Category: Covenant Theology

Posted on

The God who relents and Federal Vision Theology

The topic of the “immutability” of God has gone through various adjustments and disputations in these last 20 years in the church. In the past, older commentators seemed to close their theological eyes to such difficult passages (God “repented,” “relented,” “changed His mind”) by relegating it to the category of “anthropomorphism.” When something is anthropomorphic, it means that the Bible stoops down to convey a clear message to humanity using human terms. By adopting this response, what interpreters are saying is: this can’t be God, because my decretal God could never think twice about changing His mind–He only has a plan A. However, what would you say if I told you God has a plan A,B,C, and sometimes even D? If you do not believe that is the case, think of how many times He could have destroyed us because of our miserable sins. I am here referring to the covenantal sense. It would be theologically dangerous to assert that God’s eternal plans can be changed or altered on the basis of human actions. But through the lenses of covenant, we see that God is willing to change His judgment (Nineveh , as an example) on the basis of covenant fidelity from His people. In His kindness, benevolence, He relented from doing so. In fact, relenting is part of His gracious character. If He were not a relenting God we would be doomed.

In Exodus 32:12, 14 and 1 Samuel 15:29 and Jonah 3:10, we find multiple examples of this reality. On the condition (see also Exodus 19) that God’s people maintained and kept themselves loyal to their covenant promises, God would give them a great Land–flowing with milk and honey. If they break the covenant promise, God would then punish them accordingly.

Exodus 32 is a marvelous example of this human imploring by Moses. God threatens, but then relents. In fact, this is a clear pattern throughout Scriptures. God threatens, so that,–as Greg Bahnsen would say–there would be ethical readjustments in people’s behavior. If God never threatened, there would be no change. It is through His threatening, that people renew their covenants with God and nations repent of their sins. This is why in times of great natural disasters in early American history, the presidents called for a day of repentance and humiliation.

This is where Federal Vision theology makes Reformed Theology plausible and Biblical. Our beloved Confession (and I mean it when I say this) focuses largely on God’s decretal plans; that is, from before the foundations of the world. The decretal plans of God are unalterable, unchangeable, and immutable. Am I clear? However, what the Confession does NOT place much emphases is on the Covenantal plans of God. By this I mean, the earthly, tangible, physical manifestation of God’s plans. When we speak of God as a personal God, we are referring to this covenantal relationship between God and His people. To make this even clearer: God’s decretal plans work harmoniously with His Covenantal plans. However, His covenantal plans are different than His decretal plan. For instance, through my repentance I can personally communicate my sins to God, without expecting that God is wholly other, but rather expecting that He is wholly near; knowing that He hears my repentance and acts based on my repentance (If you love me keep my commandments).

The secret things (decretal plans) belong to Him alone. It is not for us to speculate or assume; but everything else is revealed to us and our children. This is where we should concern ourselves: with our response to God and to others.

Federal Vision theology has restored this Biblical imperative. Let us petition to our God for He listens to us and acts accordingly to our responses and His holy character.

Posted on

Bullinger and covenantal status…

Many in the Southern Presbyterian[1] tradition deny that infants born in covenant homes are to be welcomed in the full life of the church.[2] In fact, some even assume that they are not to receive any covenant privileges until they have reached an age where articulation of one’s faith is possible. This position seems to be a prevalent reaction to the high sacramental theology of various traditions. Unfortunately, this has led to the denial of the God-granted role for covenant children in the church. Infants are heirs of the promise simply because God in His free grace displays His holy affections to the family. As Bullinger writes:

…we consider children of parents to be children and indeed heirs even though they, in their early years, do not know that they are either children or heirs of their parents.

Baptized infants are the proper recipients of grace and are commanded to live in light of his/her covenantal commitment. To live in light of his baptism entails a sacred commitment to piety and holy living. If one is enlightened (baptized) and deny the work of grace, he is then in the same condemnatory status as Judas. Bullinger captures this idea:

They are, however, disowned if, after they have reached the age of reason, they neglect the commands of their parents.

So then, it is not a trust in the sacrament, but a life lived in light of the sacrament that grants assurance. The Jews thought they were secure because of their birth into the covenant family, but they did not live in light of that status, and thus, suffered the curses. The covenant Lord has entered into covenant with all baptized children, and infants are to grow in that covenant; repenting and believing that God’s grace is sufficient.

 

[1] For an excellent analysis of Southern and Northern Presbyterianism and how they understood sacramental efficacy, see Lewis Schenck: The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant.

[2] In the case of Baptist ecclesiology, infants are not even worth y recipients of the covenantal sign of baptism. Hence, there is a legitimate distinction between Southern Presbyterians and Baptists. Though both affirm that children do not receive any saving grace until they make a profession, Paedobaptists apply the sign of the covenant in faith that God will keep His promise.

Posted on

Covenant Blessings and Curses in the Face of a Righteous King

In recent years my understanding of Covenant Theology has increased in various ways. Indeed, it was only four years ago when I would have mocked at such a thought of conditionality from God’s part. Nevertheless, my studies have led me to see God’s covenanatal dealings with man  in at least two simple ways: faithful and harmful. By faithful, I refer to God’s gracious offer of preservation to a line, which in many ways were not and continues to not be very faithful. And by harmful, I acknowledge that God’s patience, though longsuffering, is still limited. Covenant breakers and Covenant Keepers alike are cursed, and at the same time, both are blessed. In an ultimate sense, this process is totalized by God, and covenant breakers receive their eternal punishment and covenant keepers receive their eternal bliss.

So, in what sense is this background necessary? First, the priority given by God is that Covenant keepers be blessed in every respect. In fact, if God were to deny blessings to His faithful seed (line) He would be an unjust ruler. In a real sense, God as a King provides both nourishment and spiritual healing for His people. Secondly, God offers judgment to those who live under His rule, but betray His good provision. This is akin to the kind hospitality of a family towards a poor single in the youth group, only to find out later that he has robbed the family gold and has abandoned the city. In this sense, God has no other way of treating the infidel, but to pursue and punish him in the most severe fashion.

The modern concept of “God is love,” is replaced by the Scriptural language of God’s faithfulness and condemnation. God is faithful to His people to the extent of the faithfulness of the people to Him. To give an example of this concept (which can be very easily distorted), let me suggest that one is not kept in God’s covenant by earning or by achieving a human condition not attainable in this life (perfectionism), but rather he remains in the covenant by the daily sustenance of God. Here is where it is helpful to employ the language of temporary blessing and eternal blessing.

Covenant members are destined to either eternal or temporary blessings; the answer to this either/or question lies in the faithfulness of the member to accept or to reject the promise of daily spiritual provision.

In summary, covenant members are destined to all goods in their spiritual lives (Hebrews 6), but by rejecting God’s gracious provision they spit in the face of God. God, on the other hand, will not be mocked and applies the results of covenant breaking to the traitor. It is here where we realize that God’s commitment to His people as King is a faithful one. God will be mocked, but behold the mockery of God turns against the unworthy member in a destructive manner. Hence, God’s dealing with covenant breakers is harmful. God may be mocked temporarily, only so that the one who mocks may in the end see that the joke was on him.