Van Gendere, J. Covenant and Election. Neerlandia, Alberta, Canada: Inheritance Publications, 1995.
Have you ever wanted to know the intricate details of 20th century Dutch covenant theology? Van Genderen is here to tell you. It is a survey of Dutch responses to the problem of Covenant and Election in the early 20th century. The problem is if we identify election with the covenant of grace, then election tends to crowd out the covenant. This had disastrous results with Abraham Kuyper. On the other hand, if covenant is free from election, we have Arminianism (and today, the horrors of Wilsonism) creep back in. I am not entirely sure what his conclusion is. On one hand, he fully rejects identifying election with the covenant of grace (or more precisely, the scope of the two aren’t identical). On the other hand, he doesn’t go as far as Klaas Schilder, either.
Van Genderen’s problem is that if the covenant is established only with the elect, yet Genesis 17 says Yahweh will be a God to us and our children, then on what basis do we put the sign of the covenant on the children and claim those problems? This was the problem Kuyper faced. This is why some Kuyperian churches of 800 members might have only 14 take communion. For Kuyper only the baptism of true covenant children is a valid baptism (Van Genderen 25). Therefore, at every baptism the church must presuppose regeneration and election.
Van Genderen has a fantastic section on Karl Barth’s problematic theology. For Barth, election is identical with the doctrine of God. The problem with Barth’s claim that in divine election of Jesus as the elect and reprobate man makes faith superfluous. True, Barth emphasized it, but there was no need. The divine “no” and “yes” in Christ reduces unbelief to an ontological impossibility (41).
Per covenant and creation, Barth has the wild claim that the first man was at once the first sinner.
Van Genderen does move towards a construction of how we should see covenant and election. The covenant is not a contract (63). God and man don’t negotiate. Rather, it is promise + demand + threat (69). Election doesn’t overshadow everything; the promise does.
He holds to individual election, but wants to place our experience of it within not only Christ, but the church community.
He ends with some thoughts on Schilder, which we can only wish were more developed. With Schilder we see the covenant God as the speaking-to-man as responsible party. A proclamation always comes with an urgent call to accept it. The covenant is a legal status “defined by the speaking God, the God of the Word” (99).
This is a good historical survey in some parts but is woefully underdeveloped in others. There is brief mention of Olevian and the substance/administration distinction, but no discussion of how Schilder himself would have interacted with it.