Preaching the Word and the Reality of the Covenant⤒🔗

We shall not be able to speak in a meaningful way about the preaching of the gospel if we do not develop a clear view of the reality of God's covenant with His people. Preaching is the central event in God's covenantal communion with us.

It is, indeed, the central happening. Much like a large number of rails converging in a central station or roads entering a traffic circle only to diverge again in all directions, so it is with the proclamation of the Word. A great number of processes in the work of salvation are thereby initiated. But before things arrived at this point, our God had to come to us via various routes: the routes of the history of salvation, history of revelation, church history, world history and personal histories.

If we want to reflect on our faith, the appro­priation of salvation, communion with God, the sanctification of life, and the expectation of the future, we will never be able to do this properly unless we choose our route via the traffic circle of the proclamation of the Word which functions as a covenantal event. This is the reason we wish to reflect on the covenant and pay attention to a few aspects that, at this moment, are important for our purpose.

Promise and Obligation: the Two Parts of the Covenant←⤒🔗

Each church visitor has heard, during his life, the old refrain: every covenant contains two parts; that is, a promise and an obligation. And, indeed, this is the language of the Form of Baptism (for infants and adults) and this is impressed upon us many times a year.

This expression is so well-known that it is in danger of becoming a handy formula: 'cov­enant = promise + obligation.' The trouble with handy formulas is that they will wear out, lose their shine and become convenient say­ings one can carry around. Eventually they become dry terminology which (judging by the ease with which they are being used) has a hard time retaining their clarity as a brief, conceptual summary of weighty statements about God. What happens is that formalization and schematization eventually get their opportunity, and on some evil day they will strike. Finally, no one understands any longer what the minister is talking about when he calls out for the nth time: "There is not only a promise but also an obligation" or "Every gift is a task," or something along those lines.

Thus, it is advisable to ask ourselves and each other the question: what is really the advan­tage of the distinction between 'promise' and 'obligation' as being the two parts of the covenant? What spiritual gain are we safe­guarding with this approach, and how can we protect it?

The Gains made by the Liberation←⤒🔗

The spiritual gain which we became partakers of manifested itself clearly in the history of the Reformed Churches (in The Netherlands) during the years 1936 – 1946. During those years of strife in the churches, doctrinal decisions, and Liberation, much hard thinking was done and much was written on the nature of God's covenant. The aspect which we would now like to draw your attention to was at that time highlighted on several occasions. When God addresses His people by means of the word of the covenant, He accomplishes His purpose. When He addresses His people, He at the same time lays claim to them. God puts His covenant people before His countenance, enriches them with the promises of salvation and at the same time stimulates their responsi­bilities by calling them to faith, expectation, love and thankfulness.

In doing so, God values His own work of creation: man is a creature who is able to give answer and to accept responsibility. God does not execute His work of salvation by negating or destroying His work of creation. What happens is that man as a responsible being is permitted to live before God and react in his own fashion to the words of God's love. This is the way things happen in every covenant, and thus it happens also in God's covenant: though the love is coming from one side, it seeks to arrive at a communion-of-love.

And since God knows that we are powerless and feeble sinners, He promises us His Holy Spirit "who works faith" (The Heidelberg Cate­chism Answer 74). For God's goodness is so great that He grants what He demands of us. Though God has the fulfilment of the obligation made into the substance of His promise, this circumstance does not negate the nature of that obligation.

God addresses us and appeals to our responsi­bility. It is the glory of the covenant that His communion with man takes place in this manner. It is not by means of a one-sided decision but by a two-sided, reciprocal com­munion that God plans to bring us to salva­tion.

This can be put still more emphatically; namely, that communion with Him is salvation.

For the fulfilment of the obligation is the most convincing demonstration of the deliverance and liberation of life. Within the framework of the history of our lives we may call God's declaration about His promises the very source of the covenant, whereas our being under an obligation to God's love makes up the norm for our renewed communion with the Lord of the covenant. Further, as we are going to discover, the obligation proceeds from the promise.

During the time of the Liberation this point was aggressively disputed, specifically in regard to the question whether it would be appropriate to speak about 'conditionality' with reference to the covenant.

The spokesmen at the synod of that time held that this kind of speaking was too Arminian. However, K. Schilder eluci­dated in an eloquent way that although God institutes the covenant unconditionally, the covenant itself has its own intrinsic condition. That is to say: when no faith is found and no love is returned, the fulfilment of the promise will be obstructed. This, indeed, has nothing to do with alleged Arminianism.

