Michael Horton's Covenant Theology as a Defense of Reformation Theology in the Context of Current Discussions

In contemporary theological scholarship the federal theology of post-Reformation Reformed orthodoxy has come under trenchant criticism from two fronts: those who argue that the schema elevates the role of the human will in individual redemption to offset the problematic aspects of Augustinian predestinarianism (thereby degenerating into a form of evangelical legalism) or those who see the schema as a radical contradiction of the relation between law and gospel, which contradiction departed from the views of John Calvin, Martin Bucer, and other sixteenth century Reformers (thereby supporting a type of antinomianism). The purpose of this dissertation is to argue, through our examination of Michael S. Horton’s covenant theology (and the views of Reformed theologians of earlier times), that classic federalism avoids both the twin dangers of legalism and antinomianism through upholding the dual covenant of works/covenant of grace structure (especially as it pertains to the doctrine of justification) and through maintaining the mutually binding aspect of the covenant of grace between God and the elect. The study argues that post-Reformation federal theology upholds the Reformers’ cherished soteriological tenets of justification sola gratia and sola fide while at the same time preserving practical holiness in the redeemed (grounded in the bilateral character of the covenant of grace). Ensuring the relation between God’s sovereign grace and human responsibility in salvation classic federal theology, we conclude, provides a needed antidote in contemporary, evangelical church practice and preaching, which practice and preaching appear either unbiblically to elevate the human will in salvation or unbiblically to undermine the necessity of human response to God’s prior grace.Doctor of Theology (ThD