Eternal Covenant
Sourpuss Stamp Reviews
The following is a long critique on
Ralph Smith's work. Auburn Avenue Theologians praise this book. It is
written by Ralph Smith, missionary to Japan, and is an attempt to
redefine "covenant" and "Trinity" in light of the New Perspectives on
Paul. It is classic Theological Modernity in action.
For a critique on Doug Wilson's Reformed
is Not Enough, Click
HERE
Eternal Covenant:
How the Trinity Reshapes Covenant Theology
by Ralph Smith
Canon Press, Moscow, ID: 2003.
102 Pages, Paperback
To read Smith's
response to this paper, and my reaction, click
HERE
Blurred Vision: Theological Degeneration In Ralph Smith’s Misconceived Covenantal
Theology
By Dr.
C. Matthew McMahon
Click
here for a rebuttal and an answer to that rebuttal that Smith wrote.
With
any modern theologian
one reads, there is always the inherent characteristic of redefinition.
Modern theologians take old ideas, strip them of their meaning,
reinvent these ideas with cultural relevancy, and then pass them off as
biblical teachings, simply from a “new” angle.
However, new angles usually represent old deviant ideas and
heretical concepts repackaged as the truth.
For
example, Karl Barth was strongly opposed to liberal theology and fought
against the modernist tendency to place humanity in the position of God. This sounds admirable until one looks at Barth’s
theological training, and his theological outlook.
Barth was a liberal among liberals.
Barth drew his epistemology from Immanuel Kant, through the
teachings of Albrecht Ritchel and Wilhelm Herrman.
Soren Kierkegaard had an enormous impact on him through
existentialism (though he denied that same influence of existentialism
later on), as did Dostoevsky’s The Brother’s Karamozov which
demonstrated a bold-faced void of humanistic philosophy that molded his
apologetical thinking. He was influenced by the liberal theological method of
Herrmann, the atheism of Franz Overbeck and Ludwig Feuerbach, and the
pietism of Jean Blumhardt. Barth
is considered a “healthy” “Modern Theologian.” He viewed truth
based on faith rather than evidence.
He taught fideism. The Bible, for Barth, is not written revelation, it merely is
a record of revelation.
This makes the Bible a witness to revelation, but not revelation
itself. It is a thoroughly
human book, and is fallible. For
example, when he says “The Bible is the word of God,” he does not
mean what orthodox Christians mean.
Instead, he had redefined it using liberal theology.
According to Barth it meant that God’s being is at work within
the Bible, and is simply used as a gateway to God (which is really
existentialism). So when
Barth used terms like God, Bible, Jesus Christ, revelation, and the
like, he means something very different than what historic Christianity
has taught. He had
diligently redefining the truth to make it culturally relevant to the
era in which he lived, and he accomplished this using liberal theology,
and became the father of neo-orthodoxy.
Ralph
Smith’s book, The Eternal Covenant fits nicely into the mold of
Modern Theology. This
book, by its own acclamation, is an attempt to do away with historic
orthodox formulations of ideas surrounding the word “covenant.” It
also has offered a redefinition of the orthodox theological formulations
in the doctrine of the Trinity, the theological strata that surrounds a
theology of imputation (both from the Fall in Adam as well as the work
of Jesus Christ in His active and passive obedience), and ultimately the
doctrine of justification – how the believer is accepted by God and by
what means he is accepted before God.
Smith says his book is a “reflection” on James Jordan’s
comment, “Reformed theologians had often seen the covenant as a
Trinitarian pact.” Smith then says that
“because in my own reading of Reformed Theology, I had not noticed the
“Trinitarian” aspect of the covenant.”
So, Smith has written this book as a reflection of setting the
record straight. However,
one must wonder how much Reformed Theology he has actually read to miss
such an integral part of Covenant Theology, as will be seen, for
Covenant Theology is profoundly Trinitarian.
Yet, Smith says that as a result of this “reflection” the
book stands as a challenge to the historic position and definition of covenant
in the overall framework of Covenant Theology, as well as a redefinition
of the Trinity.
Smith
will argue that the form of unity within the Trinity is “covenant”,
not “ontological being.” This
unity is seen in perichoreisis, the mutual indwelling of each
“person of the Trinity” in one another as “deeply penetrating”.
Though he is aware that this dabbles in Tri-theism, and attempts
to overcome that problem with an “ontological intersection” of
“covenant” and “being,” his redefinition of Trinity is nothing
more than Tri-theism. He
will, of course, as any good modern theologian, blatantly deny that he
has fallen into Tri-theism, or any other error (much like Barth denied
his existentialism). Yet,
nonetheless, he will propagate the “new” concept of the Trinity as:
“God is three persons united in covenant love.”
The only means of escape that he offers for this Tri-theism is an
elastic definition of “covenant” which redefines the manner in which
God saves, or relates to both Himself, and to men.
Covenant will no longer follow the Biblical view of being a pact
or agreement (as so formulated by the Bible and the confessions of
history)
but will come to mean something quite different, in order to support
his redefined view of the Trinity.
Ultimately, Smith’s views are purposefully associated with the
New Perspectives on Paul, and the theology surrounding the Auburn Avenue
Theology, both of which propagate heretical ideas that redefine the
Faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3-4) (They offer a complete
overhaul in redefining terms for election, faith, imputation, covenant,
and Reformed Theology as a whole).
Smith, though, is not just redefining “covenant” but is also
redefining the nature of God. Whenever
one peers back in history and finds heresy, it is almost always
associated with Trinitarian errors.
Smith is no exception, and as a Modern Theologian has attributed
greatly to a pernicious Trinitarian error.
Prefatory
Note:
The
evaluation of Smith’s book will follow this notation, and it is given
to ensure the reader that Smith’s work was considered carefully.
A separate section embodying a critique will comprise the last
part of this paper. There
will, however, be undocumented interaction to some extent as the
overview of Smith’s position is set forth.
The purpose of this is to remind the reader that key points have
been befuddled, and that there are certain concepts to be reminded of
later on. The evidence and
documentation of that interaction will be provided at length when the
critique is given of Smith’s information.
Overview
of Smith’s Teaching:
The book is divided in the
following manner: There is a short “Introduction”, and then chapter
one covers the question, “Is There a Covenant in the Trinity?”
Chapter two covers “The Character of the Covenant.”
Chapter three covers, “Implications of a Trinitarian
Covenant.” Then there is a short conclusion.
There are innumerable references to ideas or materials that are
simply stated and not backed up by references or evidence.
There is very little Scriptural support through the book, and
there is no exegesis present on any key passages for clarification.
The work is more of a contemplation, as he so stated in the
preface, rather than an exegetical attempt at furthering the
Auburn teaching. It is
though crucial to understand what Smith is saying in the book, since it
is used heavily by Auburn teachers as those following the new Federal
Vision. The ideas in
Smith’s work can easily be found in The Federal Vision.
Introduction:
Smith
begins the introduction with the following statement.
“The most illustrious names in the history of Reformed theology
have affirmed a covenant relationship between the Father and the
Son…”
Smith is setting a standard for the recent book, The Federal
Vision which has set forth the same precedence for the term
“relationship” by Auburn teachers.
The following statement made in the Introduction (written
by Steve Wilkins) to The Federal Vision echoes Smith’s
statement, “Covenant is the central teaching of the Word of God; it
describes the relationship with the Triune God through Jesus
Christ.”
Covenant is said to be a relationship for the Auburn
teachers. Smith emphasizes
this point by pressing that it is “backed” by the reference to
Reformed theologians, the most illustrious, who say that “covenant”
is a relationship between the Father and the Son.
But “covenant relationship” is a redefinition and restatement
based on Smith’s overall theological bent.
He is going to try and prove that covenant is a relationship, but
assumes that all Reformed theologians teach this by his statement.
The most illustrious Reformed theologians in church history did
not believe “covenant” was a “relationship” but is a pact
or agreement following the Hebrew meaning and the biblical data. This will be evaluated later and documented by some of
the very same theologians Smith cites in his first chapter.
Smith says that the Puritans
and Dutch theologians address “important issues that have to do with
the interpersonal relations among the Father, Son, and Spirit.”
