sort out everyone else who has been talking about it since the ancient church. They have many issues and categories to address before their case can be remotely convincing.

In the end, Gentry and Wellum seem to be after something like the covenant of works but have formulated a vaguer version with a confusing relationship to post-fall covenants, which will not satisfy Reformed theologians who have carefully considered each premise in the covenant of works and are content with the exegetical support for each premise. This is clear when Wellum argued for Christ’s active obedience: “In the covenant of creation, it is best to think of God’s initial arrangement with Adam as holding forth a conditional promise of everlasting life.” (pg. 778) It is hard to see how this statement substantially differs from the covenant of works, and throughout this book the discussion concerning the covenant with Adam does not seem precise enough either in distinguishing their view from the covenant of works or simply agreeing with Reformed theology concerning it.

The Abrahamic Covenant

Concerning the Abrahamic covenant, Reformed covenant theologians will again appreciate and accept the vast majority of Gentry’s exegesis but still be left wondering how it undermines our view. Reformed theology endorses his conclusion that “the covenant with Abraham is the basis for all God’s dealings with the human race from this point on, and the basis of all his later plans and purposes in history. Thus the covenants (with creation, with Noah, with Abraham) are the backbone of the metanarrative plot structure.” (pg. 332) We agree as well when he concluded, “This it is clear, from even a few texts in the New Testament, that the covenant with Abraham is the basis and foundation for the gospel message announcing forgiveness of sins and justification through Jesus Christ.” (pg. 335). Gentry’s extensive argument for the unity of one Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12, 15, and 17 is helpful and fully aligned with Reformed covenant theology’s conclusions.

Gentry’s most controversial claim again relates to the rejection of the distinction between conditional and unconditional covenants. In this case, he argued that Abraham’s obedience was necessary to secure the outcome of the covenant. I am not personally persuaded about the specific way Gentry has made the point, but that is irrelevant to their thesis that progressive covenantalism better explains the covenants than Reformed covenant theology. Meredith Kline, representing Reformed covenant theology, has argued similarly that Abraham’s obedience was a significant part of that covenant, and it functioned as a type of Christ’s merit in the covenant of redemption. Kline still held to the distinction between the covenant of works and the one covenant of grace diversly administered. Perhaps Kline was inconsistent with specific points of Reformed covenant theology, but he and many others have not recognized that inconsistency if it exists. So, regardless of whether Gentry’s specific exegetical points on this issue hold, they do not undermine covenant theology’s understanding of Abraham.

So again, the lack of specificity leaves the Reformed questioning the arguments. How is it that Abraham is supposedly a new Adam? Is this in the same way that we understand Adam to have been in the covenant of works, requiring perfect obedience for eschatological reward? Was Abraham genuinely tasked to roll back Adam’s curse (pg. 279), or was this typological? Gentry argued, “Blessings are the manifestation of faithfulness, fidelity, and solidarity in relationships whereby one’s natural and personal capacity to fulfill God’s intention and purpose is advanced and furthered.” (pg. 278) But is this how the covenant of works operates or is this still true for believers who are justified in Christ? Even then, is this blessing earthly goods and prosperity or eschatological life? How did these relate for Abraham? For us now? If progressive covenantalism’s claim concerning Abraham is merely that it, along with all the other covenants, administers God’s kingdom on earth, then the Reformed have zero disagreement (pg. 280). There is obviously disagreement somewhere though. The question that covenant theology still has is about the specific nature of each covenant and how they distinctly contribute to redemptive history. We agree with progressive covenantalism that the Abrahamic covenant is pivotal in that development but their understanding of how that happens in contrast to our understanding is not fully clear to me.

The Mosaic Covenant

Concerning the Mosaic covenant, Gentry demonstrated that God began a covenant with national Israel at Sinai (Ex. 19–24), which they renewed at Mount Horeb in Deuteronomy. The same pattern occurs in relation to Gentry’s exegesis pertaining to covenant theology. I appreciatively learned much about the literary structure and internal workings of some crucial passages about the inauguration and renewal of the Mosaic covenant. As covenant theologians will celebrate, Gentry again demonstrated that another covenant drives the biblical narrative forward. The exposition of these passages is detailed and thought provoking.

The question again remains how these arguments supposedly undermine classic Reformed covenant theology. His treatment of the Decalogue with an obvious eye to undermine the distinction of the moral, ceremonial, and civil laws will not likely persuade many who hold to covenant theology (Since Wellum spends time on this issue in the section on theological synthesis, I will not address it here). But one must ask, why does that matter? There are no clear connections in Gentry’s argument between his reinterpretation of the first four commandments and why covenant theology cannot bear up against these exegetical points. Perhaps he assumed that our view of continuity between the old and new economies rests more on the tripartite distinction of the Mosaic laws than it does. The authors have yet to reckon with covenant theology’s main emphasis on the covenant of grace being unified in substance but diversly administered. Perhaps they believe that our view of unity concerns the outward features of religious life across the Testaments. That assumption is incorrect, however, as we readily affirm that the various covenants brings significant changes to the external administration of the covenant. Yet, the substance remains that God offers everlasting life in Christ by faith alone. OT saints trusted in the Christ who would come (incarnandus) and NT saints trust in the Christ who has come (incarnatus), but salvation has always been in the one mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5).

Gentry’s discussion does not get into the sacrificial system or the typological significance of the land. These are the most important issues that concern covenant theology when it comes to the Mosaic covenant. In our discussions with confessional Baptists, these issues along with the nature of types generally and relationship between Abraham and Moses take center stages as points of disagreement and debate. Without a discussion on these points, those holding to Reformed covenant theology will appreciate most of the exegetical detail here, know that the lack of the category of natural law has truncated the interpretation of the moral law, and be left wondering why these arguments are supposed to be in so thoroughly in conflict with our views.

The Davidic Covenant

As I understand Gentry’s position concerning the Davidic covenant, I have no issues with it. He argued that the idea of sonship, which began with Adam and developed with Noah, Abraham, and Israel reached new definition with God’s promises to David about a royal heir. So, “The role of the Davidic king in fulfilling his covenant obligations is defined by divine sonship, based on 2 Samuel 7:14–15 and Deuteronomy 17:18–20. The king’s rule is to exhibit the justice and righteousness of Yahweh himself.” (pg. 472) On the assumption that Gentry sees this ultimately fulfilled in Christ, I wholeheartedly agree. Reformed covenant theology need not refute but will endorse and appropriate the major contours of Gentry’s argument concerning the Davidic covenant.

The New Covenant

Gentry spends four chapters on the new covenant, making this his most extensive discussion by far. Again, his literary analysis of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel is profound and insightful. I learned a great deal from the intertextual connections he highlights between Isaiah’s prophecies and the other covenants, specifically the Abrahamic, and this material is well worth more reflection (esp. pg. 332–37, 516–21). His thorough defense of an amillennial reading of Daniel 9 is commendable, helpful, and devastating to a dispensational understanding of that text. Rather than work through each of these chapters individually, however, it seems best to make these principle statements that Gentry again well proves that covenants drive the biblical narrative, but now focus on an area of disagreement.

In his discussion of the new covenant, there is now a point of theological significance that varies with Reformed covenant theology, and it concerns whether the new covenant prophecies indicate that children will no longer be included in the new covenant community. Again, this post is meant to be a guide for Reformed readers more than an academic response to Gentry and Wellum, which limits how much I want to interact with the details of their argument. But Wellum’s assertion that the new covenant does not include children do not seem adequately justified by his exegesis.

First, he contended that Isaiah 54:13, “all your sons will be taught by the Lord,” (which he connects to Jeremiah 31:33–34) means that every member in the new covenant will be a true believer (pg. 498–99). Yet, this meaning is asserted rather than argued. Repeatedly, Gentry has claimed that his exegesis is superior to previous studies of the covenants because he has performed “exhaustive” studies related to word and concept use. Here, however, he merely asserted that this phrase implies a Baptistic ecclesiology in the new covenant.

Could it not, on the other hand, indicate a continuation of the Abrahamic promise to be God to us and to our children after us? Rather than overturning the previous inclusion of children in the covenant community, it seems that God is reaffirming that he will be God to our children in the new covenant. After all, even though Gentry briefly highlighted Isaiah 59:21 as another new covenant passage, he neglected that it promises that God’s Word will “always be on your lips, on the lips of your children and on the lips of their descendants” (pg. 509). The Abrahamic promise is imbedded in the prophecies of the new covenant.