The condition does not proceed from the worthiness of man. It proceeds, as you know, from the nature and structure of the covenant itself. This nature and structure are determined by the Creator and Saviour of the life of man – ­i.e. the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This plea for the connection and unity of promise and obligation as being constituents of the covenant was found within the broader framework in regard to the character of God's covenantal promise. Within Kuyperian scholasti­cism this promise could be split up into two parts: an unconditional promise of salvation to those that are elect while baptized, and a general offer of grace to the remainder of those that were baptized.

The (inward and outward) covenant, that had a hard time in the Forties. K. Schilder and various other spokesmen countered this spurious reasoning by stating, among others, that an 'unconditional promise of salvation' is a misconception because:

1. At no time and nowhere did God ever speak about this kind of promise. And a promise that has never been 'declared' is not a promise;
    
2. This kind of promise does not have the character of being a promise that demands faith, but has the makings of a self-fulfill­ing prophecy.
    
3. For this reason, too, the unconditional promise of salvation falls outside the perimeter of the covenant because it is not accompanied by an obligation.¹ Since the obligation is a prominent feature of the covenant, this particular point confirms, as well, that this theological construct is untenable.

It was in this manner that the duality and the unity of promise and obligation (in the strug­gle about the covenant) were discussed and illuminated.² Ever since that time this issue has become a regular component both in preach­ing and in catechism instruction.

Protection against Risks←⤒🔗

It is our view that this important insight regarding the structure of the covenant needs to be protected from different sides for the sake of the preaching.

1. The danger is not imaginary that a smooth, cliché formula of 'promise' and 'obligation' will deteriorate into two structural principles which will sche­matically impose themselves on the preaching.
   
   Once these principles have been formalized into 'promise' and 'obligation' they may well proceed to jointly encourage a twofold homi­letic (preaching) schema, which robs the living proclamation of its power.
   
   It requires no effort to make the error of presenting 'promise' and 'obligation' to the congregation as some sort of construction that is in a state of balance. In this sense the 'promise' becomes the preaching of the good tidings, while next the 'obligation' part will be linked to it by means of 'unless' or 'and yet.' The preacher's conscience will be bothered if he does not always (in every sermon) link the 'obligation' part to his proclamation of the gospel.
   
   In this fashion we face a preaching style of 'yes, but...'; i.e. preaching which ultimately causes the congregation to feel thrown back on themselves and their own shortcomings. When, in addition, it is emphatically pro­claimed that we must accept the 'obligation' as seriously as the 'promise' (this being the lesson of the Liberation), the congregation will be overcome by a sense of frailty, dull resigna­tion, or profound anxiety. And is that sup­posed to be 'liberation'?
   
   We give two random examples.
   
   During the preparation of this chapter we read in a youth magazine an advisory article about Christian life style. The article was timely in its view of a Christian attitude in our society. But it was apparent that the keynote of the bulk of the article was 'obligation.' Within a relatively narrow compass the verb 'must' was used about seventy times. The article concluded: "A Reformed life style consists of living a life of obedience; it is a life that is founded on the demand of God's covenant."
   
   We are convinced that we should not address our boys and girls in this fashion. For what does it mean "a life founded on the demand of God's covenant?" Man can live only because of the grace of God which comes to us in the promise. The norm of the new life is not the source of it. The manner of expression as cited in the above example is the result of treating the 'obligation of the covenant' in a schematic fashion, as well as lacking an understand­ing of the nature of God's promise.
   
   At the same time a church news magazine featured an article about preaching. Here, in a noteworthy account, the meaning of 'good tidings,' was broadly described. The author, himself a pastor, makes the obser­vation that on occasion people will reproach him with: "Your preaching is so full of joy." Answer: "Well, what do you expect? What else does the Lord expect from me? It is a good thing that the message is a joyful one, that it is not a tiding of disaster but a tiding of salvation."
   
   The author says next that one can also run into reproach of a different kind: "You preach so severely."
   
   Where, then, is this severe or sharp tone found? It is found in mentioning the promise concurrently with the obligation. The Lord is the God of the covenant. And every covenant contains two parts, namely a promise and an obligation... The obligation is to be preached as often and as emphatically as His promise, for the issue is obedience of faith... If you wish to see the fulfilment of the promise, you have to live up to the obligation... We may impress the promise on the congregation, but this ought to be done with the obligation as well. And the latter can always be accompanied by the glad tidings of the forgiveness of all our imperfec­tions and sins that defile "even our best works in this life" (HC Answer 62). And so the preaching of the obligation and the all-encom­passing Law is nothing but preaching of the gospel. Is it not?
   
