Perhaps you have heard someone say, “Well, I have a right to my opinion.” It has long been recognized by thoughtful individuals that, no, you do not have an automatic right to your opinion. Whether it be referred to as the principle of sufficient reason or the law of sufficient reason, the short version is that you do not have the logical, reasonable, or rational right to either hold or express an opinion that is not based upon sufficient reason. If you doubt this, I urge you to do a Google search or a Duck Duck Go search of the phrase “the law of sufficient reason,” or “the principle of sufficient reason.” There are too many Gospel ministers who embrace positions they both defend and advance without doing their homework and therefore having no sufficient reason for their position. Their fatal error, of course, is to imagine that defensible truths are always intuitive, when Proverbs twice warns us how unreliable intuition actually is.
Pr 14.12: “There is
a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways
of death.”
Pr 16.25: “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.”
I would encourage Gospel ministers to read Logic by Isaac Watts and The Improvement Of The Mind also by Isaac Watts. Although a thoughtful attention paid to logic and rational thought processes would improve the tendency of Gospel ministers to achieve agreement, the frequently omitted doctrine of the Spirit’s illumination is a guarantee that even the best man, who thoughtfully seek to understand God’s truth will still not agree on everything this side of heaven.
My goal in this 40th iteration of “The History & Theology of Calvinism” by Curt Daniel has never been to persuade anyone to adopt or embrace Calvinism. Rather, my goal has been to do my part in eliminating the tendency of Gospel ministers to adopt uninformed positions. I would have no issue with John Wesley opposing Calvinism and advancing his brand of Arminianism so long as he did so from a place of clear understanding of both positions, knowing what he was opposing and understanding what he was embracing.
This chapter is divided into nine parts.
What Is the Covenant of Redemption? Six paragraphs. The author cites Louis Berkhof, Johann Heinrich Heidegger, Karl Barth, and Charles Hodge. The author also rightly states the reason for most who oppose the so-called Covenant of Redemption (including me), “Perhaps the major objection is that it is not explicitly stated in Scripture.”
Scriptural Proof. Three paragraphs. Citing a number of passages, the author focuses on Psalm 2, Psalm 89, and John 17.
The Father’s Part in the Covenant. Four paragraphs. A comment by John Trapp is included.
The Son’s Part in the Covenant. Five paragraphs. A comment by Samuel Rutherford is included.
The Spirit’s Part in the Covenant. Five paragraphs. A comment by Thomas Brooks is included.
The Covenant of Marriage. Two paragraphs. This perspective is new to me, but unconvincing.
The Covenant of Love. Four paragraphs. Augustine and Jonathan Edwards are mentioned as having developed this line of thinking.
The Covenant of Glory. Three paragraphs.
Conclusion. The author offers a conclusion written by
the great English Puritan Thomas Goodwin.
Note: Of interest to some who are not disposed to embrace Covenant Theology is New Covenant Theology, advanced by my English friend David H. J. Gay, and prolific author and blogger. He can be found on YouTube at David H J Gay Ministry.
