Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof - New Leaven

II. The Covenant of Redemption
A. SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THIS DESIRABLE.
There are different representations respecting the parties in the covenant of grace.
Some consider them to be the triune God and man, either without qualification, or
qualified in some way, as “the sinner,” “the elect,” or “man in Christ”; others, God the
Father, as representing the Trinity, and Christ as representing the elect; 45 and still others,
since the days of Coccejus, distinguish two covenants, namely, the covenant of
redemption (pactum salutis) between the Father and the Son, and, as based on this, the
covenant of grace between the triune God and the elect, or the elect sinner. The second
of these representations has a certain advantage from a systematic point of view. It may
claim the support of such passages as Rom. 5:12-21 and I Cor. 15:21,22,47-49, and
stresses the inseparable connection between the pactum salutis and the covenant of
grace. It brings out the unity of the covenant in Christ, and is advocated among others
by Boston, Gib, Dick, A. Kuyper Sr., H. Kuyper, and A. Kuyper, Jr. The third
representation is more perspicuous, however, is easier to understand, and is therefore
more serviceable in a practical discussion of the doctrine of the covenant. It escapes a
great deal of confusion that is incidental to the other view, and is followed by the
majority of Reformed theologians, such as Mastricht, à Marck, Turretin, Witsius, Heppe,
the Hodges, Shedd, Vos, Bavinck, and Honig. There is no essential difference between
these two representations. Says Dr. Hodge: “There is no doctrinal difference between
those who prefer the one statement and those who prefer the other; between those who
comprise all the facts of Scripture relating to the subject under one covenant between
God and Christ as the representative of His people, and those who distribute them
under two.” 46 This being the case, the third mode of representing the whole matter
undoubtedly deserves the preference. But in following it we should bear in mind what
Shedd says: “Though this distinction (between the covenant of redemption and the
covenant of grace) is favored by Scripture statements, it does not follow that there are
two separate and independent covenants antithetic to the covenant of works. The
covenant of grace and redemption are two modes or phases of the one evangelical
covenant of mercy.” 47
45 Westm. Larger Cat., Q. 31.
46 Syst. Theol. II, p. 358; cf. also Dabney, Lect. on Theol., p. 432; Bavinck, Geref. Dogm. III, p. 240
47 Dogm. Theol. II, p. 360.
292