Second, Gentry of course argued that Jeremiah 31 excluded unbelieving children from the new covenant. Yet, he also treated Jeremiah 32:36–41 as another new covenant passage, which includes that God will work “for them and their children after them.” Gentry claimed that paedobaptists have misunderstood this promise as a warrant to baptize children. His argument, however, is that “Thus the promise of the new covenant was given by Jesus to his hearers, and they could pass down on this good news to their children and so on down through the generations. But it is not a statement that guarantees that the children of believers will automatically become believers.” (pg. 571) Amen and amen. No one holding to confessional Reformed covenant theology argues that inclusion in the covenant community is an absolute guarantee that our children will become believers.12 Participation in the external administration does not ensure that everyone truly partakes of the substance.

Overall, the exegetical portion of this book provides in-depth analysis of some of the crucial covenantal passages. There is a wealth of useful material here concerning exegetical details of numerous passages pertaining to covenant theology. Gentry’s case certainly proves that the biblical narrative is driven by covenants, as proponents of Reformed covenant theology will celebrate. The payoff of this section is a massive blow to dispensationalism, as I understand it and Wellum described it in part 1.

On the other hand, despite all that Gentry did prove, he did not reckon with Reformed theology’s category of the substance of the covenant of grace. His discussion remained focused entirely on what we categorize as the administration. We confess that the administrations are diverse. We do not agree that the new covenant is so diverse from the previous covenants that children are no longer included. Still, we confess that the new covenant is different from the other covenants as an administration. To push aside covenant theology, as he has well done with dispensationalism, and truly forge a via media, Gentry needed to prove the additional point that the covenants did not offer Christ and his benefits as the unifying substance of the covenant of grace. All his arguments for diversity among the Old Testament covenants do not truly touch the point of contention between Reformed covenant theology and other theological systems until the issue of substance and administration is addressed.

Theological Synthesis: Part 3

The final section of this book poses theological claims about the covenants. Chapter sixteen summarizes the biblico-theological arguments. The first notion that covenants are God’s means of delivering his kingdom on earth is not controversial or even slightly new to Reformed readers.13On the other hand, the dismissal of the distinction between conditional and unconditional covenants is more provocative. Even here though, questions remain for those holding traditional covenant theology. What sort of conditions? This has never been specifically defined. The condition of faith, works, or a mix? That answer could make their view very contentious. Further, Reformed theology has long distinguished antecedent and consequent conditions. Which does Wellum have in view? This proposal again fails to reckon truly with the categories of historic covenant theology. Not only does progressive covenantalism not address the heart of covenant theology in the substance-administration distinction with a primary payoff for Christology and soteriology, but also neglects our smaller category distinction. It is hard to see how the arguments truly intersect with Reformed covenant theology in a deeply meaningful way.

The rest of this chapter summarizes the theological value of each covenant. I am personally not sure that this was the best organizational approach. Locating these summaries in part 3 rather than in connection to the exegetical chapters about each covenant makes the conclusions seems removed from the exegesis. Indeed, I am not sure how most of the conclusions directly relate to the earlier exegetical arguments. There seems to be a lot of “extra” in this book in that much of the exegesis does not prove the specific and distinct aspects of their theological thesis. Much of the exegesis is excellent and helpful, and I find myself citing it frequently and approvingly in the book I am presently writing on the covenants. But how Gentry and Wellum seem to assume the connection between their exegesis and theological points.

Chapter 17 argues that Christ fulfills the previous biblical covenants. This too is not a surprising or controversial claim to those holding to covenant theology. The central point is not in dispute, and there are many useful points about how Christ fulfills typology. Presumably contra dispensationalism, Wellum argued extensively for inaugurated eschatology in the New Testament. This issue does raise an issue worth noting, as it seems that Wellum did not consistently apply his good arguments. He well stated, “The New Testament announces that in Christ Jesus, the promised age is now here (“already”) because he has, in his life, death, resurrection, ascension, and Pentecost, inaugurated God’s kingdom through the new covenant. Yet the full consummation of what the Old Testament prophets anticipated and predicted is “not yet” here in its fullness.” (pg. 736; italics original) Wellum’s point explicitly applied the inaugurated eschatology to the new covenant. Again, “What is true regarding the already-not yet dynamic of Christ’s rule and the inauguration of the kingdom is also true of the entire package of prophetic anticipation of the age to come. For example, think about how the New Testament presents the pouring out of the promised Holy Spirit, associated with the new covenant age.” (pg. 740; italics original but the emphasis is well noted here) Finally, “The New Testament teaches that all new covenant promises and blessings, as an entire package, are now here in Christ and applied to the church in principle.” (pg. 744; italics original) Yet, Wellum critiques covenant theology for applying the already-not yet of inaugurated eschatology to the new covenant, precisely in reference to the extent of regeneration among the covenant people as described in Jeremiah 31: “But if we argue that the new covenant is only partially here or partially fulfilled, then we have to bifurcate its blessings.” (pg. 746; italics original) Although I’m sure they have an explanation, and their application of this point to reject an already-not yet construction of justification is wonderfully commendable, I am not sure how this argument squares with their criticism of covenant theology’s application of the already-not yet of New Testament eschatology to the prophecies of the new covenant.

This chapter does begin what is the key theological emphasis of the rest of the book, and arguably the driving consideration of the book, namely the new covenant is structurally reconstituted in comparison to the previous covenants so that the “genealogical principle” goes away and covenant membership is defined by regeneration. The key argument is that the newness of the new covenant resides in a changed “structure” and “nature” so that the covenant community no longer has mixed membership.

In this respect, their critique of the visible-invisible church distinction does not really reckon with the issue. They seem reduce the issue to the invisible church are the regenerate members within the visible church, a mixed community. But that is not the point of the distinction. Westminster Confession 25.1 says, “The catholic or universal Church which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.” In other words, the invisible church is the company of true believers from all ages. It underscores that God has one true people throughout redemptive history, which is a point Gentry and Wellum well argue. It so happens that we cannot see the elect who are presently in heaven or have not yet been born, so they church is invisible.

On the other hand, WCF 25.2 says, “The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.” If I have read Wellum correctly, progressively covenantalism would affirm this definition except for the inclusion of believers’ children, and seem to agree with a major purpose of the visible-invisible distinction. As Wellum stated:

No doubt, it is true that not all those who profess faith in Christ are regenerate and that some who are admitted into membership in the church later show themselves not to have belonged…The New Testament knows of false professions and spurious conversions; in fact, the Scripture exhorts us to examine ourselves (see 2 Pet. 1:10). Yet the New Testament also assures us that all those united to Christ and born of the Spirit will be kept to the end. This contrasts with covenant theology, which affirmed a mixed view of the church or asserts that the visible church is constituted by believers and unbelievers until the end of the age. (pg. 755)

Reformed theology affirms everything Wellum outlined in this passage, making his closing conclusion about the contrast with covenant theology’s view of the visible church inaccurate. So, as with many other matters pertaining to Reformed covenant theology, KTC has not truly reckoned with the issues involved.

Chapter 18 addresses Christology and ethics. The Christological argument is that Christ fulfills the previous covenants. The Reformed agree. I appreciated the defense of Christ’s active obedience, although the issues concerning how Wellum related that to the covenant of works were raised above under the section on the Adamic covenant. Those issues resurface here. On the other hand, Wellum’s discussion of the law for Christian ethics lacks clarity about the issues involved in Reformed theology. He argues that the moral law cannot be separated from the rest of the Mosaic covenant, so that it abides but the ceremonial and civil laws are done. Rather, the whole Mosaic covenant is abrogated. The problem is that the Reformed agree with the way he has framed his argument. The moral law as part of the Mosaic covenant is fulfilled. The Decalogue does not abide because we separate it within the Mosaic covenant. Rather, Wellum has failed to reckon with our doctrine of natural law that teaches that the moral law is grounded in creation (WCF 19.1–2). I found myself repeatedly thinking that Wellum’s argument would be exactly right if not for natural law. Still, Wellum ends up positing something very close to the Reformed view of the moral law grounded in nature:

In order to discern God’s moral will, we need to begin in creation and then think though how sin has distorted God’s order, walk through the covenants, and discover how God’s redemptive promise will restore and reform the created order – a reality that has now been realized in Christ. At every stage in redemptive history, the covenants reflect God’s moral demands, thus explaining why we expect and find a continuity of moral demand across the canon. (pg. 793; italics original)

Amen. If Wellum had incorporated the Reformed view of natural law, he could simply affirm the abiding validity of the moral law as rooted in God’s own character and hardwired into our nature as God’s image bearers. Once again, progressive covenantalism failed to reckon with the real issues and categories of Reformed covenant theology.