   Even so, what is happening here is that a subordinate ranking is introduced, and this (in the long run) can only make the congregation weary and despondent. For where is it evident in the above passage that God the Holy Spirit will work the fulfilment of the 'obligation' in us by means of the Spirit? How is it apparent that the fulfilment of the obligation is the salvation of life itself?
   
   It is these issues and the like that we have in mind when we speak about the need for safeguarding the preaching of the covenant.
    
2. The danger exists that because of our struggle against scholastic misconceptions about the covenant (during the Liberation) we deprive ourselves of the opportunity of having the great reformers' message clearly brought home to us.
   
   When J. Ridderbos, as an apologist of Synod 1943, launched his idea of an 'unconditional promise of salvation,' K. Schilder's primary objection was that Ridderbos in his thesis reduced God's promise and demand to simply God's promise. The promise became the key issue with Ridderbos and as such came to represent the entire content of God's covenant. Over against this view Schilder showed that the 'obligation' has equal substance and that the promise together with the obligation (as a demand) has a status that will break down³ without the obligation
   
   Though Schilder then points out that Ridderbos' view is even more dangerous and that the problem lies in the 'obligation' (Ridderbos' idea of 'obligation' is actually not an obligation) the fact remains, nonetheless, that Schilder's information about the equality of both aspects still stands. As a general rule, Schilder formulates that the promise (when detached from the obligation) degenerates into nothing more than idle prediction.
   
   We agree with J. van Genderen, who held that (speaking on promise and obligation as con­joined according to the nature of the covenant) there is not an equilibrium of promise and obligation, but an overbalancing on the side of the promise. The obligation is preceded and followed by, carried and surrounded by, the promise. In addition, the fulfilment of the covenantal obligation belongs itself to the contents of the promise.⁴
   
   Only in this fashion can we keep an unob­structed view on the teachings of Calvin, who called the promise the 'proper goal,' the 'innate target' of faith; we could also say: 'the charac­teristic focal point' of faith.
   
   This is what we find in Calvin's Institutes III, 2, 29:
   
   "We make the freely given promise of God the foundation of faith because upon it faith properly rests. Faith is certain that God is true in all things whether He com­mand or forbid, whether He promise or threaten; and it also obediently receives His commandments, observes His prohi­bitions, heeds His threats. Nevertheless, faith properly begins with the promise, rests in it, and ends in it. (8 sentences later:)
   
   ...Therefore, when we say that faith must rest upon a freely given promise, we do not deny that believers embrace and grasp the Word of God in every respect: but we point out the promise of mercy as the proper goal of faith."
   
   If the polemics during the time of the Libera­tion were to obstruct our view of the above train of thought of Calvin, then (despite all the gain) we will have to consider this point a clear loss. For we, too, are now discussing the characteristic focal point of preaching. In an attempt to make this clear, we should take a brief excursion into the sixteenth century.

The 'Promise' as Goal of Faith and Proclama­tion of the Word←⤒🔗

There is something unusual about the word 'promise.' In our usage of language the word 'promise' means first of all to pledge one's word to do or not to do something. But for the reformers of the sixteenth century the word had other connotations. On hearing the expression 'God promises,' they did not primarily think of a reference to future action. For them the issue was the communication of God in the present; i.e. God proclaims good tidings, the gospel of the justification in Christ. When He speaks, it is speaking with a promise (German: "versprechen"), that is to say: to address, to pledge, to engage to do, to declare, to proclaim the gospel. At the very moment of that proclamation the salvation in Christ presents itself to us; yes, God comes to us with His salvation. Hence it has become customary to speak of the 'promissory-character-of-salvation.' This does not imply, however, that salvation will be ours only in the future.⁵

What we wish to convey is that God's salva­tion touches our hearts and lives by way of God's speaking to us. If we take 'promise' in the sense of a pledge to do something specific in the future, then 'fulfilment' would be the correspondent concept. A promise that has been 'fulfilled' has ceased to be a promise. But when we speak about 'promise' in the sense of 'proclamation of the gospel of Christ,' it is in this case not the 'fulfilment' that is of primary concern but here the 'faithful acceptance' is the correspondent concept. For to 'believe' is to 'listen,' to tune in to the word spoken by God and to accept that word as reliable.