Smith, though, finds this troubling since many of them do not
deal with the Spirit, and do not formulate a “healthy” doctrine of
the Trinity in their covenant theology. This he sees as detrimental to theology overall since
“covenant” is central to the Bible’s teaching, not only for
God’s “relationship” with men, but God’s “relationship”
within Himself. He quotes
Karl Barth at length in a footnote stating that for God, “whether in
respect of His properties, or as Father, Son and Holy Spirit
- there is no need of any particular pact or decree.”
Smith is going to follow the neo-orthodoxy of Barth to a great
degree. He agrees with
Barth that Covenant Theology and the Reformed view is “dualistic and
that it errs in making the covenant of grace secondary to the covenant
of works.” Though this a
clear mistake, as will be shown, Smith affirms Barth whole-heartedly.
Smith, for whatever reason, believes that Reformed Theology holds
paradigmatic the Covenant of Works as the central covenant and not the
Covenant of Redemption, though, as he will say in chapter 1, many
Reformed Theologians through history have held to a Covenant of
Redemption. Why he believes
the Covenant of Works replaces the centrality of the Covenant of
Redemption is connected with a failure to understand the Law, and that
the Law is a reflection of the character of God – a reflection
of His being, not a covenantal relationship.
Chapter
1:
Smith begins chapter 1 with the question, “Is there a Covenant
in the Trinity?” He then
takes a survey of history (a brief survey) that covers some of the main
Reformed theologians.
Smith says that, “so many Reformed theologians do recognize
that the persons of the Trinity from eternity relate to one another in
covenant.”
This is a falsity. The theologians he quotes do not define the Trinity in the
same way Smith defines the Trinity and the idea of covenant as
“relationship.” He
says, “given this fact, we need to investigate why it should be that
the doctrine of the covenant is seldom seen to be grounded in this
Trinitarian relationship.”
Before Smith defines and explains exactly what he means by this
“relationship”, he is already assuming everyone accepts his ideas,
and that Reformed theologians have taught this.
Note, this is “fact” to Smith.
He then surveys the Reformed
opinion on whether or not there is a covenant in the Trinity.
It must be noted that this inquiry is not the same as historical
theology will contemplate. Reformed
thinkers have defined “covenant” as a “pact or agreement”
between the Father and the Son. But Smith’s characteristic procedure throughout the book is
to subtly introduce a new Trinitarian Theology while redefining
“covenant” as a mutual indwelling in the inter-Trinitarian
relationship. This however
is not what Reformed Theologians have ever taught.
Smith first quotes John Murray.
His purpose in quoting Murray is to affirm Murray’s denial in
some sort of covenant in the Trinity and also denies the Covenant of
Works. However Murray
states that Adam in the garden was a time of, “intense and
concentrated probation”
following Gerhardes Vos. However,
Murray does not like the term “Covenant of Works” itself because he
sees, incorrectly, some elements of grace in the Adamic administration.
But Murray mixes the idea of “grace” with “goodness”.
God is good in the garden, not gracious.
This is the point Smith wants his readers to see about Murray.
Though Murray is well equipped to handle the idea of probation,
Smith wants his readers to focus on Murray’s ideas of a denial
of the phrase Covenant of Works; or at least a denial of the term.
Smith
then quotes O. Palmer Robertson saying that he explicitly denies the
Covenant of Redemption. Smith
then says that Robertson “excludes the possibility of a Trinitarian
covenant.” It is
important to keep in mind that there is a large difference between what
Smith believes this means, and what Reformed theology has always taught
concerning the Covenant of Redemption.
They are mutually exclusive.
Robertson states, “the intention of God from eternity to redeem
a people to himself certainly must be affirmed.”
In other words, Robertson is following the Westminster
Confession. He is using
the phrase, “intention of God from eternity,” to replace the phrase
“Covenant of Redemption.” This
is the same historical formulae that Westminster followed, which
will be more fully explained later.
In any case, Smith is trying to demonstrate, for whatever reason,
that Robertson does not see the Covenant of Redemption as biblical.
But Robertson says that such a reality, without the terminology,
must be affirmed.
Smith
then moves to the older Reformed theologians.
Smith says, “Early Reformed theologians such as Olevianus,
Cocceius, Witsius, and Voetius all affirmed a covenant between the
Father and the Son.”
This is true, but “covenant” to these old Reformed
Theologians always meant “a pact or agreement”, not a relationship.
Smith does not actually quote any of these men, but rather relies
on secondary information through Heinrich Heppe’s Reformed
Dogmatics. He quotes R.
Scott Clark on Olevianus demonstrating that “the covenant is nothing
more than a way of describing the relations which obtain among the
persons of the Trinity.”
Smith is unsatisfied with this saying that this is “typical of
Reformed theology” though he quotes nothing to determine this, and
attempts to say that “the covenant never quite becomes truly
Trinitarian.”
Again, one must distinguish between Smith’s ideas and Reformed
Theology in general on the doctrine of the Trinity.
Next,
Smith quotes Richard Sibbes, David Dickson, Samuel Rutherford, Thomas
Brooks, John Owen, and Thomas Manton.
Smith gives little documentation for “offering the usual
reasons”
these men give for their position.
They all, he says, are Covenant Theologians of the same order,
but do not bring a full discussion on the Trinitarian aspects of
covenant in their writings. To
make an assertion like this categorically demonstrates Smith’s lack of
insight into these men and their writings.
Francis
Turretin is quoted next, demonstrating that from his second volume on
soteriology, there is mention of the covenant being Trinitarian.
For Smith, though, covenant will be seen as primary to Theology
Proper, not to soteriology.
After
this Smith quotes John Flavel and Thomas Vincent.
He makes special note of Vincent since his work on the Shorter
Catechism was recommended by most of the good puritans of the day, and
then tries to set as rivals Thomas Watson against his “friend”
Thomas Vincent for writing a similar Catechism but without the Covenant
of Redemption/Covenant of Grace distinction.
Watson, following the Westminster model, formulated the Covenant
of Grace into two parts: the Covenant of Grace before Adam as
represented as a pact and agreement between the Father and Son, applied
by the Spirit, and the outworking of that covenant in time with men.
This Smith does not mention.
Next, he mentions Witsius, very briefly, and says that Witsius
does not speak about the Spirit, nor of a Trinitarian covenant.
Smith moves on to Thomas Ridgeley, Thomas Boston, and then quotes
the Westminster Standards. All
of this is mere exercise at this point.
There is very little interaction overall.
John Gill is quoted at length, and then Charles Hodge.
Shedd, Dabney and A.A. Hodge are given short paragraphs, Lewis
Berkhoff and Herman Hoeksema are also quoted.
Hoeksema is quoted primarily for his references and teachings on
the work of Abraham Kuyper. Smith
sees Kuyper as the first theologian to talk about the covenant as
primarily Trinitarian.
Smith treats these men in order to assert that, “what our
cursory review of Reformed Theology indicates is that Presbyterian
theologians considered the idea of a Covenant of Redemption to be the
fount of soteriology.” Though
this is blatantly not the case, Smith believes he has helped his reader
see that this is what Reformed theology has always taught. This he believes is inadequate since “covenant” is
Trinitarian, and is primarily the mutual indwelling of the persons of
the Trinity with one another. He
finds that Reformed theology needs to be updated. He says, “for them,
the covenant is an agreement.”
Then, out of nowhere, he concludes his survey by saying,
“Rather than the Covenant of Works determining the form of the
Covenant of Redemption, Kuyper’s insight suggests that the Trinitarian
covenant is the true prototype of every covenant.”
For Reformed theology the Covenant of Works does not determine
the Covenant of Redemption. Why
Smith says this is because he is following a skewed model of Reformed
Theology. None of the
theologians he mentioned takes the Covenant of Works and forms the
Covenant of Redemption from it, or alludes to do so.
Quite the opposite, as the Westminster Confession of Faith demonstrates,
the Covenant of Redemption, or the decrees of God (chapter 3 in the
Confession) set the covenantal framework for “covenant” as a "pact or
agreement” in time under the guise of both the Covenant of Works and
the Covenant of Redemption.
