Category Archives: Reading Notes

Believer’s Baptism, Chapter 4: Baptism and the Relationship Between the Covenants

The fourth chapter, by Stephen J. Wellum, is by far the best of the book when it comes to engaging the paedobaptist position in a fair and compelling way. He openly engages the deeper theological issues that were lurking under the surface in the first three chapters, and demonstrates a careful and nuanced understanding of the Reformed position. I want to be very clear, especially since I was so dissatisfied with the first three chapters: I simply could not be happier with Wellum’s contribution.

I won’t summarize most of the Reformed arguments, since I’ve already presented their substance – which Wellum fairly summarizes – in my previous three posts. Wellum argues what Schreiner asserts, that in the new covenant, the church is not a mixed community, but is made up of only truly regenerate believers. In my opinion, Wellum’s line of argument effectively boils the debate down to this point, that the fundamental Reformed error is affirming too much continuity between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church on this score.

I’ve already presented the main Reformed response: that the New Testament clearly indicates that the church is a mixed community by way of all of its warning passages, especially in Romans, Hebrews, and Revelation. This is a compelling case for continuity with Old Testament Israel, especially since the New Testament writers echo the language of covenant warning found in Deuteronomy. And so it is telling that Wellum simply does not engage this argument. He summarizes it, acknowledges that it is the strongest response to the baptist position, and then dismisses it with so much hand-waving as assuming what needs to be proven – continuity among the covenants. But he seems to miss the structure of the argument. The Reformed argument is that the warning passages in the New Testament are, prima facie, evidence for continuity, a fundamental continuity that places the burden of proof on the Baptist side. This does not assume continuity; it is, rather, a basic argument for it.

God’s ways were clearly revealed for Abraham and Israel: believers and their children are recipients of his covenant grace. Wellum clearly and robustly affirms a basic structure of continuity of the church with Abraham and Israel. And so the question stands: where does the New Testament say that children are no longer included in the covenant?

This will conclude my review of the book. The subsequent chapters are largely intramural discussions, and add little to the debate. I am grateful for the work of all of the contributors, especially that of Stephen Wellum. Though I was disappointed with some of the earlier chapters, I highly recommend the book as a fair and nuanced engagement with a difficult issue.

Calvin on “Degrees of Election”

“God has attested this [that is, predestination or election] not only in individual persons but has given us an example of it in the whole offspring of Abraham, to make it clear that in his choice rests the future condition of each nation.”

“We must now add a second, more limited degree of election, or one in which God’s more special grace was evident, that is, when from the same race of Abraham God rejected some but showed that he kept others among his sons by cherishing them in the church.”

“By their own defect and guilt, I admit, Ishmael, Esau, and the like were cut off from adoption. For the condition had been laid down that they should faithfully keep God’s covenant, which they faithlessly violated.”

“…still his free election has been only half explained until we come to individual persons, to whom God not only offers salvation but so assigns it that the certainty of its effect is not in suspense or doubt.”

“Therefore Paul skillfully argues from the passage of Malachi that I have just cited that where God has made a covenant of eternal life and calls any people to himself, a special mode of election is employed for a part of them, so that he does not with indiscriminate grace effectually elect all.”

“It is easy to explain why general election of a people is not always firm and effectual: to those with whom God makes a covenant, he does not at once give the spirit of regeneration that would enable them to persevere in the covenant to the very end.”

From Institutes, III.xxi.5-7

Lessons from Berkouwer on Barth

I recently finished reading G. C. Berkouwer’s The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth, a critique of Barth’s theology published in 1956 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Berkouwer presents a thorough summary of the distinctives of Barth’s theology, arranged around the theme of “the triumph of grace.” He then critiques it at most of its main points, especially Barth’s views of the universal triumph of grace and his revision of what is meant by “eternal life.” I don’t have much of a basis on which to critique Berkouwer’s critique, having studied Barth for myself only in small doses. It does seem that Berkouwer is critical of Barth on all of the main points that would be expected of a confessional Reformed theologian, though I can’t comment on what Berkouwer may not be saying that he should be saying.

My point in writing this is not to comment on the substance of Berkouwer’s critique. Rather, I wish to make a few comments on his method. I was struck by the charity and carefulness of Berkouwer’s work, and was convinced that there are several lessons to be learned from his method, lessons that remain important for theological polemics today. With the rise of internet publishing and blogging, we need a renewed commitment to honoring the 9th commandment – “you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” – in how we conduct doctrinal debate. In my estimation, Berkouwer evidences a serious concern for truth and charity in his critique, and he does so in several ways.

The following examples are given roughly in the order in which I encountered them in the second half of Berkouwer’s book. Some are more obvious than others, but all are important for theological debate today. Together, they represent a balanced picture of how we should summarize and critique those with whom we disagree.