Actually, we have here moved in on the very heart of the Great Reformation. God's grace does not come to us in some or other substance of grace, prepackaged in a sacrament. God's grace is His good will towards us. God opens His heart and offers us His love in the message of His love. We could even say: He gives us His grace in His good tidings, the gospel. In His work of salvation, our Lord did two things, according to 2 Cor 5:19; "...God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And He has committed to us the message of reconciliation." This word is the gospel: "...the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes..." (Rom 1:16).

It is a distinctive feature of Luther's Bible transla­tion that on several occasions he uses the verb 'to promise,' where­as the original text has 'to speak.' This usage re­flects Luther's thought about the salvation motif that is characteristic of the Word of God. When around 1518 this insight came out into the open with Luther, the all-important decision in his life became a fact.

Luther's preference for the word 'promise' can be explained in that he held Romans 4 in high esteem. In this chapter we see how 'law' and 'promise' are juxtaposed (cf. vs. 13-16). The law demands works, but the promise demands that we rely not on our works but accept the work of Christ. Whatever is 'out of faith' is 'because of grace' (Rom 4:16, cf. also Gal 3:2, 5, 12 ff.).

Luther was able to make this matter clear to himself by reflecting on the formula of the Lord's Supper. The words: "This is my body which is for you" do not serve as a magic formula to transubstantiate bread into the body of Christ. These words, in fact, are the 'testament of Christ,' and we must not permit this testament to be submerged in the sacra­ment. On the contrary, we should 'affix' the sacrament to this testament and 'elevate' the sacrament to the level of this testament.⁶

The phrase 'for you' lends to this testament a typical promissory character. Christ is not speaking about some general truth; rather, He addresses Himself to us. He addresses Himself to His disciples and makes the promise that He will give Himself over to death for their sake.

Thus when the Church listens to the story of Christ's suffering, our being connected to this story will not be brought about by our imitat­ing His suffering, nor by meditating on His suffering (this is a cloister mentality). Neither is the connection made by our compassion (our suffering in sympathy) or our humble contemplation of the stages of the via dolorosa, (the route followed by Christ from the place of His condemnation to Calvary). Neither will it take place in a repetitious offering up of the mass. Our appropriation of faith is worked by God Himself ('promise') and this appropriation becomes our own by our listening to the proclamation of the Word and believing it.

For the only valid response to God's promise is faith. That is why faith corresponds to the promise.⁷ In other words: the 'promise' is therefore 'salvation in the form of the word of the gospel.' In this fashion the terms 'gospel,' 'covenant,' proclamation of the Word,' and 'promise' become analogous concepts.

In the same way, a few years after 1518, Me­lanchton commented on the promise. On this point we find Luther and Calvin in clear agreement. This can also be said about Ursinus.⁸

Specifically in Our Lives←⤒🔗

Why is it so important that we pay attention to this specific meaning of the word 'promise'?

To answer this question we can refer to The Heidelberg Catechism. It is only against the background of Luther's (et al.) typical idi­omatic usage that we shall be able to under­stand, for instance, HC Answer 22. Here the Reformed Churches confess that the articles of the Apostolic Creed teach us in a summary "all that is promised us in the gospel."

It is apparent that these articles do not exclu­sively refer to what God will work in the future. Most of these articles refer to God's works in the past and the present. Yet, all twelve articles summarize what is "promised us in the gospel." For all twelve of them relate to God in His love for His people. In this instance, 'to promise' refers to the history of salvation as it attests to the significance of salvation to the congregation and its members.

That Christ was born of the Virgin Mary can be truly called fulfilment of many promises (cf. HC Answer 19). Yet, this fact (in turn) is a 'promise' for the congregation, and it is Ques­tion 36 that introduces this promise. This happens as well in, for instance, the Questions 28, 43, 45, 51, 52, and 59. The life of the Church is sustained by the gospel of the humiliated, exalted, and returning Christ, and she recognizes in faith the Christ, who has been proclaimed.

It is consistent with the idiom of the Great Refor­mation that faith is always thrown back upon the promise. The believer will never reach the stage that he can rise above faith or leave the word of the promise behind. For 'the promise' means in fact and most specifically: the mercifully speaking God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The eye of faith is able to discern in our lives a rich fulfilment of God's promises. But at the same time there is a constant appeal to our faith to accept God's promise and not to put our trust in some isolated fragments of the fulfilment (for instance: the experiences of repentance, conversion and joy).

