One Covenant
If God’s covenant is everlasting (Gen. 9:16, 17:7; II Sam. 23:5; Isa. 55:3, etc.), there can only be one covenant. A temporary covenant can be annulled or replaced. God’s covenant is not temporary.
If God’s covenant is unbreakable (Judges 2:1, Ps. 89:34, Jer. 33:20-21, etc.), again, there can only be one covenant.
If the covenant is first of all God’s covenant (Gen. 6:18, 17:2, 4, 7; Num. 25:12; Eze. 16:60) and if God’s covenant is the relationship between the three persons of the Trinity, then, too, the covenant must be one, because God is one.
We hold to one covenant over against: 1) Dispensationalism, with its many covenants; 2) the Baptist position, which distinguishes between the Old Covenant and the New, at least as far as the sign of the covenant is concerned; and 3) the older teaching that there is a separate and distinct “covenant of works” with Adam.
We believe that the many Scripture passages that speak of a covenant (singular) prove this. But what about all the passages that speak of covenants (plural)—e.g., Galatians 4:24, Romans 9:4, etc.? And, what about the passages that speak of an old and a new covenant (Jer. 31:31-33; Heb. 8:6-13)?
Unless we are willing to accept the idea that the Bible can contradict itself (and that God can contradict Himself) we must reconcile these two kinds of passages. Scripture helps us do that by some of the language it uses.
Scripture speaks of God remembering His covenant (Lev. 26:42; Lk. 1:72), giving His covenant (Num. 25:12; Acts 7:8), declaring it (Deut. 4:13) and keeping it (I Kings 8:23). These expressions help us see that when He establishes His covenant with someone or makes a covenant with someone, He is not discarding the old and bringing in an entirely new covenant, but only giving a new revelation of His one covenant of grace. In that sense only are there old and new covenants, or more than one covenant.
Nor can His covenant ever be anything but a covenant of grace. There is no other basis on which we can live in a relationship with God but undeserved favour. Even Adam, though he by his obedience could continue to enjoy a covenant relationship with God, was not in that relationship by merit.
We reject, therefore, the teaching that the covenant with Adam was a distinct covenant based on merit, and not on grace. Especially we reject the idea that in that covenant Adam could have merited eternal life by his obedience. Luke 17:10 destroys every possibility of merit when it says, “So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable [i.e., unmeriting] servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.” The (one) everlasting covenant of God is all grace. Rev. Hanko
Loving Our Enemies (2)
“Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matt. 5:43-48).
This passage has often been used to support the error of “common grace,” especially that aspect of it which teaches that God loves all men and shows His love by blessing them. In fact, no other passage has been quoted as often as this one in support of the error. It is well worth our time to spend a few articles discussing the passage.
Before we discuss the passage itself, we ought to note a few serious objections which can be raised against those who try to show that Matthew 5:43-48 teaches a “common grace” of God toward all men.
As we noted in our last article, Prof. John Murray not only claims that this passage emphatically teaches a grace and love of God that is common to all men, but that this grace of God is rooted in the cross of Jesus Christ: “Many benefits accrue to the non-elect from the redemptive work of Christ” (Collected Writings, vol. I, 63).
Not all have been as bold as John Murray. Some supporters of common grace have been reluctant to say that common grace is earned by Christ in His cross. They have recognized the fact that this idea leads to a certain universalizing of the atoning death of Christ and have, as any Reformed man would, shied away from such a view.
But such a reluctance solves no problems. If God is gracious to all men, and if “common grace” is not rooted in the cross, the question comes with sharp force: “Where does that grace come from?” Grace is God’s favour. The wicked do not merit it. Who does merit it if Christ does not? That question, asked so often, has forced most defenders of common grace to say, after all, that this grace comes from the cross.
But then one is forced into a position which is a flat denial of all that Reformed and Presbyterian churches have ever stood for: the particular and limited character of the work of Christ on the cross.
Many today deny the truth of limited atonement or, as some prefer to call it, particular redemption. But by denying this truth, they set themselves against all the creeds of the Reformation and, indeed, against the Reformers themselves.
