Our final paper was by Michael Horton (Westminster West) in which he proposed the idea of two sorts of covenant in Scripture - the royal or unconditional grant and the more contractual sort. Using, surprisingly, Jewish and Roman writers (including the present Pope!) he explores this approach which looks to be a useful hermeneutical tool.
In introducing the paper, the danger of looking for a distinctively Reformed theology of everything was highlighted. If we do that we will miss contributions from elsewhere eg the threefold use in Aquinas, covenant ideas and the third use of law in Melanchthon. Calvin was not innovative but more nuanced than Luther (Melanchthon was too). Luther begins by following Aquinas and thinking in OT/NT terms but with Melanchthon's help he comes to his law/gospel thinking. It is important to see that in Calvin both continuity and discontinuity exist. For Calvin, in redemptive historical terms law and gospel are opposites. As for being a principle of life, here he synthesises.
Calvin was still a child of Christendom and so instinctively he upheld the principle of general equity. On usury – Luther preached against it from Exodus but Calvin did not and calls for love to one's neighbour. He actually says these laws are obsolete.
The irony is that just when so many non-reformed are recognising two types of covenant we Reformed are fudging it.
The paper goes to RC and Jewish writers who see covenant of works/grace distinction. John Levenson notes that today's Judaism is not the same as in Second Temple Judaism. He makes clear unconditional grant and contractual yet says the always louder Sinai absorbs Zion thinking.
David Novak on ethics, emphasises the idea of conscience – a covenantal connection. Jews must keep the law but Gentiles have responsibilities too.
How interesting that Horton finds so much in Jewish and RC writers. The Abrahamic and Sinaitic difference is accepted by Ratzinger.
Questions for clarification
The idea of one covenant of grace with different administrations is common and fits here. Think of an over arching Abrahamic covenant with the Mosaic as a subordinate and temporary covenant of works not separate from the administration and fulfilled in Christ. The blood splashed on the people signifying their taking responsibility not as a sign of a redemptive covenant. The national covenant is conditional but there are unconditional promises too. Hodge though he says the Mosaic covenant was gracious adds that there is a works element.
Another question was whether Horton would preach on the Decalogue and the importance of the preface anchoring it in grace. In what way is the law not conditional eg Sabbath? Bavinck says that the Covenant of grace is unconditional in basis but not in operation.
Horton explained that he no longer takes the "Calvin Kline" (!) view on the Sabbath as published in his book on the Ten Commandments.
Is the Law an expression of God's character? Not of his necessary character but of his activity.
Just as we were about to leave the subject of angels was raised and how God deals with them.
The irony is that just when so many non-reformed are recognising two types of covenant we Reformed are fudging it.
The paper goes to RC and Jewish writers who see covenant of works/grace distinction. John Levenson notes that today's Judaism is not the same as in Second Temple Judaism. He makes clear unconditional grant and contractual yet says the always louder Sinai absorbs Zion thinking.
David Novak on ethics, emphasises the idea of conscience – a covenantal connection. Jews must keep the law but Gentiles have responsibilities too.
How interesting that Horton finds so much in Jewish and RC writers. The Abrahamic and Sinaitic difference is accepted by Ratzinger.
Questions for clarification
Genesis 15 and 17 look conditional. It looks as though circumcision is a condition. But the point is that the giving of the covenant does not depend on doing something – unlike the “If you do this I will do this” type. Circumcision is a partial cutting off, not a whole cutting off (as in the cross).
Novak says that Gentiles are under the Noahic (Noahide) Covenant (which doesn't include the law's first table). It equals natural law.The idea of one covenant of grace with different administrations is common and fits here. Think of an over arching Abrahamic covenant with the Mosaic as a subordinate and temporary covenant of works not separate from the administration and fulfilled in Christ. The blood splashed on the people signifying their taking responsibility not as a sign of a redemptive covenant. The national covenant is conditional but there are unconditional promises too. Hodge though he says the Mosaic covenant was gracious adds that there is a works element.
Another question was whether Horton would preach on the Decalogue and the importance of the preface anchoring it in grace. In what way is the law not conditional eg Sabbath? Bavinck says that the Covenant of grace is unconditional in basis but not in operation.
Horton explained that he no longer takes the "Calvin Kline" (!) view on the Sabbath as published in his book on the Ten Commandments.
Is the Law an expression of God's character? Not of his necessary character but of his activity.
Just as we were about to leave the subject of angels was raised and how God deals with them.
No comments:
Post a Comment