Introduction
The covenant is central in Reformed theology.1 One cannot conceive of a true reformation if the doctrine of the covenant is left out. Herman Hoeksema asserted
that the covenant idea is very really one of the most important doctrines in the confession of the Reformed churches, and rightly so. This doctrine is really more characteristically Reformed than the doctrine of election. Departure from the Reformed truth usually takes place with respect to either or both of these doctrines.2
The covenant is of central importance in the life and existence of the church. The church may not give lesser importance to the doctrine of the covenant. She cannot be a faithful witness for Jehovah, whose very essence is life as it is expressed in the eternal bond of the three divine persons, if she puts the doctrine of the covenant aside or, worse yet, if in developing the doctrine she exalts man as something in the covenant.
Yet, in the course of its defense and exposition, this doctrine is most often assailed and disputed at a particular point—namely, the place in the covenant of infant children of believers. For whenever controversy arises concerning the covenant, it almost invariably turns upon this question: In what manner are the children of believers to be counted in the covenant? And along these lines, much attention has been given to the nature of the promise of the covenant. Is the covenant promise general, that is, really and truly given to all the children of believers, or is the promise particularly given to the spiritual seed of the covenant?
To evaluate honestly the place of infants in the covenant, the focus should be on the character of the covenant, that is, whether it is conditional or unconditional. The form of doctrine involved in determining the place of the children of believers is nothing but incidental to the character of the covenant. The Form for the Administration of Baptism in its explanation of why our young children should be baptized as heirs of the kingdom of God and of his covenant implies at the very beginning of its explanation that the covenant is unconditional, as it is signified by infant baptism. The baptism form says, “Although our young children do not understand these things, we may not therefore exclude them from baptism, for as they are without their knowledge partakers of the condemnation in Adam, so are they again received unto grace in Christ” (Confessions and Church Order, 259).
From those words of the baptism form, the unconditionality of the covenant should be the first thing that comes to mind, and it can be summarized this way: We are passive according to the grace of Jesus Christ as it is signified by infant baptism. Or more clearly: Incorporation into the covenant excludes our activity. Many hate and try to dispense with the word passive in relation to salvation (or to justification or to God’s covenant with his people), while others try to modify the word to get away from the strict scrutiny of scripture and of the Reformed confessions.
But how should the church view the children of believers in relation to the covenant? How do we explain the covenant promise of Jehovah to his people: “I will be a God unto thee and to thy seed”? Does “thy seed,” in light of the maintenance of that covenant and God’s faithfulness, refer to all physical children of Abraham? Notice that if you draw an argument from that carnal interpretation, you might end up saying that all the children of believers are members of the covenant—something that the Afscheiding fathers rejected emphatically.
The Doctrine of the Afscheiding
The Secession churches, in light of their strict conviction on sovereign grace, unofficially took the position that the only members of the covenant are the elect. This position, as Herman Hanko asserted, was espoused by Nadere Reformatie men3 and had an immense effect in the Afscheiding.
Ronald Cammenga rightly stated that a
good number of the founding fathers of the Afscheiding embraced the view that the membership in the covenant is limited to the elect. This was the view to which Hendrik de Cock, Simon van Velzen, and Anthony Brummelkamp were committed, as is widely recognized.4
For instance, in his explanation of the phrase in the baptism form “our children…are sanctified in Christ,” Simon van Velzen said that those who are sanctified in Christ are saved and are included in the covenant—the eternal covenant of grace. And if it is eternal, he rightly concluded his explanation with the truth of divine election, which has an intimate connection with the covenant. He went on to say that inclusion in the covenant is not for all the children of believers. From this understanding of the character of the covenant, he posed a rhetorical question:
How then must we understand it when at Baptism the little children are said to be “sanctified in Christ”? Must we conceive this of all children who are baptized, of all children head for head who have believing parents? Neither the one, nor the other! It is incontrovertible, I think, that the words in view cannot be understood definitely of every child who is baptized. Rather, they have reference to the seed of the promise, and here the elect are counted for the seed.5
Election controls the covenant, whether one perceives the covenant objectively from scripture and the Reformed creeds or subjectively as the Spirit unites the elect with Jesus Christ, the head, through saving faith. The Secession fathers emphatically saw election as determinative for the doctrine of the covenant. Election is the yes and amen because Christ is central in the eternal counsel of God and the head into whom all the elect are incorporated as one organic whole. That was also the understanding of Van Velzen when he said, “We know that everyone who is sanctified in Christ is infallibly saved.”6
The idea of infallibility is sure, perfect, authoritative, and without error. That is the covenant as it is grounded in election! The covenant stands established not upon the obedience of sinners but upon the perfect and sufficient mediatorial work of Jesus Christ. Herman Hoeksema beautifully said, “Obedience has its reward in itself: to obey the Lord our God is life and joy…To keep the commandments of God and to serve him is a privilege.”7 So contrary this is to the thoughts presently advanced in the Protestant Reformed Churches of this day, where obedience in the covenant is taught as that upon which God, as it were, binds himself to react, insofar as the believer exercises the faith graciously bestowed upon him.
