Weswhite.net

It’s almost hard for me to believe that I wrote a lot of this kind of stuff back in the day, but, for you who are interested in such things, here’s an article on the development of the doctrine of the covenant of works in Dutch Reformed theology. The point is that this is a feature of Reformed orthodoxy in the 17th and into the 18th century. It’s not an anomaly only found in the The Westminster Confession of Faith or British theology. I have altered the conclusion to more accurately reflect the legitimate conclusion that one can draw from what I present. I was much more strident and insistent on the specific manner of formulating this doctrine in 2008 than I am now.

The Dutch Reformed Doctrine of the Covenant of Works

By

J. Wesley White

.

Is the covenant of works an aberration in Reformed theology?  Is it simply the view of the Puritan theologians who wrote the Westminster Confession (WCF)?  One fact that might lead some to believe that this is true is the absence of any explicit reference to the covenant of works in the Three Forms of Unity (TFU), the doctrinal standards of many of the continental Reformed Churches.  Does this mean that the continental Reformed theologians rejected the covenant of works or thought it unimportant?  On the other side, if the Reformed theologians on the continent did hold to the covenant of works, then why is there no explicit mention of it in the TFU?  How is it that there is no explicit mention of the covenant of works in the TFU in the first part of the 17^th century but in the second half of the 17^th century, there is an adamant statement from a popular theologian stating its necessity for theological formulation?  Consider Wilhelmus à Brakel’s statement from his book, The Christian’s Reasonable Service:

We shall now speak of Adam as being in covenant with God–the covenant of works. Acquaintance with this covenant is of the greatest importance, for whoever errs here or denies the existence of the covenant of works, will not understand the covenant of grace, and will readily err concerning the mediatorship of the Lord Jesus. Such a person will very readily deny that Christ by His active obedience has merited a right to eternal life for the elect. This is to be observed with several parties who, because they err concerning the covenant of grace, also deny the covenant of works. Conversely, whoever denies the covenant of works must rightly be suspected to be in error concerning the covenant of grace.[1]

For Brakel, the covenant of works was no light matter, and similar statements could be added from other Dutch theologians of the 17^th and 18^th centuries.

In this essay, we would like to explore the development of the doctrine of the covenant of works in the 17^th century.  The question we are seeking to answer is how do we get from no explicit mention of the covenant of works in the TFU to an adamant defense of this doctrine in Brakel and other subscribers to the TFU? Continue reading “The Dutch Reformed Doctrine of the Covenant of Works”