A Critique of the Covenant of Works in Contemporary Controversy

Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
works are simply scandalized by the FV’s drawing out of the
implications that Adam could merit with God by teaching that
men also merit with God in the covenant of grace.
Third, although the FV denies that the covenant is a pact, it maintains
that the covenant is conditional and dependent on man for its
maintenance and realization.
Fourth, the FV teaches that Christ’s work is only a restoration of
that which Adam lost and a gaining of that which Adam could have
attained, which are outstanding characteristics of the covenant of
works.
When it is stripped to its essentials, the FV’s doctrine of the covenant
with Adam can be considered “not far” from the covenant of
works, as federal visionist Peter Leithart says. 57
In this light any appeal by the men of the FV to Herman Hoeksema’s
doctrine of the covenant or to his criticism of the covenant of
works in support of their novel understanding of the covenant with
Adam is disingenuous and wrong. They loathe his doctrine of the
covenant out of which he criticized the covenant of works as much as
they loathe the doctrine of justification by faith alone that they deny
by their doctrine of the covenant. They would not tolerate him for five
seconds. Even though on occasion they quote his conception of the
covenant as essentially friendship and refer favorably to his criticism
of the covenant of works as “penetrating,” they ignore the doctrines
for which he contended. He would have as vigorously opposed their
doctrine of the covenant—including their covenant with Adam—as
he did that of Heyns and Schilder. Indeed, the doctrine of the FV is
that of Heyns and Schilder. 58
Protestant Reformed Criticism of the Covenant of Works
While denied historically by heretics of all stripes and colors,
including the FV, the covenant of works has also been criticized by
Reformed theologians.
John Murray was not in favor of the covenant of works. G. C.
57 Sandlin, A Faith That Is Never Alone, 186.
58 For a typical passing reference see ibid., 223.
30
Vol. 44, No. 2