This is a transcript, by the Rev. Bill Baldwin, of handwritten
notes prepared by Dr. Kline in the Spring Semester of 1993 for some of his
students at Westminster Theological Seminary in California. These notes were
not intended for publication, and Dr. Kline retains the copyright. Text enclosed
by [brackets] are original. Text in {braces} has been added
by Mr. Baldwin where necessary. For convenience Hodge's comments have
been reproduced immediately following.
I. Scripture records an historical process of redemptive
administrations in the form of a series of "covenants" - Abrahamic, etc.,
culminating in the "new covenant."
Scripture also points to a divine arrangement behind the
Messiah's advent and mission. For example: "I came down from heaven not to
do my will but the will of him that sent me" (John 6:38 - c.f. the elaboration
of the point in my Kingdom Prologue [1991], 86-88). This arrangement was
one of {the} commitments made by the Father and Son and thus divinely sanctioned,
commitments to fulfil tasks and to give rewards (as reflected in Jesus' claim:
"I have glorified you on earth; I have finished the work you gave me to do.
And now, Father, glorify me with yourself with the glory I had with you before
the world began" [John 17:5, 6]). Such a commitment transaction is precisely
what constitutes a "covenant" in biblical usage. To refuse (like Murray)
to call such an arrangement a "covenant" on the grounds that the Bible
(allegedly) doesn't happen to apply that label to it is methodologically
wrong-headed and totally arbitrary (c.f. my discussion of this in Kingdom
Prologue, 10-14 and 86). Moreover, Jesus (in Luke 22:29, 30) likens to one
another the intratrinitarian arrangement and his own administration of the
new covenant to his disciples, denoting both transactions by the verbal source
of diatheke. In fact, this text not only provides specific biblical warrant
for calling the intratrinitarian arrangement "covenant," but provides precedent
as well for distinguishing the two covenantal arrangements within the total
redemptive order.
II. There are several major differences between the two
covenantal arrangements (differences with respect to fundamental matters
like their parties and governing principles) which demand different labels
for the two (for present purposes: "eternal covenant" and "covenant of
grace").
1. In the covenant of grace (as clearly seen in its new
covenant administration) Christ is the Lord of the covenant who administers
it to the covenant servant-community. But in the eternal covenant Christ
is assigned the role of covenant servant whom the Father-Lord covenantally
commissions.
2. In the series of administrations of the Covenant of
grace the covenant is made by the Lord with those who confess the faith and
their children; the covenant membership includes others than the elect -
they are not all (elect) Israel who are of (covenant) Israel. But the eternal
covenant is made by the Father with the Son in his appointed status as second
Adam and thus (in keeping with the parallel between the federal headship
arrangements in the covenants with the two Adams) with those represented
by Christ as federal head, i.e., the elect, and them exclusively.
It may be observed here that although Hodge's construction
is supposed to be in the interest of bringing out the parallel between the
covenants with the two Adams, it actually obscures it by merging the eternal
covenant with an arrangement including some not represented by {the} 2nd
Adam.
3. In the covenant of grace the principle governing reception
of the kingdom blessing is grace. But in the eternal covenant it is works.
III. In his one-covenant construction. A. A. Hodge is obliged eventually to take account of the major differences between the eternal intratrinitarian arrangement and (what he calls) "the several modes of administration." But his effort to integrate these contrary features into his "eternal Covenant of Grace" is not successful. They are alien features there, awkward contradictions forcibly intruded where they do not fit. He succeeds only in making covenantal hash out of two distinct covenant dishes.
The Bible's own example indicates the wisdom of distinguishing
the two redemptive arrangements as two distinct covenants. For in the divine
wisdom the Scriptures distinguish as different covenants the Abrahamic, Mosaic,
and New covenants (changed by Hodge to "modes of administration") in spite
of their continuity and unity. The Scriptures do so because of certain
differences between them, even though these are relatively slight compared
to the fundamental differences we have noted between the eternal covenant
and the covenant of grace.
