News

Prof. Tipton presents the idea of the covenant of works as a linchpin both for the centrality of the historical Adam as well as foundational to the Reformed doctrine of sin. I was surprised to see this concept characterized as a thoroughly Reformed concept when, in fact, there has been much disagreement about the concept in Reformed theological circles. While the concept is certainly central to the development of Reformed theology as articulated in the Westminster Standards, as Prof. Tipton clearly indicates, it is less central to Reformed theology as a whole. The concept of a covenant of works, for example, is absent from the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism, both foundational Reformed documents with confessional status in many Reformed churches. Louis Berkhof, in his Systematic Theology, explains the absence chronologically stating that the concept of the covenant of works emerged only after the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism had been penned. Berkhof proceeds to fully incorporate the concept into his Biblical anthropology. However, other Reformed theologians have rejected the concept as anti-Biblical and as antithetical to the Reformed doctrines of Grace. Herman Hoeksema in his Reformed Dogmatics, for example, rejects the concept in light of his particular formulation of covenant as friendship between God and man. The concept of a covenant of works, for Hoeksema, is antithetical to a covenantal relationship of friendship and love because it assumes that God’s love can somehow be purchased. Likewise, G.K. Berkouwer denied the existence of a covenant of works by directly engaging the passages from the Apostle Paul that Prof. Tipton uses to support the concept. He writes that in Paul, “certainly there is a chasm between works and grace … but we find no indication that these terms point to alternative paths which were once laid out by God. Rather they point us to a much more radical antithesis. The way of works is condemned by God because it is not the way of God” (1971, p. 206). Anthony Hoekema makes a Scriptural case against the concept of works. He writes: “there is no indication in these early chapters of Genesis of a covenant oath or a covenant ratification ceremony” (1986, p. 119), so the view of God’s command to Adam in the Garden can hardly be viewed as a covenant in the strict sense of the word. Ralph Smith makes the most exhaustive case against the concept arguing that it is antiquated, unbiblical and theologically inadequate (2003). Like Hoeksema, his argument turns on a particular conception of the covenant. He views God’s covenantal relationship with man as a reflection of His covenantal relationship with Himself in Trinitarian union. But the Continental Reformed tradition has not been alone in rejecting the notion of the covenant of works. John Murray, for example, advised against the use of the label even though he failed to reject the concept of a probationary period that could have led to eternal life without the need for Jesus Christ. R.L Dabney, on the other hand, argues that the covenant of works was in and of itself also a manifestation of God’s grace thus minimizing the efficacy of works or merit in gaining favor with God. So, in sum, I find it misleading to characterize the covenant of works as a thoroughly Reformed formulation given its long history of debate within Reformed circles. But what implications does the rejection of the covenant of works have for the Reformed understanding of the historicity of Adam and of sin? I fail to see any necessary function of the notion in the arguments presented around the necessary historicity of Adam. Both from the perspective of Presbyterianism and from the Continental Reformed perspective, the historicity of Adam is a sine qua non in theological reasoning. In terms of the understanding of sin, on the other hand, I think the covenant of works plays a significant role. Prof. Tipton presents a cogent critique of libertarianism in his critiques and emphasizes spiritual death as the foundational Reformed conceptualization of man’s current estate. Yet, libertarianism is precisely what is being argued for in the concept of the covenant of works. I think that the concept of the covenant of works necessarily backs the Reformed theologian into a corner in which he must affirm some state of both libertarianism and open theism. God was powerless in the face of man’s estate and thus was forced to change His plan once Adam failed to exercise his vice-regal authority in the Garden. The rejection of the covenant of works liberates us from this logical conclusion but leaves unexplained the root cause of sin leading to a more Barthian interpretation of sin as being part and parcel of the constitution of man. In my opinion, I prefer to risk approximating a Barthian position while emphasizing God’s total and absolute control that to open the door to libertarianism and open theism in Reformed thinking. Works Cited Berkhof, Louis. (1996). Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Berkouwer, G. K. (1971). Sin. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans. Dabney, R. L. (1878). Syllabus and Notes of the course of Systematic and Polemic Theology. St. Louis: Presbyterian Publishing Company of St. Louis. Murray, John. (1991). Systematic Theology. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust. Smith, Ralph. (2003). The Eternal Covenant: How the Trinity reshapes Covenant Theology. Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press.