# Covenant and the doctrine of God?



## jwright82 (May 29, 2012)

I have been thinking about this lately and it appears to me that in the grand scheme of things covenant should logically precede the doctrine of God in systematic theology. It is only through God’s covenantal condescension and accommodation to us in revelation do we have a doctrine of God. I know that this is only a disagreement with the place of covenant theology in the confession and our systematic theologies. But it seems more natural to me. I will quote the WCF on the covenant and then the chapters I think should follow and tell me it doesn’t seem to flow better. What do ya’ll think about this?



> CHAPTER VII
> Of God's Covenant with Man.
> I. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him, as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.
> 
> ...





> CHAPTER I.
> Of the holy Scripture.
> I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation; therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.
> 
> ...





> CHAPTER II.
> Of God, and of the Holy Trinity.
> I. There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his won glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin; and who will by no means clear the guilty.
> 
> ...


----------



## py3ak (May 29, 2012)

No, I think you are wrong (although I suspect such a reorganization might be amenable to many today).

1. In the order of knowing, Scripture comes first. How do you know anything about God or the covenant he has made? Through Scripture.
2. In the order of being, God comes first. A covenant requires parties. Existence precedes revelation, condescension, or making compacts.
3. In historic Reformed theology, the decree of election is (in the order of nature) prior to the covenant of redemption.


----------



## jwright82 (May 29, 2012)

py3ak said:


> No, I think you are wrong (although I suspect such a reorganization might be amenable to many today).
> 
> 1. In the order of knowing, Scripture comes first. How do you know anything about God or the covenant he has made? Through Scripture.
> 2. In the order being, God comes first. A covenant requires parties. Existence precedes revelation, condescension, or making compacts.
> 3. In historic Reformed theology, the decree of election is (in the order of nature) prior to the covenant of redemption.



Yes the place of scripture did cause me some unease, we learn of covenants from scripture. My argument is epistemologically saying that we have a doctrine of God from His covenantal revelation. Ontologically you are right but my point is epistemologically oriented.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 29, 2012)

It is difficult, if not impossible, to speak of God's ultimacy in what is essentially our accommodated language and by our limitations.

What is "more ultimate" for God: Ontology, Epistemology, or Ethic? A good argument can be mounted even for Ethic (!), since God wills his own existence, and always has (from eternity).

If man is independent, then ontology could precede everything, _cotigo ergo sum_. But revelationally, surely ethic precedes ontology, what _should be_ comes before what *IS*. (I do NOT say that man thereby has a _necessary_ existence, apart from the WILL of God, which is free). And then, if we push that back one step to the Creator himself, should there be any objection to the _necessity_ of the existence of God? But we can't abstract that ultimate necessity from the divine existence himself, so we are left in a constant, self-referential circle when considering God, _a se_.


As for the original question, one could argue that Scripture itself _is_ Covenant, not merely an idea derived from covenant. That we start to get a bit self-referential here should not scare us from noting the fact. Only that we recognize the limits of our linear logical steps, even while we affirm the indispensability of those same logical reference points, and that to have coherence to our thought and understanding, we need to start in some reasonable or justifiable place.


----------



## jwright82 (May 29, 2012)

Contra_Mundum said:


> As for the original question, one could argue that Scripture itself is Covenant, not merely an idea derived from covenant. That we start to get a bit self-referential here should not scare us from noting the fact. Only that we recognize the limits of our linear logical steps, even while we affirm the indispensability of those same logical reference points, and that to have coherence to our thought and understanding, we need to start in some reasonable or justifiable place.



I would agree with you here.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (May 29, 2012)

py3ak said:


> 1. In the order of knowing, Scripture comes first. How do you know anything about God or the covenant he has made? Through Scripture.


Why would Natural Revelation not come first? 


> The very light of nature in man, and the works of God, declare plainly that there is a God; but his Word and Spirit only do sufficiently and effectually reveal him unto men for their salvation.


 We know there is a God _prior_ to knowing Him through His Word and Spirit.


----------



## py3ak (May 29, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> Yes the place of scripture did cause me some unease, we learn of covenants from scripture. My argument is epistemologically saying that we have a doctrine of God from His covenantal revelation. Ontologically you are right but my point is epistemologically oriented.



Where do you learn that the relationship is covenantal? It's in Scripture. In the order of knowing (epistemologically) we know from Scripture that God has made a covenant. It is from Scripture's witness to itself that you would find out that they are the Scriptures of the covenant. It seems to me that your order starts with the adjective, rather than the noun: revelation may be covenantal, but covenantal is still a descriptive term that tells us what kind of revelation it is: and we can only learn what descriptive terms are appropriate from the revelation itself. 

