Ex Libris

So far, a bunch of FV critics have called it monocovenantal - that we believe there is only one covenant throughout redemptive history, before the fall, after the fall, and into the New Covenant, it’s all just really the same thing, isn’t it?

Uh-uh.

Critics of the FV have assumed (wrongly as it turns out - oh, those darn pesky assumptions) that the FV view of the covenant is not nuanced. Given that this controversy springs mostly from differences in perspective, this is a singularly odd problem to have. Yet it is here, and so we must clarify what we mean when we say (as we do say) that there is one covenant.

The Committee declared, practically Ex Cathedra:

The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e. views that do no merely take issue with the terminology, but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) is contrary to those Standards.

Not a single one of the main Federal Visionaries have ever denied “the essence of the first/second covenant framework.” This includes public statements from Doug Wilson, Steve Wilkins, Peter Leithart, James Jordan, and Rich Lusk. I do not personally have a problem even with the first/second covenant framework (though describing these as a “Covenant of Works” and then “Covenant of Grace,” as if there were no grace in the first or no good works in the second, is ridiculously naive).

There are clearly two covenants in Scripture, one Pre-Fall and one Post-Fall, though there is strong continuity between the covenants, enough to say, perhaps, that the covenants are one in essence and two in nature. Federal Visionaries hesitate to speak of two covenants because it can lead Christians into assuming they are completely unrelated, like a Plan A and Plan B. The Church is still recovering from the hangover of Dispensationalism, and divisions are not what we need at this moment.

The covenants are one in that  God does not change how He relates to humanity, which is by sheer grace and a call for obedient/penitent faith. The covenants are one in that God’s means of bringing about salvation and glorification do not change. The covenants are one in that all covenants have the five-point structure and require faith and obedience for blessings, and warn of curses brought upon the covenant members for faithlessness and disobedience (Deut. 28). Both faith and faithlessness, obedience and disobedience are given by God through His eternal and irresistible decree. There is one covenant in that man’s merit never a prerequisite nor a requirement, for salvation nor for covenant blessing.

There are two covenants in that Adam was the federal head of the first covenant, while Christ was the promised federal head of the Post-Fall covenant (Gen. 3:15), which includes the Noahic, Abrahamic, Exhilic, and New Covenants. There are two covenants in that humanity was not fallen in the first, but is fallen in the second. Adam stood in the midst of the Garden of God’s blessing and grace, while the rest of humanity stands outside looking in. There are two covenants in that in the first we were under God’s blessing, and in the second, we are under God’s wrath and curse. The Post-Fall covenant is different from the Pre-Fall covenant because it takes into account that we are fallen from grace, and is explicitly structured to return us to (and transform us beyond) that first Pre-Fall covenant.

While I heartily agree with the study committee in the conclusion they reach (anyone who teaches monocovenantalism is outside the Standards), I must express my dismay that they attacked those who continue to believe in bi-covenantalism, though their views are nuanced and focused specifically on the neglected angle of continuity rather than solely on the discontinuity. This conclusion came from power politics and a complete disregard for the glaringly obvious, as well as shamedly shabby research and study.