Customer Reviews

Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the Faculty of Westminster Seminary California

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

As the title suggests, this is a book of scholarly papers by the
faculty of Westminster Seminary California on the subject of
justification and covenant theology. The papers are well written, the
book nicely typeset, and footnotes are where they belong ... at the
bottom of the page they are reference on. There is a Scripture index
and a Subject/Name index.

This is a book for those who think they know a lot about the doctrine
of justification and for those who would like to.

The first paper is by R. Scott Clark, and is entitled `How We Got
Here: The Roots of the Current Controversy'. In this Clark defines
what it means to be `Reformed' (at least as he uses the term, which,
alas, ignores the rich Reformed Baptist heritage). He argues that one
of the reasons why the Reformed doctrine of justification is facing
such challenges within the Reformed community is because of how the
Reformed have often subsumed their identity in the wider and diverse
grouping of `evangelicals', rather than as standing primarily on their
confessional basis. He follows the development of doctrinal
controversy over the justification through the 17th century neonomians
and on to Norman Shepherd. He also provides an overview of this book.

The second paper is by David VanDrunen, and is entitled `Where We Are:
Justification under Fire in the Contemporary Scene'. In this,
VanDrunen briefly rehearses the 20th century ecumenical debates with
the Roman Catholics over justification, and then moves on to discuss
the new perspective ideas of such New Testament scholars as Krister
Stendahl, E.P. Sanders, James D.G. Dunn, and N.T. Wright. He also
recounts the challenge of the `Reformed Revisionists', Norman Shepherd
and the Federal Vision advocates. This is a helpful overview, but
because of the nature and the complexity of the debates, it is
necessarily a selective account that omits much.

The third paper is by Iain M. Duguid, and is entitled `Covenant Nomism
and the Exile'. This takes a fresh (to me, at least) approach to the
New Perspective debate by rehearsing the reasons given in Scripture
for the Exile, and in particular, considering how God judging Israel
and Judah, in spite of his various covenants with them. This
gives a much more sophisticated treatment of the various (conditional
and unconditional) covenants God had made with Israel than one finds
in such mono-covenantal accounts as E.P. Sanders' `Covenantal Nomism',
leading one to a clearer appreciation of the reductionist paradigm
that underlies the New Perspective(s) on Paul.

The fourth paper is by Bryan D. Estelle, and is entitled `The Covenant
of Works in Moses and Paul.' This exegetes Genesis chap 2-3 and Romans
to show the biblical foundations for doctrine of the covenant of
works. This is done in conversation with various Reformed scholars who
have denied that the covenant of works is a biblical doctrine,
including John Murray, Anthony Hoekema, and O. Palmer Robertson. It is
shown these scholars took prior inadequate concepts of covenant and
superimposed them on Scripture, and hence concluded that a covenant of
works is not present in the Bible. In contrast, Estelle shows that
these inadequate concepts also rule out some biblical covenants that
unquestionably are in Scripture, thus raising serious questions about
these concepts and the conclusions drawn from them. This paper is
three quarters footnotes, which makes it a bit disjointed to read;
fortunately, many of the footnotes are fascinating and so the reader
is frequently prepared to forgive the interruption. This paper
contains some un-transliterated Hebrew.

The fifth paper is by S.M. Baugh, and is entitled `The New
Perspective: Mediation, and Justification'. In this Baugh, after a
quick introduction and critique of the New Perspective, settles down
to the exegetical task of showing the biblical relationship between
mediation and justification. He shows how this fits with traditional
Reformed teaching, and argues that the New Perspective handles this
subject inadequately. This is a solid contribution to an important
weakness in the New Perspective positions.

The sixth paper is by David VanDrunen and R. Scott Clark, and is
entitled `The Covenant Before the Covenants'. It explores the
historical development and Scriptural support for the `Covenant of
Redemption' - the eternal covenant between the Father and Son. The
systematic ramifications of this covenant for the Covenant of Works
and the Covenant of Grace are explored, including its necessity for
making Jesus' life a fulfilment of the Covenant of Works, and for
making the cross an atoning sacrifice. I found this to be both an
enlightening and an inspiring paper, and probably worth the price of
the book by itself.

The seventh paper is by Michael S. Horton, and is entitled `Which
Covenant Theology?'. In this Horton shows the difference between the
monocoventalism of the New Perspective and Federal Vision proponents,
and compares it with the covenantal framework which the Reformed have
traditionally used (from Calvin on). Horton shows how this difference
in particular has a big impact on what some call our `final
justification'. From a traditional Reformed perspective, these people
are shockingly arguing for works having a fundamental role as the
basis of our ultimate acceptance with God. Horton concludes by arguing
that covenant theology, rightly understood, is crucial for
understanding the relationship between forensic justification and our
union with Christ. Reading this, I was inspired to purchase Horton's
series of books on covenant theology: `Lord and Servant: A Covenant
Christology'; `Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama'; and
`Covenant and Salvation: Union with Christ.'

The eighth paper is by R. Scott Clark, and is entitled `Do This and
Live: Christ's Active Obedience as the Ground of Justification'. This
is an interesting and compelling look at the necessity of
understanding justification as involving the imputation of Christ's
active obedience to the believer, fulfilling God's requirements, as
well as the imputation of his passive obedience in suffering for us.
Clark traces the historical development of the doctrine and sketches
how it has fared in modern Reformed treatments of covenant
theology. He looks at the exegetical and theological basis for it. He
then articulates and answers all the main arguments that have been
raised against the doctrine. Excellent stuff.

The ninth paper is by W. Robert Godfrey, and is entitled `Faith
Formed by Love or Faith Alone? The Instrument of Justification'. This
paper looks at medieval, Roman Catholic, and Reformation teaching on
the relative primacy of `love' and `faith'. An informed and
informative contribution.