But we say that according to God’s eternal counsel, all that pertains to the covenant, and definitely all that will happen in that covenant, belong to his divine act of saving a people for himself. It is so and cannot be otherwise, because the Lord is a jealous God, who will not yield his glory to another. All glory must be ascribed to him. This is the doctrine of the covenant faithfully confessed by our Reformed fathers, from which we must not depart. For to wander from it is to fall into the darkness of human pride, imagining that man might offer something unto God in exchange for eternal life or the blessings of his covenant. Only Christ can merit from God.
William Perkins (1558–1602) rejected any form of merit on the basis of our works and insisted on the exclusivity of Christ’s merit for us to attain God’s favor and eternal life. He asserted that
we [the Reformed] renounce al merit of works, that is, all merit of any worke done by any meere man whatsoever. And the true merit whereby we looke to attaine the favour of God, & life everlasting, is to be found in the person of Christ alone: who is the storehouse of all our merits.8
When treating the controversial first question in the baptism form asked of parents, Anthony Brummelkamp spoke in the same vein in his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:14. Keep in mind that in his interpretation he emphatically distinguished the spiritual children of the promise from the universal body of Jesus Christ as it stands in history as one corporation of communicant members together with their children. In the latter part of his statement, he made a clear distinction notwithstanding that the spiritual and the physical share the same address and treatment.
The word “holy” used by the apostle [in] I Cor. VII:14, concerning the children of believers, has the same meaning in this passage as it does at the beginning of the epistle [in] chapter 1:2 when the apostle addresses the congregation as sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints, since the children of the congregation as well as the adults are included in the covenant of God, and the Lord has shed His blood as well for them as for the adults and has adopted them as His children and taken them into the covenant of grace (Bel. Conf., Art. 34 and the form of infant baptism). Giving this explanation, we must at the same time observe that we most vehemently deny that we are thereby saying: that each and every child of the congregation head for head possesses or will possess a holiness worked in their heart by the Holy Spirit…, as little as we would give such an explanation concerning every one of their parents, who show themselves to us as sanctified in Christ, although we treat them as such. For not because they are produced from the congregation according to the flesh are they all children of God, but the children of the promise are the holy seed (Rom IX:7, 8). This holy seed, as well as all the other elect, is taken into the covenant of grace, in which covenant nothing is included that is unholy.9
Brummelkamp’s interpretation concludes that the covenant touches not only election but also divine reprobation. For if the unholy are not comprehended in the covenant, then it must necessarily follow that the covenant is governed by the sovereign decree of divine predestination. It is only the Arminian who insists that all the children of believers are equally included in the covenant; yet such a claim cannot stand before the counsel of God, who alone appoints those whom he will gather into his covenant and those whom he will reject from it, contrary to the notion of a general and indiscriminate grace.
The covenant stands established not upon obedience of sinners but upon the perfect and sufficient mediatorial work of Jesus Christ.
