Systematic Theology: In Catechism Form

 I just got this in the mail from Reformation Heritage Books (RHB): Essential Truths in the Heart of a Christian by Wilhlemus Schortinghuis.  (If you’re Dutch, that’s Nodige Waarheden in het Herte van een Christen)  Schortinghuis (the most Dutch Dutch name I’ve ever heard!) was a pastor in the Reformed churches of Holland in the early to mid 18th century.  He was at the tail end of what scholars call the ”Dutch Second Reformation” (Nadere Reformatie), which waned around the middle of the 18th century.  While it is true that Schortinguis wrote some very pietistic (in a negative sense) stuff, this book, Essential Truths, is quite in line with the orthodoxy of Reformed scholasticism before it.

Essential Truths is pretty much a very brief systematic theology in catechetical form, with proof-texts (citations, not the full verses) as part of the answers.  Below I’ve put a few examples of how this book is in line with Reformed orthodoxy (the examples also show the catechetical structure).

Part one talks about the knowledge of God.  ”In whom is the knowledge of God found fully, to a greater or lesser degree?”  A: “In God himself (1 Cor. 2:7), in Christ (Matt. 11:27), in the holy angels (Matt. 18.10), in the believer in heaven (2 Cor. 5.7), and on earth (2 Cor. 5.7).”  The scholastics talked about archetype and ectype (concerning knowledge); this is the catechetical brief way to talk about it.

Part 11 (after Creation, Providence, etc.) is about the Covenant of Works.  “What is the covenant of works?  The agreement of God with the righteous man in which God promised life and threatened death, with the stipulation of perfect obedience to his law.  If man met the stipulation, he would enjoy eternal life (Hos. 6:7; Job 31:33).”  Later, the question is asked: “Did man have the ability to fulfill these demands?  Yes, indeed; because he was created in God’s image (Gen. 1:31; Eccles. 7:29), he was perfectly good and completely upright.” 

Part 26 is Schortinghuis’ discussion of justification sola fide.  “How is a believing sinner justified?  Not because of the worth of his faith or because of his imperfect Christian obedience, but purely by grace, for the sake of Christ’s perfect atonement and intercession (Rom. 3:24-26), with faith only as an instrument (Rom. 5:1), and apart from the works of the law (Rom. 3:28).”  He also mentions that a believing sinner embraces by faith Christ’s righteousness, which is imputed to the sinner (Q/A 5). 

“Do not our good works contain some virtue that God nevertheless may want to reward?  No, because they do not answer the requirement of meritorious work, since eternal life is a gracious gift earned by Christ that God grants for his sake by grace (Rom. 4:4-5; Eph. 2:8-9).”

This has to do with the covenant of grace.  “What does God promise and demand in the covenant of grace?  He promises all the essential benefits here and especially for eternity.  He promises: ‘I shall be a God to you” (Jer. 31:33).  And he demands faith and conversion [repentance] (Acts 16:31; Ezek 33:11), both of which he promises to provide (Eph. 2:8, Ezek. 36:27).”  The conditions in the covenant of grace are met by God working in the heart of the elect.

While I’ll summarize them to keep the post brief, Schortinghuis also talks about other Reformed truths, including the regulative principle of worship (part 10, Q/A 4), the law as both a threatening command that shows sin and a “rule of thanksgiving” (part 10, Q/A 10), the visible/invisible church (part 39, Q/A 4), and the essence of saving faith as a receiving instrument which consists of knowledge, assent, and trust (part 24, Q/A 4, 6).

The catechism itself is only around 100 pages; it is not long and tedious.  In many ways it reflects the Heidelberg catechism only with a few more “application” type questions.  Or, to put it another way, it is sort of like a very brief summary of the other Wilhelmus’ (Wilhelmus a Brakel) systematic, The Christian’s Reasonable Service.  At the end of many sections, the question comes: “What does [the doctrine under observation] teach you personally?” 