  • Berkouwer is careful not to attribute to Barth what he considers the implications of his views (233). It is very easy, when someone holds to A, and when you are convinced that A leads to B, to then attribute to that someone position B. While it is perfectly acceptable to raise the danger of B, it is important to carefully distinguish someone’s actual views from the implications of those views. You might think “how can he or she hold A without also holding B?” You might even have a very strong case for the necessity of A leading to B. But none of that is the same as your opponent actually affirming B, and that difference needs to be clearly affirmed. Berkouwer does this well and consistently.
  • When Berkouwer responds to Barth, he does so with an eye toward the contribution of historical theology, but always on the basis of the exegesis of Scripture (228, 237, 238). Barth’s divergence from the historic confession of the church sets off the warning bells – and appropriately so. But it can be tempting, and all too easy, to let that be enough. Berkouwer is careful to go further, to demonstrate why the historic confession of the church is Scriptural, and why Barth’s view runs afoul of that Scriptural confession. He boldly makes much of “the Church’s confession” as having genuine authority, all the while directing our attention to the Scriptures as the final court of appeal (337).
  • Berkouwer is careful to understand Barth’s language in terms of his own system of thought. Barth uses terms creatively, and a fair critique must take that into account. It is very easy to assume that an author is using terms in a certain way, and then to critique his arguments on that basis. But Berkouwer demonstrates a careful and charitable concern for understanding Barth’s language on his own terms before proceeding to critique.
  • To that end, Berkouwer goes to great lengths (indeed, entire chapters) to summarize Barth’s views thoroughly and carefully. He is clearly concerned to do so in such a way that Barth would readily recognize his own views in Berkouwer’s summary. He explicitly warns of the danger of acting on the basis of a straw man argument: “one can summarily reject Barth, but there will be no real opposition in the argument for the simple reason that those who thereupon proceed to read Barth himself will not be able to recognize the relevancy of the criticism presented” (385).
  • One of the most striking expressions of Berkouwer’s fairness is his willingness to defend Barth from what he perceives as unfair criticism. It is a common phenomenon in theological polemics for writers to assume that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” But if our concern is for the truth and for the good name of our neighbor, then this principle is deadly. We must not support someone simply because his arguments happen to be aimed at our own opponent. We must be concerned with fairness, and we must carefully distinguish between those criticisms that are fair, and those that are not. Berkouwer does this admirably (247, 250).
  • When Berkouwer is aware of what Barth’s response to a line of critique would likely be, he is careful to represent that response in its most persuasive form and to engage it in terms of its strengths (268). He represents Barth’s arguments in their most balanced and nuanced form, while continually pressing the question: are they biblical? (328-9)
  • Berkouwer repeatedly warns of an imbalanced over-reaction to Barth’s views. The opposite of an error is often itself an error, with the proper solution being a biblical balance (348-9). In the midst of polemical engagement, it is easy to assume that the solution is to get as far away from one’s opponent as possible. Berkouwer is more careful and nuanced.

All of this is expressed explicitly in the appendix, “The Problem of Interpretation,” in which Berkouwer interacts with what he considers to be unfair criticism of Barth. Quotes from the appendix are available here.

Again, I note all of this without intending to comment on the substance of Berkouwer’s critique. It is entirely possible that Berkouwer is being far too charitable, or that he is completely missing the point to Barth’s arguments. I simply don’t have a sufficiently well-informed opinion here. Instead, my point is to commend the form of Berkouwer’s critique as being worthy of imitation in today’s theological discussions.

Covenant and Biblical Theology

These are the books I most often recommend on biblical theology, the covenant of grace, and the Christ-centered unity of Scripture:

  • S. G. DeGraaf, Promise and Deliverance (4 Vols.)
  • Michael W. Goheen and Craig G. Bartholomew, The Drama of Scripture: Finding Our Place in the Biblical Story
  • Graeme Goldsworthy, According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible
  • John Murray, The Covenant of Grace: A Biblical-Theological Study
  • O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants
  • C. van der Waal, The Covenantal Gospel
  • Michael Williams, Far as the Curse is Found: The Covenant Story of Redemption
  • Christopher Wright, Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament

Berkouwer on Van Til on Barth

Here are a few quotes from the appendix to G. C. Berkouwer’s The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), entitled “The Problem of Interpretation.” The Dutch edition of Berkouwer’s book contained several footnotes interacting with C. Van Til’s criticism of Barth in The New Modernism. Those footnotes were removed in the English edition, but their essential substance was included as an appendix. In it, Berkouwer expresses his disagreement with Van Til’s criticism of Barth, though he himself is deeply critical of Barth’s theology throughout the book. The remaining quotes are from Berkouwer:

“It is my idea that the criticism of Barth’s theology and the objections to it can have importance in the responsible discussion of our time only if they are based upon a legitimate and warranted analysis of his work. If that is not altogether the case, one can summarily reject Barth, but there will be no real opposition in the argument for the simple reason that those who thereupon proceed to read Barth himself will not be able to recognize the relevancy of the criticism presented” (384-385).