God’s eternal decree of predestination is not a doctrine set apart from the covenant but one most intimately joined to it. This truth is made manifest by Brummelkamp’s appeal to Romans 9, wherein the apostle Paul plainly declares the sovereign choice of God in mercy and in hardening, which predestination cannot be severed from discussions and studies regarding the covenant. E. Smilde once said in this regard that the “Churches of the Secession lived in Rom. 9 and held fast the connection of election and the covenant of grace without wavering.”10
This unwavering view based on Romans 9 compelled enemies of the doctrine of the covenant, namely, Klaas J. Pieters and J. R. Kreulen, to show themselves unreformed by markedly banishing election from the covenant.11 They were completely opposed to the viewpoint of the Secession fathers. The two preachers denied that God determines the members of his covenant, that by election God gathers his own people unto life and by reprobation rejects others—even those who are produced from the visible congregation of Jesus Christ.
The Departure
There were many among the seceders who did not embrace this intimate union between predestination and the covenant.12 Instead, their view of the covenant was from the viewpoint of general grace, which was extended objectively to all baptized children. In this way they regarded the covenant as conditional, that is, its efficacy depended in some measure upon the will or response of man.
Moreover, among the seceders many espoused the idea of Johannes Cocceius (1603–69) concerning the covenant of God with man as it was defined as a compact or an agreement. Along this line of thinking, many Secession churches were infiltrated by conditional theology.
The notion of a general promise attached to baptism accords well with the view of the covenant as a contract or mutual agreement between God and man. Yet such a concept introduces grave difficulty because an infant is incapable of understanding and cannot enter into any such agreement. Thus the full realization of the covenant must be deferred until the child comes to maturity and can consent to the terms of the agreement and fulfill its conditions, thereby proving himself worthy of the covenant. But in this manner the covenant is subtly transformed from a gracious act of God into a compact dependent upon man, and the certainty of the covenant is made to rest upon the will of man, not upon the divine promises of God.
Herman Hanko wrote,
Among the Seceders the covenant was considered to be an agreement between God and His people in Christ Jesus. It was therefore considered to be bilateral in character. The children were baptized on the basis of a general and conditional promise, which was extended objectively to all the children who were born within the covenant; but the covenant was not in fact, fully realized in the hearts of those who were baptized until such a time as they accepted the provisions of the covenant.13
A prominent proponent of general grace in the covenant was Helenius de Cock, Hendrik de Cock’s son. Helenius became one of the lecturers, or teachers, in 1854, and because of the troubles T. F. de Haan had been causing in the seminary, in 1860 Helenius replaced him as the chair of dogmatics in the Afscheiding seminary in Kampen.14 Helenius was succeeded by Herman Bavinck in 1883. According to Herman Hanko,
While first Helenius agreed with his father, he gradually changed his position and adopted a radically different view of the covenant. While he did not abandon his views on election, he pushed election aside and said that the truth of predestination was irrelevant to the administration of the covenant in time. And pushing election aside in the administration of the covenant, Helenius De Cock took the position that the promise of baptism was a promise to all the children baptized, so that all are in the covenant, though outwardly, and are participants of the covenant. Their unbelief cannot invalidate God’s covenant, although it deprives them of the blessing of the covenant.15
Helenius de Cock was drifting away from the idea of the covenant held by the Secession fathers. This was dangerous for the Afscheiding churches, especially because Helenius was a professor of dogmatics who was training men to become ministers of the word and sacraments, and he had become a prominent figure in the Afscheiding. He intently opposed the view of his father and of all the Secession fathers so that he could create an entirely radical doctrine of the covenant—a novelty that would characteristically define the doctrines of the Christian Reformed Church in the future through the works of Prof. William Wijnand Heyns (1856–1947) and likewise the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (liberated) through the leading of Dr. Klaas Schilder (1890–1952).
The departure of Helenius must be judged not as a small divergence but as a serious defection—one that strays not only from the authority of holy scripture and the purity of the Reformed creeds but also from the received doctrine of the whole denomination of the Secession churches. For that denomination had already, with due deliberation, set forth its judgment at the Synod of Utrecht (1837), wherein the true and proper understanding of the covenant was clearly defined.
Since, however, the Word of God plainly teaches that not all are Israel who are of Israel, and the children of the promises are counted for the seed, therefore Synod by no means regards all and every one head for head, whether children or adult confessors, as true objects of the grace of God or regenerated.16
Thus to depart from this settled doctrine was not merely to propose a different opinion, but it was also to unsettle that which had been established in the unity of the churches, grounded upon the word of God, and confirmed in their common confession as markedly expressed in the broader assembly.