A Critique of
the Most Prominent points in Smith’s “Eternal Covenant”
Smith
has digressed from historical orthodoxy to implement a blatant and
over-arching liberal schematic for covenant theology that uses as
its primary focus, the same teachings throughout the New Perspectives on
Paul. Also, in reading through this work, it becomes manifest that
Smith has not really dealt with any of the traditional historians
adequately, and has actually underestimated their theology surrounding
the term covenant. Both
of these points give way to six main points to critique: 1) Smith’s
undeniable foundation in The New Perspectives in Pauline Theology, 2)
Smith’s inadequacy of the Biblical data on “covenant” (i.e. his
disregard for biblical exegesis), 3) Smith’s implied, and inescapable,
Tri-theism, 4) God’s ontology in perichoresis, 5) Smith’s
denial of the Covenant of Works, 6) Smith’s inadequacy of historical
theology, shown in the evisceration of “merit” from covenant
concepts, and inadequacy surrounding the Confessionalism of the Westminster
Confession of Faith.
Smith’s
Liberal New Perspectivism
The New Perspectives on Paul (NPP) have a foundational impact on
the overall tenure of Smith’s work.
Smith carries the thoughts behind the NPP as a vehicle for his
redefinition of the Trinity. It
is no doubt, then, that one would find him quoting liberal theologians,
or those avowing the NPP or Auburn Theology, such as N.T. Wright, Peter
Liethart, and relying heavily on James Jordan.
Smith is pressing the reader to accept “covenant
faithfulness” as an overarching redevelopment of the transmutation
from Hebraic and Greek covenant concepts to the NPP’s concept of faith
and, in particular, faithfulness.
Smith
follows much of liberal theology’s momentum through and into the NPP
stance. Consider the
teachings of the following men: Ernst Kasemann states that “the
righteousness of God” is really “God’s covenant faithfulness”
found in Romans 3:25.
This idea of covenant faithfulness is transmitted upon the
corporate body where justification becomes corporate instead of
individual. Krister
Stendahl also follows this concept in taking “Righteousness of God”
as referring to the vindication of His people in the eschatological end.
This leads one into corporate justification based on
covenantal faithfulness. E.P.
Sanders teaches that salvation is by membership in the covenant, and
that all in covenant are able to uphold the law since God never intended
that non-ability to keep the law perfectly.
God never expected men to keep it perfect, but to try through
repentance and atoning works. True
obedience, according to the Second Temple writings and Sanders’s
interpretation of the rabbinic sources, consisted of one’s intentional
pattern of covenantal faithfulness (in other words, one’s
desire to accept the bounds and obligations of the covenant and to live
in the covenant as a faithful participant of the community.
James Dunn is responsible for coining the term “NPP” and
continues the motif of “righteousness” as “covenantal
faithfulness.” This
covenant faithfulness is a process of stages that will be ultimately
vindicated at the last day by God in eschatological justification of the
corporate body. Covenant
faithfulness, then, for Dunn, is demonstrated by the external markers
God gave the people (i.e. the Law) not as soteriological, but as ecclesiological.
N.T. Wright has taken these same themes and brought them into the
church, and down into the pew. His interest is to take the theology that liberalism has
dictated based on Kasemann, Sanders, Dunn Stendahl and others of basic
NPP formulations,
and make it culturally relevant for the church. God’s people are said to be righteous, according to Wright,
based on covenant faithfulness.
This covenant faithfulness translates in a Jew-Gentile
community where justification does not answer one’s righteous standing
before God as an individual, but whether Jewish Christians and Gentile
Christians can share table fellowship.
It is echoing the “communal” aspects of the broader
community. Justification
does not treat “conversion” but the “process of living.”
“Justification, at the last, will be on the basis of
performance, not possession.” Yet,
this performance does not rest on the Christian, nor on the imputation
of Christ’s righteousness to the Christian.
It is the badge of covenantal faithfulness now, and the future
justification contemplates the believer’s covenantal obedience in the
end. Thus, God, for Wright,
will vindicate the covenant community that has been faithful.
Justification speaks in terms of their final acquittal.
Faith in the NPP is deemed “faithfulness”.
As a result, the basic doctrines of salvation as historically
taught (regeneration, justification, sanctification, etc.) are twisted
and turned into a Semi-Pelagian works salvation that rests on
“covenantal faithfulness” rather than justification.
Most NPP teachers deny that justification is at the core and
center of Paul’s theology.
So what does one make of Smith’s covenant faithfulness?
In
following the previous terminology and line of thought, Smith’s book
is a hearty candidate for the NPP group, and part of the published
material of Canon Press (one of the publishing arms of Auburn Theology).
Auburn theology following Norman Shepherd and N.T. Wright has
consented on the liberalism of Kasemann, et. al., and Smith has followed
suit. When Smith uses
“covenant faithfulness” or “covenant relationship” (which covers
his language through most of the book) he is not only redefining
theology as it stands with the individual’s justification, but is also
reading this new twist placed over the relationship of the
Trinity. Even from the
initial introduction Smith says that he is defining a “covenant
relationship”; as the covenant relationship God has with man, so is
His own relationship. It is
ecclesiological, rather than soteriological since God could not form
such a union other than by Trinitarian fellowship.
When one is leaning on the writings of those like Barth, Rahner,
Jordan, Liethhart, LaCunga, Fuller, Shepherd, and Irons for positive
support, it is then easy to distinguish the source of the ideas.
Others he quotes, hoping to gain their weight in somewhat of a
confusion of quotations are Van Til, Plantiga, Murray, Kline, and even
Calvin by way of Philip Walker Butin (though only footnoted).
The latter quoted are not helpful to his overall thoughts on the
subject. Instead, he quotes them to gain certain short-sighted ideas;
for none of them would agree where he ultimately took the book – to a
liberal stance that is relevant for culture in covenant relationships.
So in those cases they remain as “proof texts”.
Smith’s
Christianese
Smith
makes no attempt whatsoever to define the biblical idea of covenant, and
demonstrates no exegetical contemplation on original sources in his book
at all. Instead, Smith is
defining James Jordan’s ideas of covenant.
He says, “This essay was originally provoked by a comment made
by James Jordan…”
At key times in the book, he rests on Jordan’s thoughts,
“What we see in the covenant is both love and law.
James Jordan’s definition of the covenant attempts to do
justice to both dimensions, “the covenant is a personal-structural
bond which joins the three persons of God in a community of life, and in
which man was created to participate.”
In terms of the garden of Eden and Adam, he says, “James Jordan
expounded a view of the covenant as definitive of the original condition
and not something added on…Jordan’s view what Adam looks forward to
is not the gift of life, but maturity in the covenant…”
Also, he says, “With Jordan’s definition of the covenant, the
unity of the biblical doctrine of the covenant in God becomes clear.”
Jordan’s definition (given above) is also reiterated on page
eighty-nine when Smith deals with Covenant and Eschatology (in the same
manner as the prominent NPP teaching).
The
biblical arguments Smith sets forth appear from pages 31-43. He critiques dispensationalists for deriding the Covenant of
Redemption. He does not
begin with biblical arguments. After
he reproves the dispensationalist for missing the Covenant of Redemption
(something Smith is overthrowing from the historical standpoint of
Reformed Theology) he then gives his first “argument” “from the
Bible.” He quotes the
liberal Catholic Karl Rahner, “the economic Trinity reveals the
ontological Trinity. God
works in history in a way that reveals His essential nature.”
There is a huge problem with this, aside from the fact that
Rahner, when he said this, was imposing a liberal schematic on making
theology culturally relevant. The
problem lies with placing the cart before the horse.
God’s character is not formulated based on what He does, but
rather, upon who He is. Smith
is looking at God’s result of covenant (i.e. action) and reading that
back into an essential aspect of His character; as if one could do the
same for the concept of “trees” found through the entire Bible.
God made trees. Trees make air for men and relate to men in a certain light
– their health and well-being. God
must, then, have trees or an aspect of trees in his own nature, or at
least inter-Trinitarian because by His works (this is what Smith
said) we know Him, and yet, He made many trees.
But any thinking person regards this as nonsensical.
Instead, the Doctrine of God begins with God in Himself.