“Such a rejection [of Van Til’s criticism], consequently, does not in the least imply an acceptance of Barth’s theology, but constitutes only a criticism of an unsound analysis which draws conclusions which Barth himself draws least of all, conclusions, in fact, which he himself has more than once and at great length opposed” (386, emphasis Berkouwer’s).

“I criticize Barth also, and in this very book, but Van Til’s analysis does not correspond to the deepest intents of Barth’s theology. Hence it does not surprise me that Barth says in amazement that he cannot recognize himself at all in The New Modernism” (388, emphasis Berkouwer’s).

“As I see it, the deepest ground of this unwarranted interpretation consists of this: that only particular parts of Barth’s theology come into consideration – a factor which makes for great onesidedness – and that the whole of Barth’s theology is not discussed in terms of all his writings” (388).

“More than once Van Til, also again in his last brochure, has in his opposition to Barth drawn a picture of orthodoxy in which I cannot recognize the features of the real Reformed orthodoxy (390).

“But that makes it all the more necessary to see clearly just where we ought to conduct the fight, on which front, and with which weapons” (392).

Far as the Curse is Found, Chapter 14: The Eschaton

“Man is not saved in abstraction from creation, but in the midst of a creation that looks forward to redemption. Indeed, our renewal is tied to the eschatological renewal of the creation. We cannot separate our present spiritual regeneration from cosmic regeneration because our present restoration to life is the first stage in the eschatological restoration of all creation to its proper vitality and relationship to God” (276).

“God’s judgment in the flood did not annihilate the creation, nor did God create an alternative universe. Noah’s world was destroyed insofar as it was cleansed and purified of its corruption. God’s creation survived the flood as a purified world, redeemed from the corruption that pervaded it. In like manner, we should envision the eschatological fire of 2 Peter 3 not as demolishing the current creation, but as the refiner’s fire burning up the dross so that the purity of God’s original creation can once again be revealed” (280).

“Anthony Hoekema writes: ‘It is we who shall be raised, and it is we who shall always be with the Lord. Those raised with Christ will not be a totally new set of human beings but the people of God who have lived on the earth. By way of analogy, we would expect that the new earth will not be totally different from the present earth but will be the present earth wondrously renewed’” (288).

“And Scripture speaks its word about the intermediate state, as Hoekema points out, in hints, whispers, and murmurs. But the key to the intermediate state–however that reality is envisioned–is that it is intermediate. The heavenly existence of the dead is temporary, for it is one that awaits the resurrection of the body and the restoration of creation. When the intermediate state is seen as ultimate, however, the resurrection fails to exercise its intended function” (294).

“This earth is not our home until Jesus comes, brings heaven with him, and makes all things new” (302).

Far as the Curse is Found, Chapter 13: The Church

Williams uses the theme of covenant to organize his survey of the Bible, but he acknowledges that other themes might helpfully be used as well, especially the theme of the kingdom. “S. G. De Graaf begins his four-volume work Promise and Deliverance with Yahweh’s kingship: In the beginning God created the kingdom of God. In Genesis 1, ‘we are not just told that God created all things. What is revealed first and foremost is the Kingdom of God’” (242).

“This time between the first and second comings of Christ, this time between the inauguration of the kingdom and its eschatological consummation, is typified by Christ’s calling men and women into a new community, a new people of God, a people who will bear the name of Christ” (247).

“The believing remnant of the old Israel, along with believing Gentiles, constitutes a new Israel, the church. … Thus the church does not replace Israel, nor is it simply identical to Israel. … Israel must be redefined in Christ; and the church is that redefinition” (251-252).

“The church is the redemptive-historical fulfillment of what Israel was called to be — a witness to the nations — and of what it could not yet be — an eschatological community incorporated in Jesus the Messiah” (253).

“The goal of the church’s mission is the realization of the kingdom, to bring the rule of God to man. Too often, especially in the twentieth century, we have truncated this mission by restricting it to verbal proclamation of the gospel and the salvation of souls. …  As Israel expands under the new covenant to include people from every tribe and nation, so the land also expands to embrace the entire earthly creation” (256-257).

“The kingdom is nothing less than the rule of God. The church is the people of God called to live out and proclaim the kingdom. A proper understanding of the church places it within the context of the kingdom because God’s reign extends over more than simply the church. The kingdom of God has the whole creation in view and ultimately will lay claim to all things” (265).

