|
|
The Covenant of Works:
A Litmus Test for Reformed Theology?
There are Reformed writers today who virtually insist that the Covenant
of Works should be a litmus test doctrine. It is implied that those who
deny it repudiate what is essential to the Reformed faith and its confession
of God's saving grace. In particular, it is suggested that the Covenant
of Works is indispensable to a genuinely Reformed view of justification
by faith.[1] This is simply wrong.
First, though the doctrine of the Covenant of Works is included in the
Westminster Standards, it is not even mentioned in any of the other Reformed
Confessions. This is not to say or imply that only the Presbyterians believed
in a Covenant of Works. On the contrary, the doctrine of a Covenant of
Works became standard reformed theology in the 17th century. In the 16th
century, however, it was not included in the Thirty Nine Articles — originally
a Calvinistic and Reformed statement of faith — the Heidelberg Catechism
or the Belgic Confession. The early 17th century Reformed statement, The
Canons of the Synod of Dort, in rejecting Arminian theology and defining
a Reformed doctrine of salvation makes no mention of a Covenant of Works,
though it was no doubt widely believed. Concerning these and other Reformed
creeds, John Murray wrote the following.
Towards the end of the 16th century the administration dispensed
to Adam in Eden, focused in the prohibition to eat of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, had come to be interpreted as a covenant,
frequently called the Covenant of Works, sometimes a covenant of life,
or the Legal Covenant. It is, however, significant that the early covenant
theologians did not construe this Adamic administration as a covenant,
far less as a covenant of works. Reformed creeds of the 16th century such
as the French Confession (1559), the Scottish Confession (1560), the Belgic
Confession (1561), the Thirty-Nine Articles (1562), the Heidelberg Catechism
(1563), and the Second Helvetic (1566) do not exhibit any such construction
of the Edenic institution. After the pattern of the theological thought
prevailing at the time of their preparation, the term 'covenant,' insofar
as it pertained to God's relations with men, was interpreted as designating
the relation constituted by redemptive provisions and as belonging, therefore,
to the sphere of saving grace.[2]
Why the doctrine of the Covenant of Works did not attain confessional
status is an interesting historical question. But the fact that it did
not is an indisputable truth. That being the case, it is either ignorant
or perverse to raise the doctrine of the Covenant of Works to the status
of a litmus test in our day. Denial of the Covenant of Works is not
tantamount to a denial of Reformed theology.
Second, just as the doctrine of the Covenant of Works is not indispensable
to the Reformed Confessions and Catechisms, so also it has not been considered
indispensable by all Reformed theologians. The United Reformed Churches
of North America published an unofficial statement of the view of the
covenant "generally held in the United Reformed Churches." Concerning
the Covenant of Works, the statement reads:
Frequently the Reformed churches have used the wording "the
covenant of works" as applying before man's fall into sin, and "the covenant
of grace" referring to God's gracious and just deeds and promises after
and in response to the fall. This bi-focused view of God's relationship
with His creature man is questionable. The use of the former in particular
has limitations as to its usefulness, since the Bible does not suggest
nor employ the wording. We believe that the simple designation "God's
covenant" is preferable.[3]
Thus, Reformed churches following the continental Reformed confessions
rather openly dismiss the doctrine of the Covenant of Works. Again, this
is not to say that no theologians or ministers among the Dutch Reformed
believe in a Covenant of Works. Many do. Some of them with all the enthusiasm
of the Westminster Presbyterians. That does not, however, change the fact
that among the continental Reformed churches, the doctrine of a Covenant
of Works is not considered essential to Reformed orthodoxy.
One of the most famous Dutch Reformed theologians of the 20th century,
G. C. Berkouwer, cautioned his readers about misconstruing the doctrine
of a Covenant of Works. Almost prophetically, he rejected an approach
to the Covenant of Works nearly identical to the one later to be set forth
by Meredith Kline as the touchstone of Reformed orthodoxy.
Can we speak of a prelapsarian state in which there was a "law"? Was
there a "nomological" existence of man apart from and even prior to
the distinction of the law and the Gospel? If there was, can we search
there, perhaps, for the fundamental structure of what it means to be
a "man"? R. Schippers, in weighing all of these question, has affirmed
that there was a law in man's "prolapsarian state," and that that law
was there apart from the Gospel. At the same time, we no longer may
speak of this law in abstraction. Schipper's statement has reference
to the creation of God which must certainly be distinguished from man's
guilt and fallenness and therefore from the Gospel of God's grace which
saves.
It stands to reason that we may not draw conclusions concerning the
relation of the law and the Gospel or build a case for the "priority"
of the law on such a basis as this. Man's original life under God's
rule cannot be regarded, for even a moment, apart from God's love and
communion. Within that communion man was subjected to God's holy and
good command; furthermore, because of that communion the commandment
was never an impersonal or statutory rule. God's commandment expresses
his lordship over life. Therefore, any discussion of the usus
legis, in its various dimensions, is only conceivable in terms of
this absolute goodness of God's commandment for creaturely man. The
fact that this accent was sounded so frequently in Reformation and post-Reformation
times is no evidence of the darkening of the Gospel, and is no recognition
of a "legal order" above or before the "order of grace." What we see
in this accent is only the enigmatic nature of guilt in the face
of God's loving communion or the goodness of his rule.
Because of that fact we can never construe an antithesis between the
covenants of "works" and "grace." We err if we interpret this distinction
as though God's original covenant had to do with our work or
our achievement or our fulfillment of his law, while the
later covenant of grace has reference to the pure gift of his mercy
apart from all our works. If we assume this we are compelled
to say that God's original relation to man was strictly "legal," or
that the structure of that relation was determined by man's merit. In
that case, we lose sight of the fact that man's obedience to God's command
can never be different from a thankful response to God's own fellowship.
Therefore S. G. DeGraaf has rightly said that the concept which sees
God's favor only at the end of man's way of obedience is open
to serious dispute. Man participates in God's favor, communion, and
love already at the very beginning. In that fact we see the awful
reality of his guilt and apostasy.[4]
Though Berkouwer does not himself reject the language of the Covenant
of Works, he questions its usefulness.[5] Berkouwer's testimony may be
considered suspect by some because of the influence of Karl Barth on his
thinking, but there is nothing in the quotation above to justify dismissing
his views out of hand, nor will there be many who would wish to deny that
he is a Reformed theologian, however inadequate his views on certain issues.
More respected among conservative Reformed people, though less well-known,
is the theologian mentioned in the quotation above, S. G. DeGraaf, who
altogether repudiated the notion of a Covenant of Works because he believed
it created more problems than it could solve.[6] If Berkouwer is less
than thoroughly Reformed in the eyes of some, the same cannot be said
of DeGraaf. His eminence as a Reformed theologian is only reduced by the
fact that so much of what he wrote is only available in Dutch.
The most famous example of a Reformed theologian denying the covenant
of works is that of John Murray. Here we have a theologian whose credentials
as a guardian of Reformed orthodoxy are unquestioned. Also, in distinction
from the groups and men mentioned above, John Murray was a Presbyterian,
holding to the Westminster Confession of Faith. He did not consider taking
exception to the doctrine of a Covenant of Works a denial of theology
of the Westminster Confession, though in general his approach to the Confession
is strict.
Rather than extending the list of Reformed theologians who deny or question
a Covenant of Works or getting into the subject of interpreting the Covenant
of Works — for even among those who regard the doctrine as important,
the interpretation of the Covenant of Works varies significantly[7] —
suffice it to say that we can only insist that the doctrine of the Covenant
of Works function as a test of Reformed orthodoxy if we are willing to
create a new standard, one which adds not only to the Three Forms of
Unity a doctrine which they do not profess, but which also condemns
Reformed denominations and theologians who have hitherto been respected
leaders. Is this really what we want to do? Rather than protecting Reformed
orthodoxy, would we not, rather, be establishing a Reformed fundamentalism?
One final point, those who imply that the doctrine of justification by
faith stands or falls with the Covenant of Works have proved too much.
Conservative Lutheran churches, following Luther himself, clearly confess
the doctrine of justification by faith. But neither Luther nor his followers
ever connected the doctrine of justification by faith with the notion
of a Covenant of Works. Moreover, the Lutheran doctrine of the law and
the Gospel is not exactly parallel to the Reformed doctrine of the Covenant
of Works and the Covenant of Grace. Beyond the Lutherans, Evangelical
Protestants in various denominations confess the doctrine of justification
by faith without holding to a doctrine of the Covenant of Works. Do we
really want to maintain or imply that Lutherans, and Evangelical Christians,
in addition to covenant theologians like John Murray, all implicitly deny
or fundamentally compromise the doctrine of justification by faith?
Conclusion
The doctrine of the Covenant of Works is controversial among Reformed
theologians and thinkers. The debate should go on and participants can
be expected to be enthusiastically committed to their views. This is a
sign of health. At some point, by the grace of God, debate should bring
consensus. The idea of an endless debate is a denial of the possibility
of progress in theology beyond the Reformation. But a consensus has certainly
not been reached yet. What we need now is serious discussion among Reformed
pastors and teachers, seeking to come to a better understanding of the
Scriptures.
In the same way that no single eschatological position has yet come to
be recognized as the Reformed position and gained virtual confessional
status, the doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed theology has been open
to various interpretations. There is no one doctrine of the Covenant that
can lay claim to a position of authority. Until Reformed churches do attain
a united confession in this area, it does not promote the Reformed faith
to cast aspersion on those who disagree with us, denying their right to
be regarded as Reformed or implying that they are undermining the Reformed
faith. The Westminster Standards do not have "papal" status among the
Reformed creeds, nor do Reformed Christians regard the Reformed creeds
as the ultimate criterion for truth in theology. If we believe in Sola
Scriptura, we need to practice it, while working together in love
to promote the growth of the Truth of Christ and His Gospel.
|
 |