The forgiveness of sin is the central message of God's promise. God forgave our sins in Christ Jesus our Lord. He grants forgiveness upon our prayer, and He will continue to do so tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. Faith does not fixate upon one single moment, particularly so since we are here dealing with the issue of promise and proclamation. This determines the dynamic of faith and of prayer, and it delivers us from the paralyzing rigour of objectivism and subjectivism, both archen­emies of the proclamation of the gospel. That is why we are now in a position to grasp Calvin's statement (as cited above) that faith has its own target (or focus) in the promise. "Faith properly begins with the promise, rests in it, and ends in it" (Inst. III, 2, 29).

Further, (with a quick glance at the debates about baptism), while supported by this passage we can now point out the fact that The Heidelberg Catechism has this to say about the promise of the forgiveness as it is signified and sealed in baptism:

1. God promises us that He grants us forgiveness of sins (HC Answer 66).
    
2. Christ gave the promise that "His blood and Spirit wash away the impurity of my soul, that is, all my sins" (HC Answer 69).
    
3. "To be washed with Christ's blood means to receive forgiveness of sins from God" ... and to be "renewed by the Holy Spirit and sanctified to be members of Christ" (HC Answer 70).
    
4. Christ has promised that "He will wash us with His blood and Spirit" (HC Ques­tion 71).
    
5. God "wants to teach us that the blood and Spirit of Christ removes our sins" (HC Answer 73) and that we are truly cleansed from our sins (HC Answer 73).

It is evident from the above that the confession does not summon us to fixate the vigilance of our faith upon one single moment of the pro­mise being fulfilled. The target of our faith lies in the sum of the promise, and this promise will be fulfilled. Besides, the promise will, for the same reason, never become a past tense.

For the God Who speaks is the God of the promise: that is the way He is, always was, and ever shall be!

Conclusions←⤒🔗

After this brief investigation we would like to draw three conclusions. In the first place, we would do well to take note of the sixteenth-century connotative usage of the word 'prom­ise' whenever we are reading our confessions.

In retrospect we are struck by the fact that K. Schilder in his Looze Kalk clearly advocated that preaching ought to have a place of honour in the appropriation of salvation.⁹ At the same time, however, he narrowed down the view on the nature of the promise when he posits that 'promise' always refers to the future work of God, which condition makes us look forward to the promised benefit.¹⁰ With reference to this issue, it was J. G. Woeldering who managed to dig deeper since, in his analysis of the dogmatic conflict in the Reformed Churches (in The Netherlands) in 1945, he juxtaposed 'promise' and 'reality.' Though this terminology was not well-chosen¹¹ his way of reasoning is powerful, espe­cially with reference to the scholastic concept of grace as found in the synod's apolegetics. But it is peculiar that K. Schilder in his polem­ics does not appear to have been prompted at any time by Woelderink's analyses.¹²

In the second place it would seem to be too high a price to pay if we, because of diagnosed subjectivism in the doctrine of the covenant, were to say farewell to the archetypal Reformatorical expression going back to Romans 4:14-16 that promise and faith are correlative (are mutually related).¹³

This is a loaded expression because of the preferential treatment the word 'correlative' receives in the dogmatics of G.C. Berkhouwer. But the meaning of this expression cannot be misunderstood; i.e. God comes in the word of His promise to man and attracts him in this manner to the hearing that comes from faith. It is the Law that insists on works, but the promise demands faith (cf Gal. 3, Rom 10:5-10).

Should man refuse to accept God's promise through faith, the validity of the promise is — nonetheless — not nullified; yet its salvatory effect has then vanished. The promise is aimed at faith, whereas faith stands in relationship to the promise.

The argument offered in the Apologia of the Augsburg Confession (Article 4) is impressive to such an extent that we could never part with it. But it is plain that it can be abused. Subjecti­vism can turn 'the mutual relationship' into 'becoming inter-dependent.'

In this case there actually would not be a valid promise or true baptism any longer if rebirth and faith were lacking.

Furthermore, it is possible to turn the faith in God's salvation into an eclectic principle which chooses what is thought best from the revealed Scripture passages. In this event, whatever according to human insight falls outside the gospel of salvation (e.g. the revelation about the wrath of God) cannot really be considered a basis for faith. Besides, an idea as 'relative scriptural authority' can in this manner be plied with arguments in an attempt to rise above the dilemma of objectivism and subjec­tivism. In this case, only that is considered to be 'relevant' in the Bible when it awakens in us a response in the existential situation of life. What happens here is that the application seeks to determine the explication.