It seems to me that there is a strong tendency in our day to try to make "covenant" the controlling factor in all of our theology, and I think that is a trend that ought to be resisted.

Ben, that might be a can of worms too large for this thread. But in short order, the Confession doesn't have a separate chapter on natural revelation. Just from a practical standpoint, then, the Confession either has to start with Scripture or with God (and both patterns are found in Reformed confessions). In a broader sense, the fact that natural revelation is now marred and that our perceptions of it are even more marred mean that it is impossible to have a correct natural theology without the corrections and clarifications offered by Scripture.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (May 29, 2012)

py3ak said:


> In a broader sense, the fact that natural revelation is now marred and that our perceptions of it are even more marred mean that it is impossible to have a correct natural theology without the corrections and clarifications offered by Scripture.


 Awesome answer... thanks... please excuse the thread drift.


----------



## jwright82 (May 29, 2012)

py3ak said:


> Where do you learn that the relationship is covenantal? It's in Scripture. In the order of knowing (epistemologically) we know from Scripture that God has made a covenant. It is from Scripture's witness to itself that you would find out that they are the Scriptures of the covenant. It seems to me that your order starts with the adjective, rather than the noun: revelation may be covenantal, but covenantal is still a descriptive term that tells us what kind of revelation it is: and we can only learn what descriptive terms are appropriate from the revelation itself.



Very true. But Scripture may be first in order of knowing but that doesn't settle whether or not the doctrine of God should be after th edoctrine of teh covenants.


----------



## py3ak (May 29, 2012)

Who is the covenanting party? Who is the one who makes the covenant, condescending to sovereignly dispose of each and every facet of the covenant? Covenant is neither prior nor essential to God. Since without God you have no one to make the covenant, it seems quite logical to me be introduced to the party-contractor before you are introduced to the contract. Before we speak of the tie that binds, of the medium, we should speak of the agents bound, of the termini.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 1, 2012)

py3ak said:


> Who is the covenanting party? Who is the one who makes the covenant, condescending to sovereignly dispose of each and every facet of the covenant? Covenant is neither prior nor essential to God. Since without God you have no one to make the covenant, it seems quite logical to me be introduced to the party-contractor before you are introduced to the contract. Before we speak of the tie that binds, of the medium, we should speak of the agents bound, of the termini.



Yes but without the covenant you have no revelation. It seems like a circle.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 1, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> Yes but without the covenant you have no revelation.



The Heaven's declare the glory of God. 

John chapter one starts off with the Logos.

Is it really true that there is no revelation of God outside of the Covenant? 



> (Joh 1:1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
> 
> (Joh 1:2) He was in the beginning with God.
> 
> ...





> (Psa 19:1) The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
> 
> (Psa 19:2) Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.
> 
> ...


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 1, 2012)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> The Heaven's declare the glory of God.
> 
> John chapter one starts off with the Logos.
> 
> Is it really true that there is no revelation of God outside of the Covenant?



Here the question would be is natural knowledge of God covenantal as well?


----------



## py3ak (Jun 1, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Who is the covenanting party? Who is the one who makes the covenant, condescending to sovereignly dispose of each and every facet of the covenant? Covenant is neither prior nor essential to God. Since without God you have no one to make the covenant, it seems quite logical to me be introduced to the party-contractor before you are introduced to the contract. Before we speak of the tie that binds, of the medium, we should speak of the agents bound, of the termini.
> ...



I don't think that's necessarily true. For one thing, the covenant form of revelation is not necessary. For another thing, revelation does come to those outside the covenant - that's how they hear the terms of the covenant, after all. In other words, you don't have to be _in_ covenant to be told _about_ the covenant.

The whole idea of a covenant presupposes something: even the covenant of works presupposes the existence of parties and the possibility of a relationship between them. And of course the covenant of grace presupposes a preceding estrangement and barriers to be overcome.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 1, 2012)

py3ak said:


> I don't think that's necessarily true. For one thing, the covenant form of revelation is not necessary. For another thing, revelation does come to those outside the covenant - that's how they hear the terms of the covenant, after all. In other words, you don't have to be in covenant to be told about the covenant.
> 
> The whole idea of a covenant presupposes something: even the covenant of works presupposes the existence of parties and the possibility of a relationship between them. And of course the covenant of grace presupposes a preceding estrangement and barriers to be overcome.