The working immanency of God (i.e. special revelation in the
Bible) was given to divulge to men salvation history (i.e. biblical
theology) so that they may be able to formulate both redemptive history
(which is biblical theology) and the God of redemptive history (which is
seen in systematic theology). God’s
nature is not a derivative of a biblical story (as N.T. Wright would
have people believe) but the overarching statements of God’s character
are formulated to act as a cohesive structure for the foundation of the
character of God, ultimately seen in redemptive history as the Law of
God. This is why
Smith’s book is so utterly devoid of cohesive systematics – he is
appealing to God’s works to demonstrate the character of God
(i.e.. focusing on biblical theology) at the expense of a cohesive
systematic theology which requires a comprehensive attainment of the
Bible’s basic doctrine of God (which obviously takes much more work
than pulling out “covenant relationship” from the biblical
“story”). This is also
why the Law plays an especially minimal role in his work, and why it is
misrepresented by him (and NPP advocates) as covenant faithfulness.
The economic Trinity is secondary to understanding, first, who
the Trinity is in being than in operation.
Theologians must first know who God is before they
contemplate what God does. Smith has reversed this and states it as one of the
“primary” arguments for a “covenantal relationship” in the
Trinity.
To see God ontologically as “covenantally faithful” is taken
from his view of reading what God does into who He is.
Orthodoxy
differs from this and appeals to systematics.
After affirming God has given men revelation in the Scriptures,
Westminster next takes that foundation and asserts the God of the
Scriptures: “Q7: What is
God? A7: God is a Spirit,
in and of himself infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and perfection;
all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable, incomprehensible, everywhere
present, almighty, knowing all things, most wise, most holy, most just,
most merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and
truth.”
After this, systematic theology teaches the Trinity in
succession. Again, the
Westminster Larger Catechism states, “Q8:
Are there more Gods than one? A8:
There is but one only, the living and true God.
Q9: How many persons
are there in the Godhead? A9: There be
three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost;
and these three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal
in power and glory; although distinguished by their personal properties.
Q10: What are the
personal properties of the three persons in the Godhead?
A10: It is proper to the Father to beget the Son, and to the Son
to be begotten of the Father, and to the Holy Ghost to proceed from the
Father and the Son from all eternity.”
In no systematic theology will any theologian appeal to
“God’s covenantal faithfulness” as a primary attribute of ontology,
or an essential aspect of His nature.
Instead, “covenant faithfulness” for God is set in the
context of soteriology, not Theology Proper, unless one applies it to
the glorification of God. The Westminster Confession of Faith says,
“The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although
reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet
they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and
reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath
been pleased to express by way of covenant.”
This is action not being.
“Covenant” in general,
whether in terms of berith or diathakay, both refer to an
agreement, over the idea of “covenant faithfulness”. The Hebrew
tyrIB. berith
and Greek diaqh,kh
diathakay can mean a number of
things depending on the parties. It can mean an immutable ordinance made about “a thing”,
such as with Jer. 33:20, “Thus says
the LORD: 'If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant
with the night, so that there will not be day and night in their season,
'then My covenant may also be broken with David My servant, so that he
shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the Levites, the
priests, My ministers.” It
can be a testament that cannot be changed. (Heb. 9:15-17).
Also, it can mean a sure promise, though not mutual, Ex. 34:10,
“And He said: "Behold, I make a covenant. Before all your people
I will do marvels such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in
any nation; and all the people among whom you are shall see the
work of the LORD. For it is an awesome thing that I will do with
you.” (In this case there
are not two parties involved but just God.).
It can mean a precept, such as in Jer. 34:13-14, “Thus says the
LORD, the God of Israel: 'I made a covenant with your fathers in the day
that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of
bondage, saying, "At the end of seven years let every man set free
his Hebrew brother, who has been sold to him; and when he has served you
six years, you shall let him go free from you." But your fathers
did not obey Me nor incline their ear.”
Here it refers to a general rule or statue.
It can also mean a mutual agreement between parties, with respect
to something, as in Gen. 14:13, “allies with Abraham.” Here the
allies were Abraham Mamre, Eschol and Aner.
Or with Gen. 26:28-29, “an oath…covenant…” the parties
are Isaac and Abimelech. In
1 Sam. 18:3 it says, “Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because
he loved him as his own soul.” Here
it is with Jonathan and David. These
are parties mutually contracted in an agreement.
The “covenant” idea originally came from the “sense of
cutting”. When used with
God and men, the three elements of the “covenant” that are seen are
1) A promise of eternal life, 2) Prescription of the conditions for
obtaining the promise, and 3) Penal sanction against transgressors of
the conditions of the Covenant. God
requires the complete sanctification of the parties involved in the
covenant or threatens punishment. That
is the basic Old Testament and New Testament meaning of the Scriptural
words for “covenant”. Nowhere
in the exegesis of berith or diathakay can one impose
“covenant faithfulness.”
Smith rejects the previous
ideas of covenant, and instead institutes a completely foreign idea.
He says that God cannot be known apart from His works.
In the sense that he is saying this, it is an absolute
fabrication.
God can be known solely by the word of God.
In the word, though, God reveals who He is by descriptions of His
character that are blatant and forthright.
“God is spirit,” is a helpful example, as is, “God is
love.” (John 4:24 and 1 John 4:16.
God is faithful also (Deut. 7:9; Hos. 11:12; 1 Co. 1:9; 10:13;
Tit. 3:8; 1 Pet. 5:12) but to demonstrate “faithfulness” as
an attribute of ontology is to mix providence with Asiety.
Demonstration of “works” flows from the worker and may not
necessarily be part of the work except to describe his relationship to
creation, not His ontology (and will be clearly seen in looking at
Smith’s Tri-theism). This
goes back to mixing systematic theology with the execution of God’s
decrees in providence. Smith says, “If history reveals truth about who God is in
Himself, then it reveals that the covenant is something essential to the
eternal reality of God.”
This is a non-sequitir.
How many times could the exegete set up a theology of “trees”
in the Bible? Are trees
essentials? The word
“covenant” is found roughly 275-300 times in the Scriptures. The word “tree” and its derivations run 380 times.
Maybe a theology of “tress” is more likely to be part of
God’s overall working with men than covenant?
He created them (Gen. 1:11), has special trees (Gen. 2:9), sat
with Abraham under the tree (Gen. 18:8), are used as spiritual metaphors
prominently throughout the Bible (Psalm 104:16; Song of Songs 2:3,
Matthew 7:17), Jesus saw Nathanael under the tree (John 1:48), trees
were used to crucify Christ (Acts 5:30; 1 Peter 2:24), and they are also
used in covenant concepts (Romans 11:17; Rev. 2:7).
It is certainly possible to build a theology of “trees” from
what God has done with them. But, contrary to New Age ideas, God is
not a tree, and trees are not in God properly speaking.
His being, ontologically, and His relationship to men,
practically make a use of trees, as they are prominently seen
throughout the Bible, but are not part of His eternal makeup. Smith has his theology backwards. God must be seen as He is in Himself first, through His
revealed word.
If
“covenant faithfulness” is not part of the Biblical idea of
“covenant” in God, then what roles does the “covenant”
play in eternity? The
Covenant of Redemption is a theological term to describe the Trinitarian
pact or agreement between the persons of the Godhead to deal
faithfully with one another in the glorification of God’s being.
Smith thinks, for some strange reason, that “covenant” ideas
in historical orthodoxy revolve around “soteriological ideas.”
This, however, is the application of the expression of
God’s being in the agreement that God sustains to glorify Himself.
Ontology is the highest point of “covenant” for God.
Covenant is the means whereby God is glorified.
That is the first and primary aspect of God’s covenant action.
The
Covenant of Redemption may be defined as “The Father gives the Son to
be Head and Redeemer of the elect; and the Son presents himself as a
Sponsor or Surety for them, and the Spirit applies this covenant in time
through the Law and Covenant of Grace.”
This pact and agreement is between God and the Mediator, not the
elect and God. The elect simply reap the benefits of this agreement between
God and the Mediator in the Covenant of Grace.
Scripturally this is seen in Luke 22:29, "And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father
bestowed one upon Me.” The
Greek word diati,qemai
diatithemai, “to dispose
of a covenant” may be better worded
“and I engage by covenant unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath
engaged by covenant unto me.” Also
is Hebrews 7:22, “ by so much more Jesus has become a surety of
a better covenant.” He is
a Surety – He engages on behalf of His people to uphold God’s
promises – and He undertook to perform that condition where His people
could not. Also is
Galatians 3:17 that the old way, “…cannot annul the covenant that
was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise
of no effect.” Where the contracting parties are, on one side God, on
the other Christ; and the agreement between both is ratified.