But we should always be mindful of Calvin's instruction as he addresses us in his Institution (III, 2, 29). It serves as a background for Lord's Day 7 of The Heidelberg Catechism, and specifi­cally of Question and Answer 21. Faith listens to all that God has promised us in His Word. Even so, its focus is in particular on God's promise of salvation. For the God Whom we confess is the Father of Jesus Christ, the Son of His love.¹⁴

Our third and last conclusion is closely con­nected with the foregoing. We have to make it clear that the obligation of God's covenant constitutes an integral whole with the promise. The obligation is brought forth by the promise.It is for this reason that labeling the relation­ship between 'promise' and 'obligation' as a 'correlation' is really too inadequate a term.¹⁵ What this term intends to do is to express the indivisible components of the covenant most emphatically. But we do not think that the term 'correlation' suits that purpose. God's speaking to man is in itself and as such an integral unity. The term 'correlation' is too weak to be used here, inasmuch as 'correlative involvement' is quite different from 'integral unity.' The unity of promise and obligation signifies for us specifically the fact that all God's speaking in that very capacity calls us to listen and obey.

It would be most unusual for a speaker (dur­ing his speech) to constantly remind his audience that they really ought to listen. The obligation to listen comes with the speech itself and is, as it were, a natural part of it. Listening is a prerequisite of believing. Believing means to entrust oneself to God, Who justifies sinners and sanctifies them through the blood and Spirit of Christ. There where the Word of God is accepted, faith is found. Wherever this faith is found, there the 'profit' and the 'fruit' of faith will appear as well; i.e. justification and sanctification.

No doubt, this truth will have to be stated plainly and distinctly. We may and we should urge people on to conversion, faith, sanctification and good works. The preaching should also be instrumental in giving guidance herein. But this should not happen in a schematic or coercive manner. The entire proclamation is dominated by God's love and goodness, His promise and election. This forms, indeed, the inexhaustible power of Answer 86 of The Heidelberg Catechism: God redeems our life by the blood of His Son. He redeems it so that His Spirit can dwell in it and use it.

Sanctification, too, is a gift and component of the promise. God's salvation reaches out so far that He delivers our lives "in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us" (Rom 8:1 vss.). That is why it is impossible that the promise could ever be proclaimed without asking the response of faith. All preaching proclaims the 'word of faith' (Rom 10:8; Gal 3:2). And faith cannot be perceived otherwise than by expressing itself through love (Gal 5:6; cf. HC Answer 64).

Again, it would therefore be impossible for the law to be proclaimed without pointing out God's promising word and work of deliver­ance to the congregation. Remember? The obligation proceeds from the promise.

It was Luther who admirably taught us the evangelical character of the first command­ment. The God of salvation gave us His law so that our deliverance may be preserved for us. Therefore, God's Torah signifies more than our word 'law.' It signifies the teaching about the way He wants us to walk before Him and the path we are allowed to follow with Him.¹⁶

In the same manner, the 'command' of Christ (e.g. Mat 28:20; Jn 13-15) is a concern which has His love, demand our love in return. The entire Christian doctrine and the normative instruction of the apostles can, at a specific moment, be called 'command' (cf. 2 Pet 2:21; 3:2).¹⁷

In summary: it is exactly because of the unity of the promise and the obligation that the preaching of the covenant must not be repre­sented by schematism or coercion. Nor should the preaching because of this approach end up in two separate circuits ('promise' and 'obliga­tion') which — once uncoupled from each other — are placed in a contrasting or comple­mentary relationship.

'Contrasting' means in this case that the preacher addresses the congregation thus: "Here is the beautiful promise, BUT there is also the obligation of the covenant." 'Comple­mentary' means in this context that the preacher declares to the congregation: "Having arrived at this point, we must now also pay attention to the obligation."

Herein lies the proof that the power of preach­ing is a 'preaching of faith,' when the love of God in Jesus Christ is presented to us in such a way that we know our lives to be totally subject to God. In this event the admonition will be a comfort to us, and the comfort will spur us on to consecrate ourselves to service. We know that we do not live by the promise and the obligation, but we live our lives with God — the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. He is the God of the promise, in Him we put our trust, and Him we serve. Our lives become unthinkable without Him.

And it is the promise of the gospel which ought to be proclaimed without discrimina­tion to all peoples and to all men, together with the command to repent and believe (Canons of Dort II, 5).

Remember: the promise!