Chapter 19 addresses ecclesiology and eschatology. Concerning the church, Wellum again argued that the new covenant restructured the community so to end its mixed nature and include only regenerate believers. Progressive covenantalism, contra dispensationalism, affirms the continuity between Israel and the church, so that God does not have a separate plan for national Israel. Wellum argues against covenant theology, however, that the new covenant church is “covenantally new” by including only the regenerate. This issue has already been addressed some above in connection to the visible-invisible church distinction. They argue that the warning passages do not prove a mixed nature of the new covenant, so the promise of Jeremiah 31 that all will know the Lord in the new covenant requires credobaptism.

There is a significant issue to address. The discussion is not clear enough about how Old Testament believers were saved. As noted already, the authors affirm that OT saints were saved by Christ. Wellum also states, “Once again, this is not to say that there were no believers prior to Pentecost or that the Spirit was not active in the Old Testament.” (pg. 751) But there are other statements that make it hard to account for how they affirm that. For example, “Although we still await our glorification, to be at present united to Christ and in the new covenant entails that one has been born of the Spirit and forgiven of his or her sin.” (pg. 808; emphasis added) What about believers who lived before the new covenant was inaugurated in Christ’s blood? Further, Wellum pointedly argued that covenant theology too quickly reads the new covenant into the old (pg. 814). If salvation is provided through the new covenant as Christ fulfilled the previous covenants, how were OT believers saved by Christ, receiving forgiveness in their own time? If it is a problem to read new covenant realities, those of salvation in Christ, into the previous covenants, how did the members of those previous covenants receive salvation? Wellum and Gentry have stated that their purpose is not to explain OT salvation. But that is a major focus of Reformed covenant theology. So, not to outline how progressive covenantalism relates to this issue is again to fail to reckon with the major issues in covenant theology.

This problem even applies to infant salvation too: “But he [Paul] does argue that, in baptism, the objective realities of having died to sin and being made alive in Christ have actually taken place – something that cannot be applied to infants unless one affirms some kind of baptismal regeneration.” (pg. 823) If infants cannot be made alive in Christ, how then can any babies that die in infancy be saved? This statement implicitly resigns all who die young to hell, apart from any relevance to baptism. I doubt Gentry and Wellum would affirm this, which is why I say it is implicit. The Reformed say that God can sovereignly regenerate someone at any age, regardless of baptism, certainly not merely through baptism. Progressive covenantalism’s emphatic concern for Baptistic ecclesiology at times produces imprecise formulations for soteriology. On the other hand, the discussion of eschatology is overall very good.

Conclusion

Progressive covenantalism is an endeavor to incorporate the Bible’s emphasis on the covenants more thoroughly into Baptistic theology. It makes a significant contribution to pushing against Dispensationalism from a Baptist standpoint. It also includes a wealth of helpful exegetical material pertaining to many passages most important to unpacking the covenants. At the same time, this exegetical detail is not obviously connected directly to the theological conclusions. Perhaps this lack of clarity owes to the organizational separation of exegetical and theological chapters or possibly my own perceptiveness. Still, the impression is that a lot of the exegesis, although useful in itself, is superfluous to the book’s major argument.

In the end, the thesis and arguments are not specific enough to overturn traditional Reformed covenant theology. The points that are clearly argued are mostly ideas that we too affirm, namely that main thesis that “the Bible presents a plurality of covenants that progressively reveal our triune God’s one redemptive plan for his one people, which reaches its fulfillment and terminus in Christ and the new covenant.” (pg. 35) Yet, the major contours of the arguments for progressive covenantalism do not truly reckon with the issues and categories that are most central to Reformed covenant theology, namely the shape and continuity of soteriology, the distinction between law and gospel, and the distinction between substance and administration. Until these areas are addressed covenant theologians will not know how to respond accurately to progressive covenantalism because those are the most fundamental issues in our system.

Harrison Perkins (PhD, Queen’s University Belfast; MDiv, Westminster Seminary California) is a pastor at London City Presbyterian Church, a visiting lecturer in systematic theology at Edinburgh Theological Seminary, online faculty in church history for Westminster Theological Seminary, and the author of Catholicity and the Covenant of Works: James Ussher and the Reformed Tradition (Oxford University Press, 2020).

©Harrison Perkins. All Rights Reserved.

ENDNOTES

1 Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants, 2nd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018).

2 KTC, 13–14, 16; Stephen J. Wellum with Brent E. Parker, “Introduction,” in Stephen J. Wellum and Brent E. Parker (eds.), Progressive Covenantalism: Charting a Course between Dispensational and Covenant Theologies (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016), 3–4n7.

3 Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, “Rejoinder to Review of Kingdom Through Covenant,” Westminster Theological Journal 76 (2014): 450–52.

4 God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ (Crossway, 2016); Christ Alone: The Uniqueness of Jesus as Savior: What the Reformers Taught…and Why It Still Matters (Zondervan, 2017); The Person of Christ: An Introduction (Crossway, 2021).

5 Miles V. Van Pelt, “The Noahic Covenant of the Covenant of Grace,” in Guy Prentiss Waters, J. Nicholas Reid, and John R. Muether (eds.), Covenant Theology: Biblical, Theological, and Historical Perspectives (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020), 111–32; Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Overland Park, KS: Two Age Press, 2000), 212–20.

6 Although it does seem overstated to claim that the traditional view of the image of God “is not the result of grammatical and historical interpretation” but “of reasoning from systematic theology.” (pg. 221) Since Gentry himself included the intertestamental Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria in this claim, it not only seems outlandish that no one has ever properly considered the text without theological biases skewing their hermeneutics entirely, but also suggests that the church has been without proper exegesis until Gentry and Wellum came along to unlock the true meaning of Scripture hidden until now.

7 Stephen J. Wellum, “Christological Reflections in Light of Scripture’s Covenants,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 16 no 2 (2012): 48–52. Wellum also draws well and thoroughly on Adamic themes to inform Christ’s obedience throughout Christ Alone.

8 John Colquhoun, A Treatise on the Covenant of Works (Edinburgh: Thomsons, Brothers, 1821), 4.

9 Colquhoun, Covenant of Works, 2, 53–54; Turretin, Institutes, 8.3.2, 5.

10 Westminster Confession 7.1.

11 E.g. James B. Torrance, “Covenant or Contract? A Study of the Theological Background of Worship in Seventeenth Century Scotland,” Scottish Journal of Theology 23 (1970): 51-69.

12 Michael G. McKelvey, “The New Covenant as Promised in the Major Prophets,” in Guy Prentiss Waters, J. Nicholas Reid, and John R. Muether (eds.), Covenant Theology: Biblical, Theological, and Historical Perspectives (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020), 199.

13 Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview Overland Park, KS: Two Age Press, 2000); S.M. Baugh, Majesty on High: An Introduction to the Kingdom of God in the New Testament (CreateSpace, 2017).

Resources

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


12 comments

  1. Thanks for this very helpful review of a major work which I had not had time to work through in detail myself.

    • Glad to help. You can skip to part 3 to see where they land on issues if you need to dig into it.

      Hope your class is going well if it’s started yet.

  2. Glad to see that some are moving away from Dispensationalism. But, where are the confessionally Reformed people expounding what Covenant theology truly is, and doing it in a manner that the laity can access? We want neither FV nor pop dispensationalism.

  3. Harrison, you wrote in your first paragraph, “With more experience, I have often looked back with acute awareness of that review’s weaknesses and wished I could redo it. I am thankful for the chance to review the second edition on the same platform with hopes to improve my comments and assessment concerning this work.” I too have looked back to my comments on your first review and also wished I could redo it.

    First, thank you for taking the time to read and review this large and important book. You give it and the authors due respect by taking it seriously. As far as I’ve found, this is the first review of the second edition, and you are also the first reviewer to review both editions.

    Second, you point out genuine weaknesses in the book. While the book overall was stronger for having two scholars with their respective expertise reflected, I can understand why you would at times feel a disconnect between the exegesis and the theological synthesis. That is not conceding that there is no connection, but that those connections could have at times been made more explicit, especially if some of the “extra” was cut out.

    Third, I appreciate you highlighting the tensions that Reformed Covenant Theology would continue to have with the argument. This provides fodder for future development and work to explain, refine, and defend Progressive Covenantalism.