Christ is the seed to which all the promises of God are
made and complete. He is
the executor of the testament as in Psalm 119:122,
“Be surety for Your servant for good,” or in Isa. 38:14, “I
am oppressed, undertake for me…”
What will God do for the expiation of the sin of the elect?
He becomes their surety. Zech.
6:13 takes this into another direction, “…the counsel of peace will
be between them both…” This
is between the surety, who is the Branch, and God.
Is there peace between the members of the Godhead?
Where is peace needed? – Between man and God.
Both Isaiah 4:2 and Zech 1:12 talk of Christ being the Branch of
the Lord. It is a future
tense in the Hebrew which presses us to conclude that what is being
talked about is fulfilled later in time by the Surety to come – “At
the exaltation of Christ, and the peace advanced by him from heaven,
there will be a manifest execution of this counsel.”
The
economic relationship between the Father and Son, that is Christ calling
God Father and God calling Christ servant, points to the Covenant of
Redemption. Isaiah
49:5-6, “And now the LORD says, Who formed Me from the womb to be His
Servant, To bring Jacob back to Him, So that Israel is gathered to Him (
For I shall be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, And My God shall be My
strength), Indeed He says,
'It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the
tribes of Jacob, And to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will
also give You as a light to the Gentiles, That You should be My
salvation to the ends of the earth.”
In this servanthood, the whole nature of the covenant
exists. Christ calls God
his Father, and the Father calls Christ His servant.
The Spirit will then ultimately apply this work to the elect.
Thus, the glorification of God is profoundly Trinitarian without
falling headlong into Smith’s New Perspectivism.
In
covenant the contracting parties are the Father and Son.
The messianic Psalm, 16:2, says, “O my soul, you have said to
the LORD, "You are my Lord, My goodness is nothing apart from
You." (cf. v. 10) Isaiah
53:2, “For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, And
as a root out of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; And when we
see Him, There is no beauty that we should desire Him.” It is a
proposal by the Father (John 10:18) which includes a promise and right
to ask for help based on the promised obedience of the Father.
In John 10:18 Christ says, “No one takes it from Me, but I lay
it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take
it again. This command I have received from My Father."
In John 12:49 Christ says, “the Father which sent me, he gave
me a commandment..” In
Psalm 2:8 the Father speaks to the Son, “Ask of Me, and I will give You
The nations for Your inheritance, And the ends of the earth for
Your possession.” In
Isaiah 53:10-12 the Suffering Servant is seen in the covenant with the
Father, “Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to
grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed,
He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the LORD shall
prosper in His hand. 11
He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By
His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear
their iniquities. 12 Therefore
I will divide Him a portion with the great, And He shall divide the
spoil with the strong, Because He poured out His soul unto death, And He
was numbered with the transgressors, And He bore the sin of many, And
made intercession for the transgressors.”
The Covenant is accepted by the Son, and works on behalf of God
to uphold His righteousness, which is not covenant faithfulness
but an upholding of the Law of God. John
14:31 says, “But that the world may know that I love the Father, and
as the Father gave Me commandment, so I do.”
Psalm 40:7-8 states, “Then I said, "Behold, I come; In the
scroll of the book it is written of me.
8 I delight to do Your will, O my God, And Your law is
within my heart." This
is where Smith misunderstands how the covenant of grace is conditional
upon obedience: Christ accepted such obedience on behalf of the elect, thus
the elect, and they alone, will be able to keep such a covenant with God
because of Christ and the power of the Spirit of God
working through them. This
performance is seen clearly by the Son’s actions on behalf of the
elect in the Covenant of Grace. John 19:30 says, “So when Jesus had
received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And bowing
His head, He gave up His spirit.”
Christ died on behalf of the elect, bringing the Law into a
soteriological relationship with the Covenant of Redemption.
At no time was Christ ever indebted to the Father by way of
grace. Instead, He had to
adhere to the contract, or agreement, by way of obedience to the Law.
Smith
fails to realize that the Covenant of Redemption is the vehicle or tool
that God uses to glorify Himself (which is the chief reason for creating
the world) and that the Law (the perfect reflection of His character) is
upheld in the work of Christ and the application of that work by the
Holy Spirit. The Covenant of Redemption has ontological application only
in that it serves God, and is not part of God’s being.
Smith’s
Tri-theism
Here, the only point to be criticized, since it is the main point
of Smith’s work, is to look at the two sentences that climax for Smith
into an ontological shift in God’s descriptive nature as Trinity, and
his application of mutual indwelling.
Smith says, “The life of God is covenantal life.
God is three persons united in covenantal love.”
Smith had worked backwards to gain insight into God by observing
His works to define His ontological makeup.
Smith says that “covenantal faithfulness” is part of the
ontological aspect of God, as seen in overview previously, though he
seems to waffle between whether making the final leap to that definition
until the end of the book. Smith
is careful because there is a problem that this definition has in store
for the esse of God. So
he adds in the use of perichoreisis.
Perichoreisis is the indwelling of God with one another
– these are borrowed ideas of Van Tillian concepts of exhausting the
relationship of God with one another in the unity of the Godhead.
It is the Trinity exhausting their fellowship with one another in
perfect covenantal unity. Covenant
faithfulness, then, is the underlying unification principle in Smith’s
thesis. The problem here is that this is activity (covenant
faithfulness) and not being (God’s substance). God’s activity, or
action, is not the same as His essence, (as was previously satired by
His creation of trees). What,
then, has Smith done here?
Smith has redefined what it
means that God is God. The
orthodox formulations of Nicea and Chalcedon (something Smith at no time
anywhere in his work speaks to) had defined the Trinity in terms
of His transcendent being first, not His actions.
God is God in His essential being. Along the same lines the Westminster Confession of Faith,
which borrowed ideas from the early creeds, said, “In the unity of the
Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and
eternity.”
God is unified not in a covenantal bond of love, but by
His essence, or substance.
The three persons are united in their being as one God in three
persons. Smith does not use
this definition because the use of it would destroy his own thesis,
which is his purpose for writing the book in the first place –
redefining the Trinity, and redefining the Trinity’s relatability to
culture, or with men. This
is not a further revision of an accepted concept; it is an overthrow of
traditional orthodoxy and a replacement of concepts – he is
trading an orthodox biblical concept for a liberal heretical
concept (cf. Matt. 3:16-17; 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 2:18; John 1:14,
18; Heb. 1:2-3; Col. 1:15; John 15:26; Gal. 4:6).
It must be noted that Smith does not use language to state, “I
believe in three gods bound in covenantal love.”
But the statement “God is three persons united in covenantal
love” is just the same. It
is Tri-theism. Even with an attempt to use perichoreisis as a
means to stay within “orthodox boundaries” the thinking reader will
not be duped. No matter how much each individual person “penetrates”
the other, that still does not make the Father the Son, or the Son the
Holy Spirit in essence. Rather,
it makes them three persons, bound in action.
The Trinity becomes, then, Tri-theistic.
Smith’s and
the Covenant of Works
Smith
denies the Covenant of Works as something the Westminster Confession
of Faith should revise. This
is because he sees the Covenant of Works as leading the way to defining
“covenant” in general. For
Smith, this then leads him to believe that the covenant is essentially
soteriological, and not ontological, but Smith has missed the reason why
God created the world – for His glory.
Aside from this, Smith says that Reformed theologians use the
Covenant of Works as a base of operations for all other covenants.
This is simply not true. That
is Smith’s misrepresentation of Reformed Theology, and part of the
underdeveloped theological framework he is working from.
The base of God’s covenant, whether it is the Covenant of
Redemption, the Covenant of Grace, or the Covenant of Works, is the Law.
The
Law is well defined in the Westminster Larger Catechism, “Q93: What is the moral law? A93:
The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to mankind,
directing and binding everyone to personal, perfect, and perpetual
conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the
whole man, soul and body, and in performance of all those duties of
holiness and righteousness which he oweth to God and man: promising life
upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it.”
(cf. Deut. 5:1-3, 31, 33; Luke 10:26-27; Gal. 3:10; 1 Thess. 5:23; Luke
1:75; Acts 14:16; Rom.
10:5; Gal. 3:10, 12). Specifically,
the Law, being the will of God, is a direct reflection of who God is,
not only of what He requires of men.