Through its failure to distinguish satisfactorily the
two very different arrangements in the redemptive order and the resultant
blurring together of contradictory elements, the one-covenant construction
of A. A. Hodge (and WCF/WLC) has at least these liabilities:
1. It leads to a definition of the covenant community
(church) in Baptistic terms as consisting of believers or the elect, contrary
to the Presbyterian doctrine that the church consists of those who profess
Christian faith and their children.
2. Arguably (as I suggested at the faculty forum), it has contributed by its formal fusing of the works and grace principles to the confusion of the two and even the repudiation of the works principle in the teachings of Fuller, Shepherd, et. al.
Even if the one-covenant construction actually possessed the advantage of better displaying the kind of interrelationship that exists between the eternal covenant and the covenant of grace, that advantage would be far more than offset by the disadvantages of its obscuring the significant differences that obtain between these two covenants and its liability for serious errors arising from such confusion.
Appendix: A. A. Hodge's Comments on WCF VII.4
(From The Confession of Faith, pp. 126-128)
"For the sake of simplicity, some Calvinist theologians
have set forth the divine method of human redemption as embraced in two
covenants. The first, styled the 'covenant of redemption,' formed in eternity
between the Father and Christ as principal, providing for the salvation of
the elect; the second, styled the 'covenant of grace,' wherein life is offered
to all men on the condition of faith, and secured to the elect through the
agency of Him who, as 'surety of the new covenant,' insures the fulfillment
of the condition in their case.
"Our Standards say nothing of two covenants. They do not
mention the covenant of redemption as distinct from the covenant of grace.
But evidently the several passages which treat of this subject (Conf. Faith,
ch. 7., s. 3; L. Cat., q. 31; S. Cat., q. 20) assume that there is but one
covenant, contracted by Christ in behalf of the elect with God in eternity,
and administered by him to the elect in the offers and ordinances of the
gospel and in the gracious influences of his Spirit. The Larger Catechism
in the place referred to teaches how the covenant of grace was contracted
with Christ for his people. The Confession of Faith in these sections teaches
how that same covenant is administered by Christ to his people.
"The doctrine of our Standards and of Scripture may be stated in the following propositions:
"1. At the basis of human redemption there is an eternal covenant or personal counsel between the Father, representing the entire Godhead, and the Son, who is to assume in the fullness of time a human element into his person, and to represent all his elect as their Mediator and Surety. The Scriptures make it very plain that the Father and the Son had a definite understanding (a) as to who were to be saved, (b) as to what Christ must do in order to save them, (c) as to how their personal salvation was to be accomplished, (d) as to all the blessings and advantages involved in their salvation, and (e) as to certain official rewards which were to accrue to the Mediator in consequence of his obedience ....
"4. Christ, as mediatorial King, administers to his people the benefits of his covenant; and by his providence, his Word, and his Spirit, he causes them to become severally recipients of these blessings, according to his will. These benefits he offers to all men in the gospel. He promises to grant them on the condition they are received. In the case of his own people, he works faith in them, and as their Surety engages for them and makes good all that is suspended upon or conveyed through their agency. In the whole sphere of our experience every Christian duty is a Christian grace; for we can fulfill the conditions of repentance and faith only as it is given to us by our Surety. All Christian graces also involve Christian duties. So that Christ at once purchases salvation for us, and applies salvation to us; commands us to do, and works in us to obey; offers us grace and eternal life on conditions, and gives us the conditions and the grace and the eternal life. What he gives us he expects us to exercise. What he demands of us he at once gives us. Viewed on God's side, faith and repentance are the gifts of the Son. Viewed on our side, they are duties and gracious experiences, the first symptoms of salvation begun -- instruments wherewith further grace may be attained. Viewed in connection with the covenant of grace, they are elements of the promise of the Father to the Son, conditioned upon his mediatorial work. Viewed in relation to salvation, they are indices of its commencement and conditions sine qua non of its completion."
© 2007 Meredith G. Kline