In summary, while I hesitate to commend all of Schortinghuis’ works (most of them are in Dutch anyway), I do recommend this one as a great, clear, and concise snapshot of orthodox Dutch piety – practical Christian doctrine in Q/A format.  The translators, editor, and publisher deserves a hearty thanks!

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Calvin on Law and Gospel

In an outstanding section of Calvin’s commentary on 2 Corinthians 3.4-11, he makes a great Reformation distinction between the law and the gospel.  Here are a few ways he puts it.  [The context is, of course, the the old (Mosaic) covenant in comparison to the new covenant.  To keep things clear, Calvin is here specifically speaking of the Mosaic covenant (the "ministry of Moses" in his own terms), not the entire OT.]

“True indeed, the grace of God did not, during all that time, lie dormant, but it is enough that it was not a benefit that belonged to the law.  For Moses had discharged his office, when he had delivered to the people the doctrine of life, adding threatenings and promises.”

Comparing the law and the gospel, Calvin says, “it is truly and properly affirmed, that the nature of the law is to teach men literally, in such a way that it does not reach farther than the ear; and that, on the other hand, the nature of the gospel is to teach spiritually, because it is the instrument of Christ’s grace.”

The external (“written on stones”) aspect of the law “required to be corrected by the gospel, because it could not but be brittle, so long as it was merely engraven on tables of stone.  …From this too, it follows, that the law was the ministry of condemnation and of death; for when men are instructed as to their duty, and hear it declared, that all who do not render satisfaction to the justice of God are cursed, they are convicted, as under sentence of sin and death.  From the law, therefore, they derive nothing but a condemnation of this nature, because God there demands what is due to him, and at the same time confers no power to perform it.”

“The law…as it simply prescribes the rule of a good life, does not renew men’s hearts to the obedience of righteousness, and denounces everlasting death upon transgressors, can do nothing but condemn.  …The office of the law is to show us the disease, in such away as to show us, at the same time, no hope of cure.   …The law leaves man to himself, it condemns him, of necessity, to death.

“The gospel, on the other hand, by which men are regenerated, and are reconciled to God, through the free remission of their sins, is the ministry of righteousness, and, consequently, of life also.  …[The gospel is] reckoned the doctrine of life, because it is the instrument of regeneration, and offers to us a free reconciliation with God.  …The office of the gospel is to bring a remedy to those who were past hope.  …The gospel brings [a man killed by the law] to Christ [and] opens the gate of life” (all emphasis in original).

I also noticed that Matthew Poole made similar comments, and Luther sounded the same notes, of course, in a sermon on the same text.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Two Covenants of Galatians 4.24

The old-school Dutch Reformed divine, Johannes VanderKemp, was a solid defender of the good old Reformation truths – of course, this included justification by faith alone.  In a sermon on Romans 3.27-28, he explained the Catechism’s (Q/A 62-64) defense of justification.  For VanderKemp, along with many other Reformed and Presbyterian theologians of his day, justification had much to do with a proper understanding of the covenants: works and grace.  Here’s one paragraph:

“It appears very plainly, that by these two covenants he (Paul in Gal 4.24ff) understands, (a) the covenant of works, the sum of which, together with the covenant of grace (which was administered in a legal manner under the Old Testament) was proposed at mount Sinai, and often exhibited for the condemnation of sinners, and in order to urge them to the Messiah, who was to come; and therefore the Jews, the Jerusalem of Paul’s time, seeking their righteousness and the inheritance by this covenant, showed that they, being born after the flesh, of the servile covenant of works, were also servile with their children, since they, like Ishmael, mocked and persecuted them, who were born after the Spirit.  (b)  The second covenant, which Paul mentioneth, is the covenant of grace, which is established only in promises; and therefore all who believe, the Jerusalem that is above, the true church, being born like Isaac, after the Spirit, of this covenant, are free, and obtain the inheritance by promise” (vol 1, p. 433 of The Christian: Entirely the Property of Christ in Life and Death by Vanderkemp). 