    Fourth, I know you are reviewing KTC, but some other writings by PC authors do seek to address some of the critiques you raise. For instance, see Wellum’s TGC essay on The Law of God where he addresses “natural law.” See also DeRouchie’s 2015 JETS article (available online) titled, “Counting Stars with Abraham and the Prophets: New Covenant Ecclesiology in OT Perspective,” which delves deeper into how the Abrahamic Covenant is fulfilled in the New Covenant. There is also another PC volume of essays in development right now which will have dedicated chapters on the Covenant of Works and Grace respectively. Even a large book like KTC can’t tackle everything.

    Fifth, I also want to make you aware of a book releasing soon that I’m co-editing.

    Dr. Clark made the remark in one of the comments to your review of the first edition 8 years ago that “most of the time these ‘four views’ books do not actually include confessional Reformed writers with an actual relationship to a confessional reformed church. For some reason, unknown to me, the editors of these volumes seem to be incapable of actually locating one of the rare species.” The editors of this forthcoming four views book were able to secure Michael Horton to represent Covenant Theology. We are very thankful for his gracious willingness to participate in this project. The interaction between him and Stephen Wellum in this volume is most interesting.

    Again, thank you for the time and care you took in reviewing this important book. It is much appreciated.

    • Richard,

      Harrison is having trouble posting his reply:

      Hi Richard,

      thanks for your reply. I think your right that this is the only review of the second edition (especially by someone who reviewed the first). Although I tend to think of this as Reformed reflections to help others get hold of the book rather than a review. I didn’t attempt to tend to every detail.

      I had seen Wellum’s chapter on the law in the Wellum and Parker volume but not this blog post. I think there are several instances where Gentry and Wellum are very close to saying what classic Reformed theology has said, but have omitted or not considered some sort of distinction or category that we have traditionally used to harmonize some complaint they have.

      I think Reformed readers have struggled to grapple with this work precisely because it presents itself as a challenge to our view but there is some much that we easily appropriate. That in some ways makes it a tricky work. But I think that’s because it focuses so much on biblical theology and those exegetical points. There is much about redemptive history that is not a direct challenge to what we think.

      I increasingly think that Baptists think Reformed believe that the covenant of grace is the same at the historical level (ie biblical theology). But we readily acknowledge that the outward form of life changes with each covenant. The real issue is that we argue that believers were always saved by Christ alone through faith alone. The outward forms of types and ordinances in previous covenants taught about Christ, so offered the same substance – Christ and his benefits – by bringing to and sustaining them in faith in Christ incarnandus. This is the real driving issue of covenant theology.

      If Gentry and Wellum deny this premise (I don’t think they outright deny it), then progressive covenantalism is not a via media to our view. If they do affirm Christ saved OT saints as they trusted in him through what they knew of him in their covenants (and I think they do affirm something at least close to this), then they affirm a major premise of classic covenant theology but have constructed the development of the administrations differently. This would be a different explanation of redemptive historical features rather than of the substantive point.

      To be fair, I am not sure there has been a readily available and lengthy discussion of these traditional categories in print for some time, which makes it hard for Baptists to find them if they don’t slug through lots of 17th century works. The Heidelblog explains it often but blogs aren’t print books. I’m almost finished working on a volume now that outlines all these traditional issues, and I hope it will be useful for Reformed and Baptists alike.

      Your new volume looks very interesting. Mike is a gracious but highly able scholar so I’m sure that interaction will be very good. As noted in the post, I’ve appreciated Wellum’s books on Christology.

      If there’s anything I can ever do or if you want to chat more about these issues, please be in touch.

      Harrison

    • Harrison,

      I greatly appreciate your cordial reply and your invitation to discuss further.
      I’m glad you are also aware of Wellum’s chapter on the Law in the PC volume he edited with Brent Parker. I would hope that his essay in the volume on “PC and the Doing of Ethics” and his TGC essay on The Law of God would at least be sufficient to ward off the charge of antinomianism that has sometimes plagued some older forms of New Covenant Theology. Progressive Covenantalism does believe in an abiding moral law that is grounded in God’s own character and established in creation and persists as a universal demand over all people of all time. It’s true that we want to emphasize the covenantal context of the Decalogue, and that does yield different biblical-theological conclusions over say how the sabbath command is applied to New Covenant believers, but that is quite different than saying the Old Covenant doesn’t apply in a flat unnuanced manner. For how Wellum would address the Sabbath in particular, see this TGC post.

      The KTC book is “marketed” as a via media between traditional covenant theology and dispensational theology, but I do think it’s fair to say that progressive covenantalism has much more in common both hermeneutically and biblically-theologically with covenant theology than dispensational theology. Some other reviewers have made this observation.

      I do think we are still somewhat talking past each other though when it comes to the covenant of grace. If all that was meant by the theological category of “the covenant of grace” was one plan of salvation based on Christ alone by faith alone, then there would be no argument. But when the covenant of grace is frequently appealed to by CT as the basis of paedobaptism, then we obviously have a disagreement. I think we understand the substance/administration distinction, but perhaps there is some nuance we are missing. I do look forward to your forthcoming work explaining that (and other categories) in more detail. Wellum’s most robust discussion of these issues is actually found in his chapter on “Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants” in the book Believer’s Baptism edited by Schreiner and Wright. You can find a free copy online by searching for the title. I would love to see your interaction with that essay to see if he is rightly understanding the argument for paedobaptism from CT. I personally have not found a good response to that essay yet. Perhaps you can point me to one.

      On the issue of the salvation of OT saints, you referenced above Wellum’s fuller discussion of that issue in his Rejoiner in the WTJ (2014) to Brack and Oliphant. Was there something you still found unsatisfying in his discussion there of the salvation of OT saints?

      Also curious, have you seen Daniel Scheiderer’s 2020 WTJ article titled, “Progressive Covenantalists as Reformed Baptists”? I found it quite interesting, especially coming from someone who is a self-described 1689 Federalist, but writing his dissertation on the Covenant of Redemption under Wellum’s supervision.

      I’m thankful you have high praise for Wellum’s work on Christology. I was pleased to see the strong endorsement of someone like Carl Trueman to that effect too. I do think Christological issues are at play in our continued disagreement. Nothing that would be at odds with Chalcedonian or conciliar Christology, but in how the covenants are progressively unfolded and sequentially fulfilled, including the key role that the Davidic Covenant plays. One of the reasons that the nature and structure of the new covenant is different than the old covenant is because the Abrahamic Covenant is fulfilled in Christ (Gal. 3:16), and then under the new covenant the offspring of Abraham who inherit the promised salvation are all those in faith union with Him (Gal. 3:29), which would exclude infants.

      I would like to understand better your critique related to the creation covenant in PC compared to the full-orbed covenant of works in CT. Perhaps we can dialogue more about that. We too are eager to maintain the law-gospel contrast that corresponds to the works-grace systematic schema. But the Progressive Covenantal explanation maintains that there is a continual demand for perfect obedience (an obedient son) in every covenant arrangement. By not rigidly dividing the covenants along the conditional/unconditional axis, both God’s promise of ‘grace’ and his demand for perfect ‘works’ are found in each covenant. The law-gospel paradigm which is so central to reformational theology is maintained, but it is just construed a little differently. It is developed along the lines of the bible’s internal structure of the progressively developing biblical covenants, instead of in the juxta-positioning of the theological constructs of the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. We are not confused between a pre-fall/post-fall understanding of the state of man. But is it wrong to say that the promise of life was held out continually (Gal. 3:12; Rom 2:13; 7:10)? But the problem wasn’t the covenant per se (Heb. 8:6-7), but our own sinful hearts. The Old Covenant held out a promise of life, but couldn’t provide the means necessary to fulfill that promise. But the New Covenant with the inner transformation of the Spirit based on the work of Christ can.

      I know you said you are working on some more accessible material to explain these categories. I’m currently working through Fesko’s volume on the Covenant of Works. Does your book on James Ussher tackle these issues? I have not yet dived into it. What other authors can you point to in order to more succinctly understand the critique you are leveling about the creation covenant in progressive covenantalism?

      Again, I appreciate the interaction. I think through constructive dialogue we can both understand each other more fully.

      Richard

      • Richard,

        I’ve not read Wellum’s chapter (I did read his TGC post) but any view that denies the abiding validity of the fourth commandment of the moral law of God is antinomian. What some Baptists and all of the so-called New Covenant writers, whom I’ve read, fail to understand is that the fourth commandment is grounded in nature or creation and not in the Mosaic covenant. This is a significant difference between “new covenant” theology and Reformed theology (and much of the history of the church).

        I do think we are still somewhat talking past each other though when it comes to the covenant of grace. If all that was meant by the theological category of “the covenant of grace” was one plan of salvation based on Christ alone by faith alone, then there would be no argument.

        This would not be an excellent characterization of the Reformed view of the continuity of the covenant of grace. We understand that, e.g., the 1689 Baptists think that there is one “plan,” as you say but we want to say much more. There has always been one way and that way has been present in history since God promised to Adam to send the Seed of the Woman. In my dialogues with the 1689ers I have taken to using the Lutheran sacramental categories to try to help them understand our conception: the covenant of grace is not merely promised or even more apprehended by faith (but an entirely future actual presence in history). Rather, as we understand the progress of revelation and redemption, the covenant of grace is in, with and under the types and shadows of the Old Testament (including the Old/Mosaic Covenant). This is how, e.g., G. Vos articulated the relationship.

        But when the covenant of grace is frequently appealed to by CT as the basis of paedobaptism, then we obviously have a disagreement. I think we understand the substance/administration distinction, but perhaps there is some nuance we are missing.

        There is. It is rare for me to read or talk to a Baptist who genuinely understands what we’re trying to say. This is why I talk about a paradigmatic difference (and this) between Baptists and Reformed theology. As a sociological matter, because Baptists number 60 million in North America our way of looking at things is quite remote from Baptist experience and understanding. We (confessional, Reformed) are a tiny minority that Baptists engage on an occasional and theoretical level but not at a practical (or experiential) level. It seems very difficult for Baptists to be able see things through our eyes even for the purposes of disagreeing with us. Honestly, in my experience, it often takes Baptists years of actually living in a Reformed congregation to understand what we’re saying. It’s not that what we’re saying is inherently difficult—it really isn’t. I’ve explained our view in 117 words but typically our view requires long explanations for Baptists because climbing the walls between the paradigms is arduous.

        Here are more resources:

        Covenant Theology and Infant Baptism

        One of the reasons that the nature and structure of the new covenant is different than the old covenant is because the Abrahamic Covenant is fulfilled in Christ (Gal. 3:16), and then under the new covenant the offspring of Abraham who inherit the promised salvation are all those in faith union with Him (Gal. 3:29), which would exclude infants.

        In our understanding, there is one covenant of grace in substance and all the believers were actually participating in the very same covenant of grace in which we are participating. There really is only one church in all times and all places and it goes back to the garden and the protevangelion. The accidents, i.e., the external administration has changed but the covenant itself has not changed. The promises have not changed. The OT believers were not merely looking forward to Christ. They had Christ by faith and further he was, speaking anachronistically, in their midst, saving them. This is how Jude 5 looks at it and how Paul himself looks at it in 1 Cor 10:1–4. Christ led them through the Red Sea and Christ was feeding them on his body and blood through the types and shadows. Yes, the incarnation is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant but fulfillment is not abrogation, as the Baptists assume.

        Your paradigm assumes a more or less complete identity of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. Ours does not. In short: Abraham is still our father and Abraham is not Moses. The Mosaic covenant is, strictly speaking, the Old Covenant (2 For 3; Heb ch. 7–10). All that was peculiar to the Mosaic covenant (e.g., judicial and ceremonial laws) is fulfilled and abrogated. Thus, the Saturday Sabbath is abrogated but the 1 in 7 or 1 and 6 creational principle is not. The external initiation of infants into the covenant community (the visible church) is not abrogated. It is reaffirmed in the New Covenant because it is Abrahamic and not Mosaic. Paul did not appeal to Moses as the foundational covenant against the Judaizers in Galatians 3. He appealed to the Abrahamic covenant as foundational and permanent against the Judaizers. Moses, he said, is temporary and typological.

        Here is more:

        Resources On The Role Of Abraham In Redemptive History

        In short: The New Covenant is an administration of the Abrahamic covenant without the types and shadows.

        I would like to understand better your critique related to the creation covenant in PC compared to the full-orbed covenant of works in CT. Perhaps we can dialogue more about that. We too are eager to maintain the law-gospel contrast that corresponds to the works-grace systematic schema. But the Progressive Covenantal explanation maintains that there is a continual demand for perfect obedience (an obedient son) in every covenant arrangement. By not rigidly dividing the covenants along the conditional/unconditional axis, both God’s promise of ‘grace’ and his demand for perfect ‘works’ are found in each covenant. The law-gospel paradigm which is so central to reformational theology is maintained, but it is just construed a little differently.

        Why do you think that Ursinus, who was Melanchthon’s student for 7 years, formulated the “covenant of nature” and identified it with the law and the covenant of grace with the gospel?

    • Hi Richard,
      There’s certainly a lot in your reply. The first thing I feel I need to say is that my post here aimed to review KTC, not engage with the whole program of progressive covenantalism. I tried to dip into a few other things here and there, but the whole project of every author was outside my purview.

      As to antinomianism, I think there is often a definitional issue at work. “Antinomianism” does not need to mean “godless and licentious,” which I assume applies in no way to Gentry or Wellum (henceforth: G&W). Unfortunately, I think this more colloquial connotation is what people assume when they hear it, one of the reasons I avoided it in my post. More technically, the term refers to denying that the moral law as summarized in the Ten Commandments has abiding value as the rule for godliness today. No confessional Reformed thinker argues that the whole Mosaic law abides today. Westminster Confession 19.3-4 states as much. But WCF 19.1-2 explain that the moral law does not abide as Mosaic, but because the moral law (which I agree summarizes God’s character) was given to Adam and then repeated at Sinai. So, all things specifically Mosaic are no longer binding. We argue the moral law is not specifically Mosaic though. Your statement in this reply is interesting because it is far more specific than I believe Wellum argued in his sections or in the outside chapter. (You may have to forgive me in this particular discussion because I worked on this review and incorporated interaction with KTC into my book simultaneously and I may forget where I wrote which point). I think that he gets very close to articulating what we believe about the moral law, but then they pull a punch, saying but the Ten Commandments are Mosaic and you can’t separate them as the abiding moral law. This grounds their rejection of the Sabbath.

      In this respect, however, I am not sure what about the Sabbath they object to. So on this point, I don’t think they have gotten specific enough yet. Is is that Christians are obligated to use one day of the week for the purpose of worship and rest? I doubt it, at least in part. Some Baptists I know (I do not know where G&W or you stand on this, so it is not a pointed comment) feel free to skip church if they get tickets to an NFL game or a NASCAR race. In full disclosure, when I was younger I was one of those Baptists who went to NASCAR races with my dad once a year on a Sunday. In further disclosure, that is because he wanted to go, not me… If this sort of thing, or wanting to go to the shopping mall on Sunday or something is the end result of Sabbath rejection, then I have strong disagreement with it. My sense, however, is that they think it is tied to something Mosaic and that they are not arguing for freedom from church to watch football. This is not a superficial point because the football, etc issue is much of what the Reformed are dealing with in churches as we try to observe the Lord’s Day. We hope people will spend the day with the saints and worshipping. I will be surprised if G&W disagree. So, we probably have a similar concern but PC dislikes “sabbath” for some reason and so rejects the category of “moral law” although wanting to affirm most of it.

      Let me reorder your questions and hit the covenant of works before the covenant of grace. My specific point about it was that they seem to affirm its basic contents but then also reject the category. So, I was claiming that I think they do believe essentially the point, but some wires have crossed. Yes, they affirm that every covenant requires perfect obedience. In one sense, this may simply mean that every covenant is a covenant of works for someone. This is why I said that I think they want to be more careful with how they put this because it can suggest affinities with very objectionable theological constructions. Reformed people affirm that the need for obedience remains is someone is going to gain entrance into the new creation. This is how most (in my estimation at this point) read Romans 2:13 and the surrounding verses. The question concerning PC and KTC is whether this demand is restated directly for every “head” of each successive covenant in the same fashion as it was for Adam. There are aspects of typology where this demand features at times in the other OT covenants. But I think that maybe they have generalized some typological features that appear at times into a strict principle that is always there. I don’t think that is the way to go. In sum, my critique of their argument was along the lines of “I don’t know why THEY are critiquing a doctrine that they seem to believe in principle.” Admittedly, there are aspects to clarify, but I think there is a sense in which they may just not have reckoned with what Reformed theologians were really leveraging this doctrine to protect.

      In that regard, my book on Ussher tries to explain why one Reformed theologian formulated the covenant of works how he did (which was an influential formulation upon the confessional tradition through the Irish Articles and WCF). Specifically, he interacted with ancient and medieval sources to tie together certain doctrines to refute Roman Catholic soteriology and defend Reformed views. Admittedly, there is probably material in the book that does not directly address the questions PC is raising. But I do think that it might be a very helpful source in explaining where the covenant of works came from and why it became such an important category. Understanding why it was constructed the way it has been may help G&W know more thoroughly how it fits into their vision. I think my book is a different but very complimentary perspective from Fesko’s book. We agree on the main issues, but he looks more at how it developed within the Reformed tradition given various debates. I more use Ussher as a lens to show how it “entered” the Reformed tradition and quickly became so valuable to us.

      Probably more details on this issue would be easier on a Zoom call or something. Message me on Twitter or something like that if you would like to have a better chat: https://twitter.com/HarrisonP87

      On the covenant of grace, the main issue is that soteriological point. I was glad that G&W affirmed OT saints were saved by Christ alone, which is why I cited it. But then why critique the covenant of grace as holistically as they have (genuine not loaded question)? They seemed to say, “well, the soteriological issue is not what we want to talk about.” OK, but if that is the case, don’t frame PC as interacting with traditional covenant theology. Because the soteriological point is the main factor for us. Saying they want to engage covenant theology but not on the issue of Christology and OT salvation is like saying you want to race against a Corvette but one that doesn’t have a Corvette engine. That’s sort of the main reason for trying to race it.

      One of my guesses is that ecclesiology is driving this project of PC. They see aspects of covenant theology they like and want to rework it to keep credobaptism. You mentioned that the covenant of grace is the point of appeal for paedobaptism. Yes, true enough. But what I want to say to PC is that we should all focus on the Christological and soteriological points first. Let us make sure that we have these things in place and well understood in connection to whatever project we are developing. Then let us see what that does for the sacraments and their recipients. There is a lot in KTC about the mixed nature of the OT people and how that changes in the NT. But that should be downstream from how are members of the OT covenant communities saved.

      Now, you raised the “one plan” issue, but sometimes Reformed readers struggle to see that Baptists mean the same thing as we do when they affirm this. Some parts of KTC affirm one plan but make it sound like this is a historically-developing plan that merely culminates in Christ. This is why I think redemptive-history and biblical theology – certainly good and needed in themselves – have overrun the whole discussion about the covenants so that we have missed the older points. Is PC suggesting one plan of salvation like a novel is one story? In this instance, there are a few failed attempts along the way, but ultimately the desired plan is revealed when Christ comes. I don’t think this is what G&W mean (at least not exclusively what they mean, since we all affirm that the historical unfolding of redemptive history culminates in Christ). But at times, their language suggests this to Reformed readers. And with the lack of more statements about the specific nature of OT salvation, we are left to speculate or guess about how to fill in the blanks.

      Because on the other hand, does “one plan” mean that all believers in every time and place after the fall were all justified by faith alone, specifically during their lifetimes. There are times that some writers (not KTC here) that sound as if they mean OT believers were in a holding tank or purgatory or something until Christ died and set them free. I do not think G&W mean this at all. Reformed people believe OT and NT faith are the same but differ in perspective. If you and I are viewing a statue, but you are on its left and I am on its right, we are still doing the same thing but from different angles. So too, OT faith looked forward, trusting in Christ who would come (incarnandus) and NT faith looks back to Christ who has come (incarnates). Still, salvation has continuity because Christ forgives sins for OT and NT believers by faith.

      WCF 8.6 is an immensely valuable statement of our view on this: “Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ till after His incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefits thereof were communicated unto the elect, in all ages successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices, wherein He was revealed, and signified to be the seed of the woman which should bruise the serpent’s head; and the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world; being yesterday and today the same, and forever.”

      The efficacy of Christ’s work was communicated – truly applied – even before he came in history as OT believers trusted in the Savior to come to redeem them. They were brought to faith in him through the types and ordinances that taught about Christ in the OT covenants. In this way, the OT covenants distribute and apply the same substance – Christ and his benefits – as the new covenant.

      So, Westminster Shorter Catechism 92 says, “A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ; wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied to believers.” 93 then states the NT sacraments. So, very fascinatingly, 92 means that a sacrament in principle, including circumcision and types like animal sacrifices, applied the benefits of the NEW covenant to believers. In other words, the means of grace in every era have always applied Christ and his work to believers.

      This is the heart of our interest in the covenants. Who is baptized is of course important. But it is downstream – and maybe a long way from the stream if you don’t need much water!!! (I am trying to be funny, not a jerk here) – from these other issues about soteriology. I am not sure that PC has really grappled with how it relates to traditional covenant theology until it outlines how it explains these issues that have been on the edge of its interests.

      Turretin and Witsius are good sources on these issues. There are not a lot of modern books that treat this issue from an ST rather than BT perspective. Hence why I decided I needed to write it!

      I think it may be better to have a FaceTime or Zoom chat or something to be any more detailed than this. For example, the conditional/unconditional thing is very nuanced. Like what condition? The new covenant at least has the condition that Christ died for sin. I don’t think that’s what they mean. Reformed say the condition of the covenant of grace is faith. But I don’t think they mean that either. So, the question hangs, what condition, what kind of condition (antecedent or consequent)? Things like this. The simply denial of the conditional/unconditional distinction is another example where I think KTC just has not tangled with the ins and outs of traditional covenant theology.

      That is not a robust criticism in itself. It is just to say that maybe they think that they have worked through more of the issues involved than they truly have. It’s fine to take time to develop a view and refine it over multiple works. But we cannot assume that a book like this has definitively overturned an established paradigm when those of us within classic covenant theology are thinking “I agree with 90% of this but I do not see how most of it is even supposed to be challenging my position.”

      Again, actual conversation may be better going forward. I’m reachable through academia or Twitter and happy to arrange a more personable chat. https://freescotcoll.academia.edu/HarrisonPerkins?from_navbar=true

      These things easily miss tone and get lost online.

      H

    • Professor Clark’s distinction of one “plan” of salvation and one “way” of salvation was a very helpful way to capture one the main points I was trying to make about historical vs. systematic unity of the covenants. I wish I had used this phrasing as it may have made my point clearer.

      This is tied up in our main point for covenant theology, specifically the covenant of grace. As Dr. Clark said, most of the time Baptists seem to think we mean that every covenant looks the same, ergo babies in the new covenant. But I at least with WCF 7.5-6 am happy to affirm that the covenants looked very different in history and had very different functions in terms of their typology. But did their ordinances bring people to faith in Christ and build them in that faith?

      The new covenant happens to include infants in my view. I think that NT passages overtly connect the new covenant to the structure of the OT covenants (a point I argue at length in my next book), which is then confirmed by other aspects of continuity of the covenant of grace. I have heard KTC’s argument on this point about the mixed community, but I think that there is more than an adequate response to put forward.

  4. Drs. Clark and Perkins,

    I want to begin this final response where I started. I greatly appreciate the time and care to review this important book and to seek to interact with other approaches at covenantal theology. I also greatly appreciate the invitation to continue this dialogue through other more personal means that we both hope will further mutual understanding (Harrison, I will reach out through your suggested means, thank you).

    I will commit to reading the many links that Professor Clark provided in his previous comment, and I have also already downloaded several articles on covenant theology from Harrison’s Academia page. Thank you for pointing me towards them. I do genuinely want to understand your position and not argue with straw men.

    These comments have veered from the intention of the original post, but I hope you will permit me to offer a few responses here that I’ve summarized around 5 key issues:

    1. Antinomianism and the Sabbath

    Clark wants to maintain a specific historic definition to antinomianism, which I understand, but that is not how the word is more colloquially (as Perkins pointed out) understood today. PC does affirm an abiding moral law, grounded in God’s character, and established in creation, and placed on the conscience of every image-bearer. We do believe in “obeying the sabbath” it just needs to be understood in its current covenantal context like EVERY command in Scripture. We don’t treat the Sabbath command any differently than we treat the rest of the commands in the Bible. In this post [https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/sunday-not-christian-sabbath/] by Wellum which I referenced above, he writes, “As Christians, then, we obey the Sabbath command by ceasing from our works, placing our trust in Christ, and starting to live into what it means to be his new-covenant people as we await his glorious return.” I am also very concerned by the lax attitude of many Christians towards dedicated worship of the Lord on the Lord’s Day. We have passed over many exciting and luring activities as a family simply because they occurred on a Sunday. I doubt in practice we would differ very much at all. If that is not sufficient to ward off the charge of “antinomianism” as it is usually understood today, then that seems more like name-calling than recognizing a genuine biblical-theological, exegetical, hermeneutical difference in how we put the covenants together.

    2. Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants

    I am somewhat confused. Clark seems to be attributing an argument to PC that we do not make. Perhaps it is found among other Baptists (such as dispensationalists), but not progressive covenantalists. We too agree that the Mosaic Covenant is temporary and typological. We agree that the Abrahamic Covenant is foundational. We do not brush aside the Abrahamic Covenant by linking it to the Mosaic and then replacing both of them with the New Covenant. I agree with all his scriptural appeals to Gal 3; Heb 7-10; 2 Cor 3, etc. There is one people of God redeemed by God going all the way back to Gen 3:15. Our difference is over how we understand the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant in the New Covenant.
    Once again, I would like to point to Jason DeRouchie’s “Counting Stars with Abraham and the Prophets: New Covenant Ecclesiology in OT Perspective” JETS 58/3 (2015): 445-85 (it’s online for free). A shorter version of this essay was the lead chapter in the Progressive Covenantalism book (B&H 2016) following up on KTC. I reference this essay here for a few reasons. He traces out how the OT itself develops the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant in the New Covenant. Also, I believe DeRouchie accomplishes in this essay what Perkins critiques KTC for failing to do in the main review above, namely, he connects his detailed exegesis directly to his theological conclusions. If traditional covenant theology wants to respond to the best of PC, I believe this essay must be included. Perhaps in the future a review/response to this essay could be undertaken here at the Heidelblog.

    3. The Covenant of Grace and Infant Baptism

    It does seem to me that the covenantal paedobaptist argument is grounded chiefly in your particular conception of the Covenant of Grace. The application of “Lutheran sacramental categories” to explain the covenant of grace is most interesting. I think we have very different conceptions over how typology works and how it is generally understood. I do get the impression over and over again that Historic Reformed Covenant Theology is simply assumed to be true and not proved to be true. The appeal to these various distinctions (i.e. substance/administration, etc.) are the central issues of dispute. It is not proper to appeal to them to prove them. These are the issues we are contending. I’m not opposed to historical theology, and no one is reading the bible in a vacuum, and we should be eager to learn from past illumination, but we have to substantiate them from the bible itself.

    The fullest articulation of how PC understands the Covenant of Grace and how we make our case for credobaptism is in the essay by Stephen Wellum, “Baptism and the Relationship Between the Covenants” in Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, edited by Thomas Schreiner and Shawn Wright (B&H, 2006). This essay is also available free online. Similar to my last point, I would be most interested if at some point a review/response to this particular essay was offered on the Heidelblog. I want to know if PC has truly misunderstood the argument by Covenant Theology for paedbaptism in the appeal to the Covenant of Grace.

    Like I said, many essays/posts were recommended for me in the previous comments to understand your position. I’m kindly returning the favor by focusing on just these two essays by DeRouchie and Wellum.

    4. Salvation of OT Saints

    Perkins above noted this essay in one of the footnotes to his original post. In the next volume of PC Wellum intends to have a dedicated chapter on the Covenant of Grace and will no doubt discuss this matter, but until then this is the fullest explanation over how PC explains the salvation of OT saints. I reproduce below Wellum’s seven points since they are not easily accessible on the web and I would want your readers to understand what we are and are not saying.

    (1) There is one plan of salvation, rooted in eternity past among the triune persons, unfolded in time through the biblical covenants, and culminated in Christ.
    (2) Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
    (3) We come to know and experience salvation due to God’s revelation and action, which is progressive through time, reaching its telos, fulfillment, and culmination in Christ.
    (4) Regeneration precedes faith, including the OT elect. Who regenerates? From the NT, we learn that this is the work of the Spirit. It is legitimate to “read back” into the OT and say that the Spirit regenerates OT saints, yet Scripture speaks of it simply as the work of Yahweh and it is only in the unfolding of God’s plan that we can make proper distinctions among the work of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But given that the triune work is one (inseparable operations) with specific works terminating on the divine persons, what the NT teaches is in complete continuity with the OT, yet with greater epistemological clarity.
    (5) Under the OT covenants, one could be in the covenant but not necessarily elect and regenerate; hence, not all Israel is Israel. This is not exactly the same for the church.
    (6) Were the OT elect indwelt by the Spirit in the same way as new covenant believers? It all depends on what you mean. From the OT perspective, Yahweh is omnipresent and uniquely covenantally present with his people. Yet, Yahweh’s covenant presence was experienced through the tabernacle, temple, and the work of the high priest. Nowhere in the OT is Israel called the temple of God, but within their midst God dwelt and through this means God was present covenantally with his people. Under the new covenant, however, God’s covenant presence is greater due to the work of Christ and the Spirit. Type has given way to antitype. Christ is the fulfillment of the temple and by relation to him, we are God’s temple by the Spirit. Even though OT believers experienced God’s presence, the experience of God’s dwelling by the Spirit and especially the transformation of the entire community (who all have the Spirit in regeneration, empowerment, gifting, indwelling) is now greater.
    (7) What about union with Christ? In KTC, when we speak of union with Christ, we are primarily speaking about how the NT describes it; our main focus was not to unpack how to talk about union with Christ with OT believers per se. We affirm that all elect are united to Christ, including the OT elect (but not the entire OT covenant community). Yet, the full NT sense of union with Christ is not spelled out in the OT, given that Christ had not yet come, and it is important to preserve these distinctions. Though we are God’s elect from eternity, we do not affirm that we are eternally justified, because there is a real transition in history from wrath to grace, even though we are the elect. In a similar way, in the OT, union is described through the covenants as Yahweh is united with his people, but this covenantal relationship in the OT covenants does not entail that the entire community were the elect or that the experience of that union was the same as the new covenant, now that Christ has come and the Spirit has been poured out. To say that it is, simply does not do justice to Scripture at this point. But this is the important point: none of our discussion affirms two different salvations!

    Wellum and Gentry’s Rejoiner to Brack and Oliphant’s Review of Kingdom through Covenant (WTJ 2014, pp. 451-452)

    5. PC’s Creation Covenant vs. CT’s Covenant of Works

    It seems to me that our positions on the other matters above are rather staked out clearly. This last issue is where I think it would be most fruitful to continue dialogue. As I said above, we want to maintain the proper law/gospel divide, and also think it is central for structuring biblical history and has important implications for Christology, Atonement, Imputation, etc. I think we agree on the larger issues, but we structure matters differently because of our different understanding of the role and progressive fulfillment of the biblical covenants.

    It is this last matter that I’m more interested in pursuing further dialogue and will gladly accept the invitation to continue offline in a more direct manner.

    Once again, I have found this dialogue enlightening. I appreciate the cordial interaction, and I also intend to not only read the sources you referenced previously (including Harrison’s forthcoming book) but to continue to read firsthand the many great Reformed Theologians who have written on these matters over the last several hundred years.

    • Richard,

      1. Antinomianism and the Sabbath

      Clark wants to maintain a specific historic definition to antinomianism, which I understand, but that is not how the word is more colloquially (as Perkins pointed out) understood today.

      Understood but, from a confessional Reformed perspective, any view that carves out an exemption for the fourth commandment such that it is no longer regarded as part of the moral law, grounded in God’s character and in creation, is antinomian in some sense.

      PC does affirm an abiding moral law, grounded in God’s character, and established in creation, and placed on the conscience of every image-bearer. We do believe in “obeying the sabbath” it just needs to be understood in its current covenantal context like EVERY command in Scripture.

      We don’t treat the Sabbath command any differently than we treat the rest of the commands in the Bible. In this post by Wellum which I referenced above, he writes, “As Christians, then, we obey the Sabbath command by ceasing from our works, placing our trust in Christ, and starting to live into what it means to be his new-covenant people as we await his glorious return.”

      Isn’t this the very definition of treating the fourth commandment differently? Yes, it is of the essence of the fourth commandment to cease from our works, to rest in Christ, and to begin in this life the eternal sabbath, as the Heidelberg Catechism says. It also entails, however, a ceasing from “servile works” (Ursinus et al), attendance to public worship and the means of grace, almsgiving, and works of mercy.

      Were you to interpret the other commandments as you do the fourth, our obedience to them, would be truncated, would it not? What does it mean to honor one’s father and mother (and other authorities who act in loco parentis without acting on the command. Yes, we honor them in our hearts and minds but we also honor them with our mouths and hands. We pay taxes or we support our parents in their old age etc. The same is true of the other commandments. We don’t just sanctify the Lord’s name with our hearts but also with our mouths.

      I understand the view you’re articulating. It is held by some within the Reformed world but they hold it contrary to the confession of the Reformed churches.

      As I may have said, the single biggest weakness in that view is that it treats the fourth commandment as as though it were grounded in the Mosaic covenant rather than in creation. Cocceius made this mistake. I think the later Kline made this mistake.

      I am also very concerned by the lax attitude of many Christians towards dedicated worship of the Lord on the Lord’s Day. We have passed over many exciting and luring activities as a family simply because they occurred on a Sunday. I doubt in practice we would differ very much at all. If that is not sufficient to ward off the charge of “antinomianism” as it is usually understood today, then that seems more like name-calling than recognizing a genuine biblical-theological, exegetical, hermeneutical difference in how we put the covenants together.

      It’s not name-calling. It’s the traditional Reformed designation for those who carve out the fourth commandment from the moral law.

      2. Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants

      I am somewhat confused. Clark seems to be attributing an argument to PC that we do not make. Perhaps it is found among other Baptists (such as dispensationalists), but not progressive covenantalists. We too agree that the Mosaic Covenant is temporary and typological. We agree that the Abrahamic Covenant is foundational. We do not brush aside the Abrahamic Covenant by linking it to the Mosaic and then replacing both of them with the New Covenant. I agree with all his scriptural appeals to Gal 3; Heb 7-10; 2 Cor 3, etc. There is one people of God redeemed by God going all the way back to Gen 3:15. Our difference is over how we understand the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant in the New Covenant.
      Once again, I would like to point to Jason DeRouchie’s “Counting Stars with Abraham and the Prophets: New Covenant Ecclesiology in OT Perspective” JETS 58/3 (2015): 445-85 (it’s online for free). A shorter version of this essay was the lead chapter in the Progressive Covenantalism book (B&H 2016) following up on KTC. I reference this essay here for a few reasons. He traces out how the OT itself develops the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant in the New Covenant. Also, I believe DeRouchie accomplishes in this essay what Perkins critiques KTC for failing to do in the main review above, namely, he connects his detailed exegesis directly to his theological conclusions. If traditional covenant theology wants to respond to the best of PC, I believe this essay must be included. Perhaps in the future a review/response to this essay could be undertaken here at the Heidelblog.

      Richard,

      You honor the Abrahamic covenant with your lips but not with your theology. By arguing as you do, the Abrahamic is no longer in effect. You say that it’s foundational but you don’t treat it as foundational. From a Reformed perspective, it’s incoherent.

      Honestly, it looks like just another Baptist evasion of the force of the NT appropriation of Abraham. He’s our father but the covenant is fulfilled in such a way that the promise of Gen 17:7 is no longer in effect? How is this not trying to have your Abrahamic cake and eat it too?

      3. The Covenant of Grace and Infant Baptism

      It does seem to me that the covenantal paedobaptist argument is grounded chiefly in your particular conception of the Covenant of Grace. The application of “Lutheran sacramental categories” to explain the covenant of grace is most interesting. I think we have very different conceptions over how typology works and how it is generally understood. I do get the impression over and over again that Historic Reformed Covenant Theology is simply assumed to be true and not proved to be true. The appeal to these various distinctions (i.e. substance/administration, etc.) are the central issues of dispute. It is not proper to appeal to them to prove them. These are the issues we are contending. I’m not opposed to historical theology, and no one is reading the bible in a vacuum, and we should be eager to learn from past illumination, but we have to substantiate them from the bible itself.

      We’ve been defending our view of the continuity of the covenant of grace exegetically since 1523, when Zwingli first did it against the Anabaptists and then again in 1534, when Bullinger wrote the first treatise defending it and we did it again and again. This is a major thrust of Olevianus’ De substantia, Witsius’ Economy etc.

      I appeal to our distinctions because, as I say, the list of Baptists who is able to show that he actually understands them is fairly short. Have you read Bullinger, Olevianus, Witsius,T Turretin et al?

      4. Salvation of OT Saints

      Perkins above noted this essay in one of the footnotes to his original post. In the next volume of PC Wellum intends to have a dedicated chapter on the Covenant of Grace and will no doubt discuss this matter, but until then this is the fullest explanation over how PC explains the salvation of OT saints. I reproduce below Wellum’s seven points since they are not easily accessible on the web and I would want your readers to understand what we are and are not saying.

      (1) There is one plan of salvation, rooted in eternity past among the triune persons, unfolded in time through the biblical covenants, and culminated in Christ.

      Unfolded, revealed, yes. I get this from Baptists regularly but is it present? I think you’re wrong for being a Baptist but here I’m not trying to persuade you to change your mind theologically/exegetically but to understand how deep the differences are between Reformed theology and the Baptists (including Progressive Covenantalism).

      Baptists seem to think that the revelation of a future reality counts. Well, that’s part of the story but it’s only part. For us, the covenant of grace was actually present, as I keep saying, in, with, and under the types and shadows.

      (2) Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

      Amen.

      (3) We come to know and experience salvation due to God’s revelation and action, which is progressive through time, reaching its telos, fulfillment, and culmination in Christ.

      Amen. You know, don’t you, that the historic Christian church has been saying this since the Epistle of Barnabas c. AD 120? It’s good to see former Dispensationalists catching up to aspects of historic Christianity (see also Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, all the medievals, and the Reformation & post-Reformed theologians) but your invocation of the progress of revelation isn’t novel.

      (4) Regeneration precedes faith, including the OT elect. Who regenerates? From the NT, we learn that this is the work of the Spirit. It is legitimate to “read back” into the OT and say that the Spirit regenerates OT saints, yet Scripture speaks of it simply as the work of Yahweh and it is only in the unfolding of God’s plan that we can make proper distinctions among the work of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But given that the triune work is one (inseparable operations) with specific works terminating on the divine persons, what the NT teaches is in complete continuity with the OT, yet with greater epistemological clarity.

      Yes it was the Holy Spirit! There’s no question. The Spirit is, as we say in the Nicene Creed, “the Lord and giver of life.” He has always been. See the work of M. G. Kline of the Glory-Spirit in the Old Testament. He operated under the types and shadows but, in historic Christian theology, and certainly in Reformed theology, there is no doubt about who brought the elect to new life and to true faith: the same Holy Spirit who operates under the New Covenant.

      (5) Under the OT covenants, one could be in the covenant but not necessarily elect and regenerate;

      This is still true. You’re arguing a Baptist view here, which is fine but it’s not the historic Christian view and certainly not the Reformation view. It’s not the biblical view since it’s easy to note a number of people in the New Covenant, who were recognized as being members of the visible church, who were not regenerate.

      This is why the internal/external distinction (a corollary to the substance/accidents distinction) is so important.

      We say that all circumcised people were in the covenant of grace externally and all baptized persons are in the covenant of grace externally now but only those who believe are in the covenant of grace also internally. This is a fundamental difference between Reformed theology and all Baptist views.

      Why do you suppose Paul invokes “not all Israel is Israel” in the New Covenant? Why do you suppose he says what he does to the Corinthians (1 Cor 10:1-4) or Jude to his congregation? Because there were members of the visible covenant community who were not “Israel.” That’s why Paul demanded that the Corinthians exercise church discipline on the man guilty of sexual immorality. Were he not in the covenant community then how could he be disciplined and put out? He was externally in the covenant of grace.

      (6) Were the OT elect indwelt by the Spirit in the same way as new covenant believers? …

      (7) What about union with Christ? In KTC, …

      When push comes to shove, KTC is Baptist. Fine.

      5. PC’s Creation Covenant vs. CT’s Covenant of Works

      It seems to me that our positions on the other matters above are rather staked out clearly. This last issue is where I think it would be most fruitful to continue dialogue. As I said above, we want to maintain the proper law/gospel divide, and also think it is central for structuring biblical history and has important implications for Christology, Atonement, Imputation, etc. I think we agree on the larger issues, but we structure matters differently because of our different understanding of the role and progressive fulfillment of the biblical covenants.

      Do you mean by “law/gospel divide” what we mean by the law/gospel distinction? When the Reformation churches speak of the distinction between law and gospel theologically we’re speaking about types of speech in Scripture. The WCF does retain the Patristic & Medieval language of law and gospel for OT and NT but also affirms the Reformation distinction.

Comments are closed.