The tenth paper is by Hywel R. Jones, and is entitled, `Justification
by Faith Alone: No Christian Life Without It'. This paper starts by
reiterating the classic Protestant distinction between justification
and sanctification (apparently without awareness of the long Reformed
tradition of recognising that the Bible also talks about a positional
or definitive sanctification), and exploring what justification
means. This paper then moves on to discuss how justification by faith
alone should guard a Christian against trying to rely on their own
works in any way for their acceptance with God, and also, from
thinking that sanctification is an optional extra.

The eleventh paper is also by Hywel R. Jones, and is entitled,
`Preaching sola fide Better'. This is a most helpful look at how
to preach `by faith alone'. In it Jones shows how to balance
demand (law), sin, and the righteousness of Jesus, with the call to
faith.

The twelfth paper is by R. Scott Clark, and is entitled, `Letter and
Spirit: Law and Gospel in Reformed Preaching'. This main burden of
this essay is to show by quotation that the `law' `gospel' distinction
is a `Reformed' insight, and not merely a Lutheran one. `Law' and
`gospel' are understood as two different `moods' in all the
Scriptures: `law' being the imperative - what God requires of us, and
`gospel' being the `indicative' - what God has done for us. From this
basis, Clark argues that such an antithesis should influence how we
approach and preach every Scripture. Now, while in broad sympathy with
this insight, I must admit I found this essay to be the most
problematic. Most importantly, it doesn't contain any serious attempt
argue that such a distinction is biblical. Of course, it shows the
obvious, that both moods are present in the Scriptures. What it didn't
(and almost certainly, couldn't) show was that this in anyway relates
to the `Law' and the `Gospel' that the Scriptures are talking
about. Much more needs to be written by Reformed theologians if they
are to have any hope of convincing even sympathetic evangelicals that
this is a biblically mandated way of handling the Scriptures.


The thirteenth paper is by Julius J. Kim, and is entitled, `The Rise
of Moralism in Seventeenth-Century Anglican Preaching: A Case Study'.
It is scary to see how a Reformed church could so quickly slip from
deep Reformed insights into the Gospel, into the crass semi-Pelagian
(if not actually Pelagian) moralism of the Latitudinarians of the
Church of England in the 17th century. It is indeed a sobering warning
to contemporary evangelicals that we also might lose the gospel - if
indeed we haven't already. Let's examine ourselves! Perhaps the big
difference is that the Latitudinarians were reacting against the
Puritans, whose grasp of the Reformed Gospel was strong. In contrast,
moralists today are emerging in a church which has been `assuming but
not articulating' the Gospel. The end result is the same. The Church
of England slumbered in legalistic works-righteousness until the Great
Awakening under Whitefield and the Wesleys. May it please God to arise
and save modern evangelicalism too!

The fourteenth paper is by Dennis E. Johnson, and is entitled, `Simul
iustus et peccator: The Role of Justification in Pastoral Counselling'.
This is an sure-footed and wise (and exciting) look at the role that
being sure of one's salvation has in not antinomian living, but holy
living. Johnson exegetically shows that for Jesus and Paul, holiness
emerges as the legitimate response to grace and forgiveness, not from
a desire to earn salvation. He also looks at some pastoral insights
along these lines from various Protestant worthies, including Calvin.
This one made me want to get back in the pulpit and pass on some of
these insights, as well as driving me back to God in prayer that my
life would better adorn my theology.

The book ends with the staff of Westminster Seminary California
making a brief statement about the traditional Reformed doctrine
of justification which they all affirm, largely drawn from the
relevant passages in the various Reformed confessional documents.

In books like this we begin to see why God allows heresies like the
`New Perspective on Paul' and the `Federal Vision' to disturb the
church. It drives us to dig deeper into Scripture (and into our
theological heritage) to appreciate again (and perhaps in fresher
ways) just what the gospel is, and how it all fits together. Although
this book in part has its roots in these contemporary debates,
actually it is primarily a profound investigation of the heart of the
holy Gospel. Buy it. Read it. Study it. Preach it. All to the glory of
God alone.

Two recent books which helpfully supplement this one with further
scholarly treatment of the doctrine of justification by faith from a
traditional Reformed perspective are Johnson and Waters (eds), `By
Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of
Justification', Crossway Books (Wheaton: Illinois), 2007 and Oliphint
(ed), `Justified in Christ: God's Plan for Us in Justification',
Mentor (Fearn: Scotland), 2007. Get and read all three.

I have the pleasure of studying under these men at WSC. So, this review might be slightly biased. But, despite my bias, I am convinced that this volume offers a significant challenge to the New Perspective(s) on Paul and the Federal Vision. The contributors do a wonderful job introducing the controversy (although the mention of N. Shepherd and other "fringe" takes on Justification could have been left out, these movements don't really seem to have the popular affect that the NP and the FV do). But they do an even better job providing a significant challenge. I, personally, found the exegetical arguments, by Drs. Duguid Estelle and Baugh, to be the most interesting. But, the historical and the systematic arguments are also very persuasive.

What sets this volume apart from other books on the NP and FV is that it spends a good deal of time on how these issues relate to pastoral/practical ministry. This perspective takes these lofty theological arguments and brings them down to ground level.

For anyone struggling with the challenge of the NP or FV, this is essential reading.

COVENANT, JUSTIFICATION, AND PASTORAL MINISTRY: Essays by the Faculty of Westminster Seminary California R Scott Clark along with strong support from the Westminster faculty have served the Christian Community with solid history, exegesis, and theological foundations concerning an area that is under constant attack in orthodox and confessional circles. It is a must read and reflection for all pastors and elders.