Though the Reformed were not exactly in agreement with every point concerning the covenants and how they were “found” in the Mosaic administration, there was a general consensus on the definitions and affirmations of the covenants (works and grace). 

If you want more info on this, you’ll have to check out this one and this one, among others.  Also, we’ve posted on this before, so if you want more info, check our covenant tags, or justification tag, or do a search.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Horton on Evangelical Ecclesiologies

Earlier, I posted a blurb from Mike Horton on Volf and Grenz, specifically discussing Free-Church ecclesiology.  Volf had a penetrating critique which Horton draws upon and expands from the Reformation point of view in People and Place.  By way of reminder, Volf (himself within the Free Church tradition), criticized Free Church ecclesiology for giving into the spirit of the age – consumerism and personal choice.

Also by way of reminder, Grenz’s ana/baptistic congregational ecclesiology is summarized this way (in his own words): “The true church is essentially people standing in voluntary covenant with God.”  Grenz also writes, “Because the coming together of believers in mutual covenant constitutes the church, it is the covenant community of individuals.”  In other words, individuals form the church rather than vice versa (p. 177).

Here are a few of Horton’s repsonses.

“…The Reformed confessions defined the visible church as believers together with their children.  Yet even this violates the rule that is basic to congregational polity: a voluntary covenant, which not only entails the independence of local churches but also the independence of invidivuals within them until they mutually agree on the terms of that relationship” (p. 177).

Drawing on Bonhoeffer (“Only a community [Gemeinschaft], not a society [Gesellschaft], is able to carry children”), Horton writes:

“Infant baptism, therefore, is not incidental but essential for a covenant ecclesiology.  It is integral not only to the continuity of the covenant through Old and New Testaments, but also to a conception of the church as the place where faith is born and fed as well as the people who exhibit it.  The inclusion of believers’ children underscores the priority of God’s sovereign grace in ecclesiology as well as soteriology, challenging all voluntaristic and contractual interpretations that contribute to an individualistic faith and practice.  When construed in the context of a covenantal theology, the baptism of believers together with their children underscores 1) the priority of divine activity in creating the church (i.e., covenant over contract); 2) the ‘mixed’ character of the body of Christ at present, which subverts overrealized eschatologies; 3) the importance of personal faith as well as communal mediation in the nuture of faith and repentance” (p. 186).

I realize some of our readers may disagree; yet I think it is essential – as Horton notes – to see that and how the doctrine of salvation (soteriology) affects or carries through to our doctrine of the church (ecclesiology), and vice versa.  Both go together, of course, if there is consistency.  The Reformers worked hard to balance church as place (institution) and church as people (organism); covenant theology was the balancing biblical factor.  Of course this has to do with Arminianism and Calvinism as well, which I’ll leave you to ponder when it comes to soteriology, ecclesiology, and covenant theology.  Read Horton’s stuff again!

Quotes taken from People and Place (Louisville: WJK, 2008).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Covenant of Grace: Reformed and Baptist Explanations

Here is the essential difference between the Reformed and the Baptists when it comes to the covenant of grace (CoG).  I’m not trying to start a match between the two “sides,” but I simply want to put these two next to each other so the reader can see for him or herself.   Though I won’t comment on anything below, I do stand decidedly in the Reformed tradition (hence the name of this blog).

On the Baptist side is Samuel Waldron:

“The argument of the paedo-baptists from the Abrahamic Covenant is as follows.  1) Major premise: The Abrahamic covenant was made with believers and their seed.  2) Minor premise: The Abrahamic covenant was the covenant of grace.  3) Conclusion: The covenant of grace is made with believers and their seed.”

Waldron comments: “Both premises (1 & 2) are fallacious.  The major premise is faulty…let the paedo-baptists cite one verse which proves that the Abrahamic covenant was made with believers and their seed.  The minor premise is also wrong.  The Abrahamic covenant was a shadowy revelation of the CoG, but that is quite different than being in every sense the CoG.  Does the CoG promise us all as believers a literal land of Canaan?  Paedo-baptists say no!  But the Abrahamic covenant does promise such a Canaan! (Gen 17.8).  Thus the paedo-baptists themselves do not equate the Abrahamic covenant with the CoG.  They do not insist on a literal Canaan.  …The true seed of Abraham according to the NT is not believers and their seed, but Christ himself and all who are joined to him by faith (Gal 3.29).

Samuel Waldron, The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith: A Modern Exposition (Darlington: Evangelical Press, 1989), 356.

Now for the Reformed side, Herman Bavinck:

“We observe that in history the covenant (of grace) is never concluded with one discrete individual, but always with a man and his family or generation, with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Israel, and with the church and its seed.  The promise never concerns a single believer alone, but in him his house or family also.  God does not actualize his CoG by picking a few people out of humanity at random, and by gathering these together into some sort of assemblage alongside of the world.  Rather, he bears his covenant into mankind, makes it part and parcel of the world, and sees to it that in the world it is preserved from evil.  As the Redeemer or Re-creator, God follows the line which he drew as Creator, Sustainer, and Ruler of all things.”

“Grace is something other and higher than nature, but it nevertheless joins up with nature, does not destroy it but restores it rather.  Grace is not a legacy which is transferred by natural birth, but it does flow on in the river-bed which has been dug out in the natural relationships of the human race.  The covenant of grace does not ramble about at random, but perpetuates itself, historically and organically, in families, generations, nations.”

Herman Bavinck, Our Reasonable Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 227.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Mosaic Covenant: Works, Grace, What?

I finally got it: The Law is not of Faith (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2009).  If you’re in the Reformed/Presbyterian tradition (or someone who just wants a peek at our “covenant” tradition), you’ll want to grab this.  It is a level-headed historical, theological, and exegetical discussion of the Mosaic covenant.

In the introduction, the editors make the case (which subsequent chapters support) that most of the Reformed/Presbyterian orthodox theologians in the past have in some way viewed the Mosaic covenant as foundationally the covenant of grace, with the covenant of works simultaneously operative at some level.  They do not argue that there is one single orthodox view which they are trying to advocate, but basically there is a sort of umbrella of agreement under which the old divines/scholastics worked.

In the intro the editors also ask the reader to well consider the history and exegesis of this discussion, which will “serve to renew significant conversations that have not been taking place in recent years, toward the goal of seeing Reformed churches come mutually to a richer understanding of the Old Testament in God’s larger redemptive plan” (p. 20).

In order to keep this post short, I’ll comment on the excellent first chapter later, where J. Fesko shows Calvin and Witsius’ explanation of the Mosaic covenant – as a “spoiler,” there are essential similarities with a few different emphases.

shane lems

sunnyside, wa

Herman Bavinck: The Covenant of Grace

This is a great one liner that really summarizes Herman Bavinck’s description and definition of the covenant of grace in contrast with the covenant of works.  This could be called one of the overarching themes of Bavinck’s theology as a whole.

“The covenant of grace does not depend upon the obedience of human beings.”

Herman Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 269.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Exodus 2.23-25: Yahweh Heard, Saw, Knew, and Remembered

In the New Bible Commentary: Revised Edition (edited by D. Guthrie, A. Motyer, A. Stibbs, and D. Wiseman), Hywel Jones wrote the brief commentary on the book of Exodus.  It is one of the jewels in this one-volume commentary (other authors include D. Kidner, M. G. Kline, R. K. Harrison, F. F. Bruce, Joyce Baldwin, O.T. Allis, E. J. Young,  and so forth).

Jones has a great comment on Exodus 2.23-25:

“The clear teaching of this brief but important passage is that God hears His people’s cry and sees their need in tender compassion, but not as a helpless, saddened spectator.  He is one who in sovereign love and power acts on the need He sees and the cry He hears, because He has taken a covenant oath upon Himself in respect of these people.  God had begun to prepare a deliverer before His people had cried for deliverance, however, and with the death of Pharaoh the time arrived for the deliverer to return to Egypt.  Thus plainly is the Lord of history a God of grace, and the God of grace is the Lord of history” (p. 122).

I’m looking forward to reading the rest of the commentary as I make my way through the Hebrew text of Exodus.  Stay tuned!

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Westminster Divines and the Law/Gospel Distinction

Turns out the some early and strong adherents to the Westminster Standards were actually Lutherans!  Listen to this from The Practical Use of Saving Knowledge, Contained in Scripture, and holden forth briefly in the foresaid Confession of Faith and Catechisms (an appendix of the Free Presybterian Publication print of the Westminster Standards, reprinted in 2000):

“The chief general use of Christian doctrine is, to convince a man of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment…partly by the law or covenant of works, that he may be humbled and become penitent; and partly by the gospel or covenant of grace, that he may become an unfeigned believer in Jesus Christ.”

“The sum of the covenant of works, or the law, is this: ‘If thou do all that is commanded, and not fail in any point, thou shalt be saved: but if thou fail, thou shalt die.’”

“The sum of the gospel, or covenant of grace…is this: ‘If thou flee from deserved wrath to the true Redeemer Jesus Christ…thou shalt not perish, but have eternal life.’”

Note: Ursinus, in his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, used very similar language, stating that the “two parts of the doctrine of the church” (that is, the church’s doctrine) consist of “the law, and the gospel, in which we have comprehended the sum and substance of the sacred Scriptures” (p. 2).

While I’m at it, Olevian was exactly the same: see Q/A 10 of his Firm Foundation, where he asks and answers the question, “What is the difference between the law and the gospel?” (p. 9).

shane lems

sunnyside, wa

The Sinaitic/Mosaic Covenant: Works or Grace? Turretin Explains…

Turretin is most helpful in the sometimes violent discussion of whether the covenant God made with the Israelites on Sinai was simply the covenant of grace renewed, or simply the covenant of works republished, or something else (a third thing). Turretin first rejects the “third covenant” opinion, which the “celebrated man, John Cameron” (the Amyraldian) taught (II.262).

Turretin says clearly that the Mosaic covenant was “nothing else than a new economy of the covenant of grace. It was really the same with the covenant made with Abraham, but different as to accidents and circumstances” (II.263, cf. II.226-7).

Having said that, Turretin explains the works principle that was active in the Sinaitic covenant by explaining that the covenant of grace here at Sinai was “clothed as to external dispensation with the form of a covenant of works through the harsh promulgation of the law; not indeed with that design, so that a covenant of works might again be demanded with the sinner [for this was impossible], but that a daily recollection and reproaching of the violated covenant of works might be made; thus the Israelites felt their sin and the curse of God besides hanging over them and acknowledged the impossibility of a legal righteousness…” (II.263). The works principle – the covenant of grace clothed with the covenant of works – was to drive the people away from themselves to the righteousness of God and redemption that he is the author of.

“Hence in it (the Sinaitic Covenant) there was a mixture of the law and the gospel” (Ibid.). The covenant of grace was “under” the “rigid legal economy,” and over it (or “clothing it” as Turretin noted above) was a “new promulgation of the law and of the covenant of works” (II.227).

In summary, the promise of God in the covenant of grace was the foundational, internal, and fundamental aspect of the Sinaitic covenant. The rigid legal part of the Sinaitic covenant was external and accidental – not the foundational basis of the covenant. The external was to drive the people to the internal – the ceremonies were to point the people to the promise, the law was to drive the people to the gospel.

Some Reformed teachers emphasize the gracious aspect of the Sinaitic covenant; others emphasize the works aspect of this covenant. As long as we affirm what Turretin (and other orthodox like him) said and acknowledge both grace and works here, we will steer clear of several serious errors.

Above quotes taken from Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology(Philipsburg: P&R, 1994).

shane lems

sunnyside wa