Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 64:2 (Fall 2002)
Article: Covenant Theology And Constructive Calvinism
Author: Tim J. R. Trumper

WTJ 64:2 (Fall 2002) p. 387

Covenant Theology And Constructive Calvinism1

Tim J. R. Trumper*

[*Tim J. R. Trumper is Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary.]

Having suggested in a previous review (WTJ 62 [2000]: 153-57, esp.156–57) that the contemporary preoccupation among Westminster Calvinists with a covenant of works (notably the Murray-Kline debate) is myopic, it may seem somewhat contradictory to return to the subject. My reasoning is straightforward. If read well, Jeong Koo Jeon’s volume could serve to dissipate the suspicion that has created unnecessarily a tension among those who really ought to be standing shoulder to shoulder in defense of federal theology. The following extended review serves then to publicize the fact that whether one is “of Murray” or “of Kline” (see 1 Cor 1:11–12) there is much to be gained from the reading of Jeon’s balanced and dispassionate yet largely descriptive treatment of the debate. If Jeon achieves nothing else, it is sincerely to be hoped that his study will encourage a lowering of the register of the debate, not least because for long enough it has served the cause of federal theology counter-productively in the broader Reformed community that extends far beyond the ranks of conservative Presbyterians. More of this later. Suffice to say for now that in what follows, my purpose is to summarize and analyze Jeon’s study with a view to drawing from it the clear implications that are but implicit in the volume itself.

I. The Account of the Debate

In the four lengthy chapters that constitute the study, Jeon first traces out the historical development of federal theology from John Calvin to Geerhardus Vos. In this overview Jeon includes Calvin (whose version of federal theology was a primitive form that lacked a covenant of works, but which nevertheless possessed a motif of natural law that became a pointer towards the future development of a covenant of works (foedus naturale, foedus legale, or foedus operum [pp. 27–28]); Caspar Olevianus (“the forerunner of the antithesis between the

WTJ 64:2 (Fall 2002) p. 388

covenants of works and grace hermeneutics” [p. 31]); Robert Rollock (responsible for making the rubric of the covenant of works part of the staple of covenant theology [p. 34]); the Westminster Confession (the first Reformed confession to place the doctrine of the covenant in the foreground [p. 40]); John Owen (for whom the distinction between the covenants of works and grace was foundational [p. 54]); Francis Turretin (who deepened the hermeneutical principle t...