Christ died for a limited number of people. That limited number is the elect given to Him from all eternity. This is the teaching of Scripture and the Reformed creeds. This is genuinely Reformed doctrine.
But Murray denies this—as do all those who teach that common grace is merited by Christ on the cross.
It is argued, of course, that common grace is not “saving” grace. But what good does it do to argue that way? Did Christ die to earn saving grace for His elect people but also die to earn common grace for all men? Did Christ, when He cried out “It is finished!” mean: “I have done all that must be done to pay for the sins of My people and to earn for them eternal life, and I have done all that needs to be done to earn a certain grace for all men which will not save them?” Anyone can see that this gets to be nonsense.
Besides, Murray himself, recognizing the nonsense of this, emphatically says: “Many benefits accrue to the non-elect from the redemptive work of Christ.” All the grace which the reprobate receive is earned through Christ’s redemptive work!
But how can that be?
Christ performs a redemptive work which does not redeem?
Christ earns a grace which does not save?
Christ dies for those redemptively who go to hell?
Such a position is simply intolerable and contrary to all that the Reformed faith has stood for these 450 years.
Just because this position is so intolerable, churches who have advocated such a position have been unable to maintain it, but have gone in the direction of open universalism—every man shall someday be saved.
And this is understandable. Just as soon as one has sacrificed the limited character of the atoning death of Christ, one has also made that cross of Christ of none effect. As has been well said: “A Christ for all is a Christ for none”! If the redemptive work of Christ does not redeem, our faith is vain and we are yet in our sins.
The alternative is universalism—Christ died to save all, and all are saved. But then, taking that position, one has abandoned the Scriptures altogether. Prof. Hanko
In connection with Romans 14:5 a reader has sent a question about playing various sports on the Lord’s Day. Romans 14:5 reads: “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”
Obviously, the passage has been used to justify playing sports on the Lord’s Day. Is this a correct use of the passage?
We believe it is not for two reasons. First, if the passage applied to the Lord’s Day it would conflict with the many other passages that ascribe special significance to the first day of the week (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:19; Acts 20:7; I Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10). Second, the context shows that Paul is talking about feast days and foods (this would include the whole subject of fast days also), and it is to those days that he is referring also in verse 5.
Believing that the Lord’s Day is special and believing that it is the fulfilment of the Old Testament Sabbath, we believe that sports are not proper activities for a Christian on that day. The word of God in Isaiah 58:13 would apply. It calls us to turn away from doing our pleasure on God’s day and promises a blessing to those who do so.
Nevertheless, we do not like to be negative about the Lord’s Day or leave the impression that Lord’s Day observance is merely a matter of keeping certain rules or of not doing certain things. That would be legalism and Pharisaism.
We believe that the words of Jesus are the fundamental rule for observance of the Lord’s Day: “It is lawful to do well on the Sabbath” (Matt. 12:12). Simply put, that means that there is much to do, sufficient and more to fill the day and leave no time to worry about things that may be questionable.
Following the example of Jesus, there is time on the Lord’s Day for visiting the sick, the widows and orphans and for helping the poor and the distressed. There is time—time we do not normally have—for prayer, for family worship and for the instruction and nurture of covenant children.
There is time for reading and study of the word of God and other good Christian books (I Tim. 4:13), for showing Christian hospitality and brotherly love (Heb. 13:1-2). The Lord’s Day is a day for being in the Spirit and meeting with our risen Lord (Rev. 1:10), for delighting in the Lord (Isa. 58:14) and for keeping covenant with the God of our salvation (Ex. 31:16).
It is to do these things that we refrain from our ordinary work and from doing our own pleasure. There is no profit as such in not working and not playing on the Lord’s Day. Then we will only be idle.
If we cease from doing our own pleasure to do good, then the Lord’s Day will be a delight—a day that is better than a thousand other days (Ps. 84:10). Then too, it will be a reminder of that rest (Sabbath) that still remains to the people of God in heaven (Heb. 4:9). Rev. Hanko