The reason He requires this obedience in any covenant He makes,
is that the Law reflects perfection if it is upheld in perfection.
This perfection is the character of God in all its glory. If one were to keep the Law perfectly, that one would
perfectly reflect the character of God.
The Law of God, then, demonstrates the character of God. Adam was given the character of God in the garden by way of
“Do this and live.” If
he would have “done this” he would have reflected the perfect
character of God in holiness.
Smith
denies that Adam is in the garden on probation and that the Covenant of
Works is actually the sharing of the eternal “covenant of life” that
the Tri-theistic God enjoys by way of covenantal bond.
Adam is supposedly sharing in this eternal union by way of
God’s grace in the garden.
Smith
first overlooks the problems already presented on God’s being.
He then says that the “covenant of works as traditionally
conceived is clearly antiquated because of its notion of merit.”
“Merit” will be discussed under the critique of historical
theology in a moment. Here,
though, Smith attempts to remove “merit” from the covenant in the
garden because the covenant in eternity has no place for merit, but
rather is based on covenantal faithfulness, not faith. The paradigm shift he makes with the Trinity in eternity
overflows as a newly revised definition onto every angle of
“covenant”. He was
worried that Reformed Theologians had no replacement of “covenant”
concepts that were not part of his definition, and stated specifically
that Reformed theologians would have to come up with a new way of
explaining this unity. Rather,
Reformed Theologians simply go back to historical orthodoxy as rightly
interpreted, instead of standing on a superficial interpretation of
historical theology as Smith has done.
There is nothing to revise.
Smith’s revision is what has caused the problem, not the
original formulation of Adam ‘s probation in the garden, or the idea
of merit.
The
Covenant of Works is a term used to describe the probationary period of
Adam in the garden as priest and protector of God’s holiness.
God gave him specific commands to follow. He was able to eat of the tree of life, but not of the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil.
This presents a problem in Smith’s mind because eating of the
tree of life seems to be “eternal life” as Smith would have
described it. What could be more? Smith
says that men will be brought back into a state as in the garden in the
consummation, and then says they will be brought into an even higher
state because of Christ. But
this is doubletalk. Either,
God’s people will be brought back into a state in the garden (where
one sin could cause a fall, where man must keep the Law perfectly and in
perseverance, etc.) or they will be brought to the highest to heavens,
where the earth will be transformed, and a new state of being in perfect
holiness, reflecting the Law perfectly and in comely satisfaction of the
work of the Covenant of Redemption takes place.
The book of Revelation points to the latter and the new Jerusalem
is not like the garden – it is better.
It was that reward which Adam would have sought to gain.
Not the status quo in the garden.
The
Covenant of Works did include promises and Adam could have attained to a
higher state. This though
is the result of a comprehensive systematic theology.
Man's natural conscience teaches him, that God desires not to be
served in vain, nor that obedience to his commands will go unrewarded
and for nothing. Heb. 11:6 says,
“But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for
he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a
rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.”
If God is a rewarder, and Adam would have kept the Law given,
then it is easy to see that Adam would have attained a higher position
in the economy of eternal life, something he did not possess yet – not
maturity, but reward.
Adam was not able not to sin – something specifically designed
into the consummation of the Covenant of Grace.
True faith is rooted in the word and promise of God, and Adam
knew this. As Rom. 10:17
says, “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.”
The tree of life in the garden represented the promise of eternal
life. It would have a
been a nonsensical statement for God to prohibit Adam from eating of the
tree if something good were not to come from not eating. It was a seal of the promise of God to Adam if He obeyed.
If no promise had been made, man would have lived without hope
and lack of hope is characteristic of the fall.
So it is impossible that this would have been the case.
This is seen in Eph. 2:12, “that at that time you were without
Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from
the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the
world.” In Gen. 4:7 God's
word to Cain was, “If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if
you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for
you, but you should rule over it.”
This concept is not something one accepts post-fall, but also
pre-fall. If Adam did well
something good would have come of it.
Perfect obedience to the Law merits perfect reward.
The very threatening infers a promise.
Surely, Adam would have had a continuation of the joy set before
him. God promised Adam
eternal life, that is, the most perfect fruition of himself, and that
forever, after finishing the course of his obedience.
But the promise made to man was eternal life.
Because
Adam sinned and did not uphold the Covenant of Works, Jesus came to do
what the Law could not do because man sinned.
As Rom. 8:3 says, “For what the law could not do in that it was
weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the
likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the
flesh.” Had it not been for sin, that law would have brought men to
eternal life. Rom 7:10
describes the law as giving life, “And the commandment, which was to
bring life, I found to bring death.”
Jesus came to procure eternal life therefore it was promised to
man from the beginning. If
Adam persevered, he would have received what we receive by faith in
Jesus Christ. The law itself
was ordained to life. Gal. 3:21, “Is the law then against the promises of
God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have
given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.” Christ, the second Adam, earned eternal life for His people
through obedience to the Law – this is seen both in His active
obedience and His passive obedience.
He did what Adam did not do.
This should be plain to anyone thinking through the two Adams.
If there was no reward, what kind of covenant would it have been?
God would act unjustly against His character of rewarding those
who diligently seek Him and all of Theology Proper would come crashing
to the ground. God would
then violate His character. Adam
would have received a greater reward, and a greater manifestation of
God’s character in him in keeping covenant with God.
The
nature of the promise of God to Adam for eternal life is foundational to
understanding the Law and merit. God
owes nothing to man. Man cannot merit anything from God.
Whatever is promised to him should be viewed as the goodness of
God, not grace. There was
no grace in the garden. There
is an immense difference between God being good in the garden and God
being gracious. Grace is
always associated with the fall and with sin.
In the garden this was not so.
Augustine says, “God became our debtor, not by receiving
anything, but by promising what He pleased.
For it was of His own bounty that he vouchsafed to make Himself a
debtor.” It is true that
God cannot punish a holy creature.
It would be wrong for God to send a creature to hell that is just
and holy. He would be
denying Himself. Job
37:22-23 says, “He comes from the north as golden splendor; With God
is awesome majesty. As for the Almighty, we cannot find Him; He is
excellent in power, In judgment and abundant justice; He does not
oppress.” God cannot
refuse to grant a holy creature the communion of Himself.
If He did, that would throw His character in confusion.
He would be saying that He does not delight in holiness and true
piety. The promise of the
Covenant of Works contained greater things designated "eternal
life"; this is a higher degree of happiness in God and confirmation
in holiness.
The
Law (the observance and reiteration of the character of God) is
foundational to everything God does in covenant with Himself and with
men as an agreement to uphold that constitution based on penal sanction. Regardless of whether one speaks of the Covenant of
Redemption, Covenant of Grace, or the Covenant of Works, the Law plays a
primary role. There is the
necessity of the penal sanction for sin. This is based on the majesty of
God, the holiness of God, and the Justice of God (essential attributes).
God is a jealous God for His own glory and majesty.
Exo. 34:14 says, “for you shall worship no other god, for the
LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.”
God cannot deny Himself, or His supreme majesty. 2 Tim. 2:13
says, “If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny
Himself.” It’s the
manifestation of the jealousy of God that is seen against sin, or
against Lawlessness. He
must punish wickedness – this is de-merit.
This is due to the holiness of God.
A holy God cannot be joined with a sinner without satisfaction
made to His justice. 2 Cor.
6:14 says, “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For
what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion
has light with darkness?” In
verse 17, whoever touches sin cannot commune with that which is holy.
It is not acceptable to the holiness of God to cultivate a
friendship with a sinner, so long as he continues as a sinner.
This is the covenant breaker whom God rejects. A holy God cannot look upon sin.
Hab 1:13 says, “You are of purer eyes than to behold
evil, And cannot look on wickedness.”
A holy God hates sin and the sinner.
Deut. 25:16 states, “For all who do such things, all who behave
unrighteously, are an abomination to the LORD your God.”
Unless God punishes the sinner, He becomes like the sinner in
denying Himself. Justice is
an essential attribute of God as well.
Rom. 2:5 states, “But in accordance with your hardness and your
impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of
wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” God's justice
demands sin be punished with death.
Rom. 1:32 says, “who, knowing the righteous judgment of God,
that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do
the same but also approve of those who practice them.”
This must be done for God to stay consistent with His character.