This departure shaped almost the whole Afscheiding denomination. Seven years after the publication of the History of Dogma, Hanko compared the Doleantie with the Afscheiding in a sharp manner concerning the doctrine of the covenant. According to Hanko the Doleantie emphasized the particular grace of God for the elect in the covenant, while the Afscheiding was committed to the well-meant offer of the gospel as an integral aspect of the covenant promise. Hanko wrote, “The Afscheiding tradition…held to a general and conditional promise of the covenant made to all who are baptized whether elect or reprobate children.”17
But according to Joshua Engelsma, the Afscheiding had a rift in its movement: “The churches in the northern provinces being more orthodox and those in the southern provinces being more liberal-minded.”18 Most probably the liberals became so influential especially when Helenius de Cock belonged to that wing of the Afscheiding.19 Engelsma also asserted in his biography of Simon van Velzen that “the effect of Helenius de Cock on the churches was also immense.”20
And it did not escape the notice of Herman Hanko that the influence of Helenius had already begun to bear fruit at the very time when the Christian Reformed Church was calling and ordaining men from the Netherlands—men who had been instructed under Helenius’ tutelage.
By this means there was introduced into the Christian Reformed Church a doctrine foreign to the Reformed faith, namely, the notion of a conditional covenant, together with the teaching of a general and free offer of the gospel. Thus what was first sown in Kampen by Helenius was soon manifested in the doctrine and life of the American churches, altering in no small measure their conception of the covenant of God and the proclamation of the promise.
Conditional Preachers
Secession ministers Klaas J. Pieters and J. R. Kreulen plagued the churches with an entirely radical view of the covenant. They coauthored a book entitled De kinderdoop (Infant Baptism).21 They wrote,
Let us then, with baptism, set aside and let rest eternal reprobation, that the promise of the covenant be imparted and offered according to the revealed counsel of God, and with reference to every baptized child in the visible church, without any exception.22
By setting aside reprobation, all children of believers are considered to be objects of grace, which is given only by God according to his eternal determination. Undoubtedly, this view is essentially Arminianism.
This position of Pieters and Kreulen was challenged by the Secession fathers, specifically by Simon van Velzen. E. Smilde summarized the position of Van Velzen as follows:
Van Velzen, on the basis of Rom. 9, held to the close connection between the covenant of grace and election…The two are not to be separated in his opinion. This is not surprising to us. It is well-known that he held firmly to the truth of election.23
The view of Pieters and Kreulen received much opposition, but the broader assemblies of the Secession in 1863 and 1866 would not take a conclusive decision concerning the doctrine of the covenant. Engelsma wrote that “in the providence of God, the Secession churches were not ready in the 1860s to settle the issue.”24 There was a covenant crisis in the Netherlands that would spread throughout the country and even throughout America.
William Heyns was unmistakably considered as one who was espousing the same conditional covenant as the two Secession preachers Pieters and Kreulen. Notable similarities are found in Heyns’ writings, though he avoided mentioning the two conditional preachers. No matter how hard he tried to plaster his view with scriptural passages and quotations from the Reformed creeds, Pieters’ and Kreulen’s doctrine stuck its head out and revealed the foolishness of Heyns and how his position had been condemned already by the Secession fathers.
Herman Hoeksema lamented at his time that “Heyns’ presentation has for years been imbibed by many who now serve as ministers in the Christian Reformed denomination,” but in principle “the presentation of Heyns is nothing else than the old Pelagian error applied to the doctrine of the covenant.”25
The Lord willing, I will present the conditional views of Pieters and Kreulen and of William Heyns next time from most of the quotations available in print. Their views present faith not as a means but as a condition upon which children become worthy of the promise declared unto them by God at their baptism. From the views of these preachers, a covenant detached from divine election is considered to be essentially gracious to every child of believers.
Father Hoeksema had the orthodox conception of the covenant—so much different from the ideas of Helenius de Cock, Klaas Pieters, J. R. Kreulen, and William Heyns.
Share on
Footnotes:
