Michael Horton, in God of Promise<\/em>, provides what is surely the most recent and complete defense of a covenantal theology reading of the Bible. And chp 5 sketches the fullness of this approach to the Bible. He calls it \u201cFrom Scripture to System: The Heart of Covenant Theology.\u201d I have major doubts that this chp sketches a move from Scripture to system, thinking as I do that there\u2019s not enough Scripture to the System, but it is not my place here to engage in much evaluation. I\u2019ll leave that to next week. Question for the day: What do you think of this covenant theology approach to putting the Bible together? Michael Horton, in God of Promise, provides what is surely the most recent and complete defense of a covenantal theology reading of the Bible. And chp 5 sketches the fullness of this approach to the Bible. He calls it \u201cFrom Scripture to System: The Heart of Covenant Theology.\u201d I have major doubts that this chp […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":197,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[476],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1474","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-books"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nThis chp engages in debate with Reformed scholars over the meaning and validity of the three major covenants: covenant of redemption, covenant of creation (works), and covenant of grace.
\nCovenant of redemption<\/strong> is an intraTrinitarian, eternal covenant commitment: \u201cThe Father elects a people in the Son as their mediator to be brought to saving faith through the Spirit\u201d (78).
\nHorton contends this covenant is biblically justifiable through the very notion of election and by the notion John\u2019s Gospel says the Father gave to the Son a people. Some Reformed theologians disagree with Horton on whether this \u201ccovenant of redemption\u201d can be justifiably called a \u201ccovenant.\u201d
\nCovenant of creation (works)<\/strong> is fundamentally the Adamic condition of humans being summoned to do what God has said and this condition must be fulfilled in order to inherit eternal life. This covenant of creation remains, and was fulfilled in Christ\u2019s obedience, which is imputed to believers. So, that covenant of creation (works) abides as an eternally-necessary requirement before God. Humans cannot fulfill the law after the Fall.
\nHorton provides a battery of defenses, but it would require too much space on this blog to sum it all up. Inherent to this theory is a rather heavy emphasis on the typological function of Law and Sinaitic covenant.
\nCovenant of grace<\/strong> is based not on law but on promise. There are real partners (God and believers), real conditions (repentance and faith), but the meeting of these conditions is graciously given rather than performed. \u201cWhatever stipulations \u2026 God puts on his people, they will never \u2014 can never \u2014 be the basis of his judgment of their status before him\u201d (106-7).
\nHere\u2019s a big one: Jesus fulfilled the covenant of works and believers are incorporated into his obedience.
\nConclusion: if you don\u2019t distinguish covenant of works from covenant of grace you end up destroying \u201cby grace alone.\u201d
\nThe 6th chp, which I won\u2019t engage here since it is not concerned as much with how to read the Bible, is a defense of the Calvinistic two-kingdom approach to the relationship of Church and State. It comes in a chp about common grace: there is Church, there is non-Church, and there is Common Grace. The covenant with Noah is the prototype. (Don\u2019t know if readers know that Noah\u2019s aftermath is directly connected to creation, and is often seen as a kind of second creation covenant.)
\nHere\u2019s a question: What happens to this system if it demonstrated, from the Bible, that there is another condition in the so-called \u201ccovenant of grace\u201d? That is, in addition to repentance and faith, if one adds obedience \u2014 in the sense of perserverance (rather than simply preservation)? Does this ruin the distinction between covenant of creation (works) and covenant of grace?
\nAnd another: Why do both Jesus and Paul say we will be judged by our works? Does this judgment determine our status before God?<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"