The Law must be upheld at any cost.
This is the difference between Smith’s seeker friendly,
culturally relevant bond of covenantal love within the Tri-theism of
God, and orthodox biblical theology resting on the essential attributes
of God which dictate His actions. The
penal sanction of death is based upon the just nature of God.
Eternal death is not an arbitrary sanction.
It depends on the holy nature of God
As Job 33:12-13 says, “For God is greater than man. Why do you
contend with Him? For He does not give an accounting of any of His
words.” Eternal death for
sin is a just act based on holiness and Law.
Sin is infinite in relation to its attack upon God who is
infinite (and not in an absolute sense since there are degrees of sin),
therefore punishment must be infinite as well.
It is committed against an infinite God, so sin must be of
infinite duration. It
cannot be removed but by Christ’s blood; it stands forever.
Smith misses the larger picture of God’s Law and therefore
desires to use his redefined Tri-theistic covenant bond of love to
superimpose over the garden account, and subsequently through all
redemptive history.
Smith’s
Inadequate Use of Historical Theology
There
are historical theology misunderstandings, or misstatements in Smith’s
work. This is not
uncharacteristic of NPP advocates.
Smith is not familiar with the history of the development of
Covenant Theology. If he
was familiar, he would easily be able to demonstrate the reason why the
term “Covenant of Redemption” is used sometimes and not at other
times, and why the Covenant of Grace may be divided or not divided into
two sections. Two of
Smith’s quotable Reformed Theologians will suffice to prove the point:
Francis Turretin and John Owen, as well as the Westminster Confession
of Faith.
First,
concerning Francis Turretin, Turretin says that Reformed orthodoxy
“holds a twofold decree according to a twofold order of the works of
God: the one of providence, the other of predestination.”
In predestination God eternally decrees the salvation of men
based on the pact in which is regulated by the agreement of the Father
to the Son and the Son to the Father. Thus, he says, “Therefore, the destination of salvation to
the elect ought to be conceived before the destination of Christ to
obtain that end.”
For Turretin, election is coextensive with God’s decree to save
men through Christ. He
differentiates between the pact made with men (between God and man) and
the intertrinitarian covenant between the Father and the Son.
He says, “it is certain that a twofold pact must be attended to
here or the two parts and degrees of the one and same pact.”
This is critical. Turretin
uses the terminology of “Covenant of Grace” while at the same time
making a differentiation between how that covenant is applied to man,
and how that covenant was formed before the foundation of the world as a
covenant between the Father and the Son.
Turretin does not use the more refined terminology of the
“Covenant of Redemption”, but does say “the former is the
agreement between the Father and the Son to carry out the work of
redemption.”
This is the same thought process that later theologians will use
the designation Covenant of Redemption (just a decade later with
Witsius). Turretin,
instead, simply divides the Covenant of Grace into two sections (the
same division that the Westminster Assembly made in the Westminster
Confession of Faith).
John
Owen templates the structure of “covenant” in “do this and
live.” He demonstrates
that the Covenant of Grace is a continuation, or completion of all
previous covenants, and is ultimately based through Redemptive History
on the Covenant of Redemption (i.e. the works based covenant to fulfill
the demands of the Lawgiver), “The new covenant [i.e. the Covenant of
Grace] as a re-collecting into one all the promises of grace given from
the foundation of the world, accomplished in the actual exhibition of
Christ, and confirmed by his death, and by the sacrifice of his blood,
thereby becoming the sole rule of new spiritual ordinances of worship
suited thereunto, was the great object of the faith of the saints of the
Old Testament, and it is the great foundation of all our present
mercies.”
Within the Covenant of Redemption, where the Son enters into a
covenant with the Father to “do His will” for the Redemption of his
elect, Owen also describes this “covenant” as a “compact”.
He says, “The third act of this sending is his entering into
covenant and compact with his Son concerning the work to be
undertaken, and the issue or event thereof.” Owen describes the Covenant of Redemption as a covenant where
the Son must work, based on the Father’s decree to send Him to save
and redeem sinners, “so as that God might be everlastingly glorified
in the work which he was designed unto, and which by him he had to
accomplish.”
Defining “covenant” in terms of the Covenant of Redemption as
conditional is the norm for Owen’s overall theological
structure. However, this definition for Owen does not simply rest in the
above ideas. Though
“covenant” in general is an agreement between two parties, and is
the essential definition of “covenant,” yet, it also must be more
precisely clarified since covenants made by and with God are of a
peculiar nature based on God’s inability to change or waiver.
So Owen makes the difference between the Covenant of Redemption
and the Covenant of Grace where Turretin does not, but they both mean
the exact same thing.
The
Westminster Confession of Faith followed Turretin in its
formulation of the covenant structure, and then the Sum of Saving
Knowledge, a commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith,
followed Herman Witsius’ structure, which became a standard of
orthodoxy. The Westminster
Confession of Faith divides the Covenant of Grace from the Decrees
of God. Chapter 3 in the Confession
revolves around Predestination (that which Turretin says is the Covenant
of Grace in eternity and makes that division). The Westminster Confession of Faith uses chapter 3 as
the “Covenant of Redemption” but utilizing Turretin’s terms
“predestination” “decrees” etc.
Then, in chapter 7 of the Confession, it treats the
Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace in time.
It says, “The distance between God and the creature is so
great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as
their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their
blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's
part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant (Isa.
40:13-17; Job 9:32-33; 22:2-3; 35:7-8; Psa. 113:5-6; Luke 17:10; Acts
17:24-25).”
A distinguishing characteristic for these terms is to divide what
is happening in time with men, and what is happening “outside” of
time with God in His agreement with the Father, Son and the application
of the Covenant of Redemption by the Spirit.
Yet, the Confession also uses Witsius’ terminology, or
even Owen’s for that matter, when it describes the application of the Confession
to the practice of pastoral ministry and evangelism in the Sum of
Saving Knowledge. The Sum of Saving Knowledge states, “The sum of the
covenant of redemption, is this: God having freely chosen unto life, a
certain number of lost mankind, for the glory of his rich grace, did
give them, before the world began, unto God the Son, appointed Redeemer,
that, upon condition he would humble himself so far as to assume the
human nature of a soul and a body, unto personal union with his divine
nature, and submit himself to the law, as surety for them, and satisfy
justice for them, by giving obedience in their name, even unto the
suffering of the cursed death of the cross, he should ransom and redeem
them all from sin and death, and purchase unto them righteousness and
eternal life, with all saving graces leading thereunto, to be
effectually, by means of his own appointment, applied in due time to
every one of them. This condition the Son of God (who is Jesus Christ
our Lord) did accept before the world began, and in the fullness of time
came into the world, was born of the Virgin Mary, subjected himself to
the law, and completely paid the ransom on the cross: But by virtue of
the foresaid bargain, made before the world began, He is in all ages,
since the fall of Adam, still upon the work of applying actually the
purchased benefits unto the elect : and that he doth by way of
entertaining a covenant of free grace and reconciliation with them,
through faith in himself; by which covenant, he makes over to every
believer a right and interest to himself, and to all his blessings.”
It then goes on to say in the next section, “For the
accomplishment of this covenant of redemption, and making the elect
partakers of the benefits thereof in the covenant of grace, Christ Jesus
was clad with the threefold office of Prophet, Priest, and King: Made a Prophet,
to reveal all saving knowledge to his people, and to persuade them to
believe and obey the same; Made a Priest, to offer up himself a
sacrifice once for them all, and to intercede continually with the
Father, for making their persons and services acceptable to him; And
made a King, to subdue them to himself, to feed and rule them by
his own appointed ordinances, and to defend them from their enemies.”
This terminology is no different from what Turretin had
described, or Witsius, or Owen. Reformed
theologians agree as to the substance of these covenants, as does the
Confession, though the term Covenant of Redemption may or may not
be used.
Smith,
in opposition to this line of thinking, or rather ignorance of it, says,
“After 1650, English and Scottish Reformed Theologians largely follow
the Westminster Standards, though the question of whether there are one
or two covenants is not addressed in them.”
Bluntly, yes they are.
Smith is making a nonsensical statement.
The Westminster Standards and the Theologians after them
rely on Calvin and Turretin for their formulations of covenant.