“The church’s vision and purpose is constituted by its future hope. It pioneers in the present the principles that characterize the future reign of God. The church offers a foretaste of the eschatological reality, points toward the kingdom” (269).

Far as the Curse is Found, Chapter 12: Jesus

Williams begins Chapter 12 with a discussion of the question of what is new about the new covenant, carefully balancing the themes of continuity and discontinuity, making much of Jesus’ rootedness in the Old Testament.

This sequence of quotes is taken from pp. 210 – 219: ”In truth, we find continuity and discontinuity, and it is important to mark the nature of each. … The internalization of he law — a religion that comes from the heart — had always been the goal of the covenant. … While the covenant most certainly includes legal and obligatory aspects, the obligatory always serves the relational. … Thus, Scripture displays a substantial element of continuity between Sinai and the promise of the new covenant. … What is new is that God is going to address the issue of Israel’s inability to keep the covenant. He will cure the disease of sin. … A careful understanding of the relationship of the new covenant to the old enhances our appreciation of the faith of the Old Testament believers. … The old covenant believer experienced the same union and communion with God that the new covenant saint does.”

“Jesus is the goal of Old Testament faith. Failure to confess Christ, the New Testament insists, is a failure to confess Yahweh. … What is new about the new covenant is that the entire covenant story must now be seen in Christ” (221).

“Yet in the coming of Christ, the end times have begun. The cosmic drama in which God has promised to end Adam’s rebellion has begun the episode of fulfillment” (222).

Williams also provides a helpful discussion of the New Covenant and the Law (232-240): ”For some groups such as the New Testament-era Pharisees, law keeping took on redemptive significance as conformity to the law became the mark of belonging to the people of God. … Paul argues that the old covenant was a temporary arrangement meant as a guide and tutor for the people of God until Christ. The law was to lead to Christ. … It is an argument from the lesser to the greater, from the glorious to something even more glorious. … The power of the indwelling Spirit makes it possible that the requirements of the law may be met by people who live by the Spirit.”

Far as the Curse is Found, Chapters 10 and 11: Life in the Land (The King of Israel, The Word of the Prophets)

Williams summarizes the story of the Judges, Samuel, Saul, and David, continuing to emphasize the continuity of the one covenant of grace, and drawing attention to the growing theme of the kingdom of God. Despite the failure of Israel’s kings, “the promises of the Davidic covenant take on a significant critical and eschatological import during the period of the prophets” (187).

“But the fact that the prophets focus upon the covenant people of God shows that their complaints and threats have a positive purpose: to call the covenant community back to faithfully obeying the God who had redeemed them by his mighty deeds on their behalf” (189).

“Thus [the message of the prophets] does not entail a rejection or even a revision of the Mosaic revelation. Quite the contrary: the prophets, as reformers, seek to call Israel back to the covenant’s original meaning and vitality” (190).

“Of the sins of Israel, the one that stands out as the wellspring from which all others flow is this: it presumes upon the covenant goodness of God” (195).

“The message of biblical prophecy is that God is faithful to his promises and able to see to it that his promises come to fulfillment” (200).

Far as the Curse is Found, Chapter 9: The Law

This chapter is helpfully subtitled “Transcribing God’s Character in the World.” As Williams explains: “As in the garden of Eden, God calls Israel to image God, to represent his character and rule in the world” (149).

He rightly emphasizes the continuity between Abraham and Moses: “The great contribution of the Sinai covenant to the ongoing covenant story is the revelation of God’s demands for Israel’s obedience. The patriarchs knew that they were to obey the Lord (Gen. 17:9: ‘As for you, you must keep my covenant’; cf. Gen. 15:6; 22:1-11). Now at Sinai, however, the precise terms of Israel’s obedience are made plain” (150).

“Far from setting aside the promise of grace, the law was given to those who had been saved by grace in order to show them how to live in that grace. Thus Sinai does not bring fresh bondage but rather proof that the old bondage had been broken. In fact, we can speak of the law as a further act of grace, a gift to God’s people that serves his covenantal and gracious purposes. Thus the call of the law is to translate God’s grace into action” (151).

“Israel was to look upon the law as a gift, not a burden. The law was a delight because it aided the covenant relationship” (152).

“In the second generation of the Reformation, John Calvin insisted that the law plays a more positive role in the Christian life than Luther was willing to acknowledge” (155). Calvin agreed with Luther’s three uses, but with different emphases. He viewed the first and second as being positive (respectively: expressing common grace, and repeatedly pointing the believer to Christ), while emphasizing the third use in the life of the believer (an emphasis preserved in the Heidelberg Catechism, as Williams explicitly points out).

“Thus Calvin was able to integrate the genius of Old Testament piety into his understanding of the law far better than the Lutheran tradition did” (156).