Witsius later, who talked extensively about the Covenant of
Redemption, Covenant of Works, and Covenant of Grace, makes these
distinctions apparently contrary to Smith’s statement.
Owen does this, Ezekiel Hopkins, Thomas Manton, Thomas Goodwin,
and most other Reformed thinkers of the dates in question.
Smith
also says, “The term covenant of works in the WCF could be revised to
mean simply “a covenant in which obedience is required to the degree
that even one sin would bring everlasting condemnation, unless grace
intervened,” or something similar.”
This statement is footnoted.
This is based on his statement, “None of the essentials – not
federal headship, nor the importance of Jesus’ active obedience to the
demands of the covenant, nor righteousness, not law nor imputation –
are diminished. Revision of
the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms along these
lines suggested would not entail a contradiction of the theology of the
covenant they teach, nor does it undermine the doctrine of justification
by faith.”
First, the Westminster Confession of Faith cannot be
revised using Smith’s understanding and redefinition of a Tri-theism
based on covenantal faithfulness. His
revision above would never be accepted by them, and is not
accepted by those who uphold the Confession. This is not what the Westminster Divines said or implied in
any way. Their definition
is one of a pact and agreement for covenant.
As for his attempt to incite one to believe that none of the
essentials would be diminished, that has already been seen as incorrect.
Federal headship would be overthrown based on Smith’s misconceptions
of Law, since it is the underlying development of covenant as a pact or
agreement to be fulfilled in holiness.
Jesus’ active obedience is overthrown because the demands of
the Law as a pact or agreement in the Covenant of Works which Smith
denies, no longer exists, and thus, merit for His elect no longer
exists. Christ fulfills the
righteousness of the Law (merit) for the elect. This is what Smith calls “covenant maturity”.
Rather, Christ fulfills the demands of the Law and His active
obedience to the righteousness which Adam failed to uphold (merit).
The demands of the covenant change radically with Smith’s
definition of covenant from “faith” to “covenant faithfulness”
and change the meaning of righteousness.
Righteousness is the perfect fulfillment due God in light of the
Law, and only this gives the doctrine of imputation meaning with both
what Adam should have accomplished and what Christ did accomplish.
When the Law is so utterly revised, or rather in this case,
neglected and overlooked, the meaning behind “covenant agreements”
in general destroys conceptions of Theology Proper and soteriology (all
well as other crucial aspects of theology). For the NPP advocates, then, this covenant faithfulness
overthrows justification as well, and it becomes a corporate
eschatological liberalism that is employed, rather than justification by
faith alone based on the work of Christ under the Law.
Smith cannot have his new Tri-theism and “covenant
faithfulness” and claim the historical orthodoxy he is trying to
redefine. Waters says
rightly that NPP theology, “has been found attractive to Reformed men
because of the latter’s ignorance of historical and systematic
theology. The NPP has been
embraced by many ministers and teachers who have taken vows to uphold
confessional standards that teach the contrary.
Such men have accepted NPP formulations either as acceptable
expressions of these standards or as improved expressions of these
standards.”
Also,
Smith desires to do away with the “medieval” idea of “merit.”
Smith states “the view” of the Westminster Confession of
Faith “implies an outmoded medieval concept of merit.”
The idea of merit, according to Smith “a la” Jeremy
Irons is voluntarist understanding following, he says, God’s voluntary
action of goodness to condescend to man and reward him.
This, he says, is covenantal thinking of medieval Dominicans.
Again, Smith quotes non-Reformed Theologians (Jeremy Irons and
David Steinmetz) to support the idea that the Westminster Confession
of Faith is following Roman theology.
Again, this is the specific problem of those tempering with
Modern Theology to suit historical formulations they are not accustomed
to really handling.
The
Hebrew concept of reward and punishment is the underlying factor for
Westminster (i.e. Turretin’s and Calvin’s) understanding of penal
sanction following Augustine – who was not a medieval theologian.
Dominican Theology (which was theologically opposite to
Augustine’s theology on merit) following Thomas Aquinas’
ideas, is not what Westminster followed at all.
In all actuality, Augustine himself saw merit as a very important
aspect of theology and this translated through to Calvin, and to
Turretin. Merit for
Turretin is explained in the Covenant of Works with Adam, “since man
has all things from and owes all things to God, he can seek from Him
nothing as his own by right…not by condignity of work and from its
intrinsic value (because whatever that may be, it can be no proportion
to the infinite reward of life) but from the pact and the liberal
promise of God.”
It seems, rather, that Smith is reading into Reformed Theology a
system of Roman merit and demerit based on venial and mortal sins that
is not part of the Reformed Theological view of the biblical idea
surrounding reward and punishment (even Turretin denies this in relation
to Christ’s sacrifice as something explicitly Roman Catholic; cf.
Turretin’s Institutes, vol 2, page 102).
It seems Smith is unaware of this.
Really, Smith seems to be building a straw man to knock over with
“covenantal faithfulness.” He has relied on Irons instead of understanding
Westminsterian theology.
Smith
also says he is against dispensationalism, but makes the same claims
that dispensationalists make. He
says in speaking of the Old Testament and New Testament, “In both, the
old creation dwelling “with” man and the new creation dwelling
“in” man, there is an analogy to the mutual indwelling of the
persons of the Trinity…”
This is a dispensational statement par excellance.
Men in the Old Testament were as indwelt as men in the New
Testament with the spirit of God. Did Jesus believe that men like Abraham, or any Old Testament saint
among the Israelites, were saved and indwelt by the Spirit having the
law written on their hearts? Yes.
Jesus says in John 3:3 and 3:5 that “Verily, verily, I say unto
thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of
God…Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and
of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
If Noah, Abraham and Moses were not born again, they did not,
they cannot, enter heaven. This is why Jesus was so forthright with Nicodemas in
understanding the continuity of His rule and reign and the Old
Testament. In John 3:10 he
rebukes Nicodemas for misunderstanding the role of the Spirit, His
indwelling and regeneration, when He says, “Jesus answered and said
unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?”
Nicodemas, a ruler of Israel, should have known about the
indwelling power of the regenerating Spirit of God in changing the heart
of the people of God. (cf.
Ezek. 11:19; 18:31; 36:26). The
implications here are enormous. If
Nicodemas is a ruler of the Jews, and a teacher of the people of God,
this operation of the Spirit of God should have been something he knew
about and something he was teaching the people of God as the prophets
had always done. The
operation of the Spirit of God indwelling and regenerating the heart was
an Old Testament doctrine. Even
1 Peter 1:11 is quite plain, “Searching what, or what manner of time
the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it
testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should
follow.” Here Peter is
referring to the “prophets (verse 2).”
Certainly, Old Testament saints were indwelt by the Spirit of the
same Jesus that rose again from the dead four-hundred years after
those prophets had long died. Indwelling
by the Spirit of God is not a New Testament doctrine.
Smith then says later that, “The covenant in Christ is the
truly new covenant which places the Church on wholly different grounds.
In Christ, the covenant has been fulfilled and the new humanity
is not able to live for God and His kingdom by the blessing and power of
the Holy Spirit.”
So the Old Testament saints were not able to live for God?
And they are second class saints while those in the New Covenant
are on a “wholly different” ground?
How then were Old Testament saints saved?
Smith has fallen into dispensationalism while rebutting it since
he seems to be unaware of the discontinuity and continuity issues
surrounding Reformed Theology.
Conclusion
Although
more could be said on Smith’s reshaping of “Trinity” and
“covenant”, the information given should suffice to demonstrate his
errors. Smith has taken a
dangerous deviation from orthodox theology and has fallen into a
Tri-theistic covenantalism that demonstrates a departure from history
and the Bible. God is no
longer one God in essence united in three persons, but three persons
united in covenantal love. This
begs a redefinition for Smith for the concept of “covenant”, not as
a pact or agreement, but as a relationship beginning with the
Trinitarian unity of covenantal love.
Covenant, then, as pact or agreement is not the manner in which
God saves. Rather, he
extends the covenant relationship He already experiences within himself
as an ontological reality, and superimposes it on His relationship with
man. Smith, really, has
simply pressed forward some logical applications of the NPP and Auburn
theology to become culturally relevant to the church and world.
This is typical of Modern Theology.
Westminster Larger
Catechism
Question 7.
|
|
Back to the
Book Reviews
|