Well isn’t it true that we can have no knowledge of him without, as the confession on the chapter of covenant, “a voluntary condescension” on the part of God? And it is “by way of covenant” that this condescension takes place. Was it not within the covenant that God always revealed himself? This doesn’t mean that people outside the covenant of grace can’t read the bible and understand at least what is being said, only that that revelation was given within the bounds of a covenant. God covenantally revealed to Adam what his purpose was and therefore how to interpret things, so from this I take it to mean that even natural knowledge is covenantal because all people are judged (within the COW) based on this knowledge.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 1, 2012)

> The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him, as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.



We could have no knowledge of God without his revelation, true. But what the confession says is that we could have no _fruition_ of him except by voluntary condescension. But then look at what follows. It has pleased God to express that by way of covenant. There is no hint nor indication that the voluntary condescension couldn't have been expressed some other way. In other words, the chapter on the covenant definitely belongs after the chapters on God's decree and providence.

Defining natural knowledge of God as pertaining to the Covenant of Works is a bit imprecise: Adam also, in the covenant of works, was a recipient of supernatural revelation. 


> Besides this law written in their hearts, they received a command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; which while they kept were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 1, 2012)

py3ak said:


> > The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him, as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah I see your point. I am coming to consider this question as one of preference rather than necessity. You are right that decree and providence precede covenant but we only know that through the revelation given in the covenant. I think that at least a bare covenant theology of “voluntary condescension” in prolegomena to set the stage of the other doctrines. It would be like through the covenantal revelation of God we know that God freely decreed before any covenant to relate to his creatures by way of covenant. Does that make more sense?


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 2, 2012)

py3ak said:


> It seems to me that there is a strong tendency in our day to try to make "covenant" the controlling factor in all of our theology, and I think that is a trend that ought to be resisted.



I am curious Ruben what errors or problems do you see resulting from this “Trend”?


----------



## py3ak (Jun 2, 2012)

James, I'm sure it would be fine to acknowledge that revelation has come to us in a covenant form, but I'm not persuaded it's the most necessary thing to say at the outset.

As to potential problems, one is simply the reduction of covenant to a meaningless word that sounds cool. All our blessings are covenant blessings, of course, but if covenant becomes simply the catch-all term of approval it obscures the role it actually has to play. For instance, if "covenant" is applied to everything ultimately it can come to mean nothing more than "relationship".
Another is that covenant can become practically hypostasized - people begin to assert that God is naturally, essentially in covenant. At that point, divine freedom is taken away, and in some cases the ontological oneness of the Trinity can be de-emphasized over against a covenantal oneness. 
Or again, some assert that man was created in covenant - was in covenant by virtue of creation rather than providential disposition. This can also undercut God's sovereignty in the covenant of works, and undermine the accent of voluntary condescension.
Another issue is that when covenant becomes the controlling category of all theological reflection, it is possible to forget that this too is an anthropomorphism and an accommodation. Or we run the risk of attempting to approach theology by means of a central dogma; but Reformed theology, at least, has not historically fallen pray to having a central dogma, but has rather derived its theology from the irreducible complexity of Scripture teaching. And it would not surprise me if an exaggeration of the place of the covenant eventually led Reformed theologians to the idea (held by some Lutherans) that Christ is the cause of election.

Lest I be misunderstood, let me clarify that the doctrine of the covenant is very important to me, and I love Olevianus' approach to the statements of the Apostle's Creed - taking them as the articles of the covenant between God and man. But in order for the covenant to be properly appreciated for what it is, we must not say that ultimately it is everything else as well. There is an inadequate christocentric principle, and if the idea of christocentrism can be abused, it's unsurprising that the idea of covenant can also be pushed beyond its boundaries.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 2, 2012)

py3ak said:


> James, I'm sure it would be fine to acknowledge that revelation has come to us in a covenant form, but I'm not persuaded it's the most necessary to say at the outset.
> 
> As to potential problems, one is simply the reduction of covenant to a meaningless word that sounds cool. All our blessings are covenant blessings, of course, but if covenant becomes simply the catch-all term of approval it obscures the role it actually has to play. For instance, if "covenant" is applied to everything ultimately it can come to mean nothing more than "relationship".
> Another is that covenant can become practically hypostasized - people begin to assert that God is naturally, essentially in covenant. At that point, divine freedom is taken away, and in some cases the ontological oneness of the Trinity can be de-emphasized over against a covenantal oneness.
> ...



Thanks Ruben, all I can say to all you posted is yes and amen. Thanks for pointing out those errors that we should all avoid. All things in moderation, including a single doctrine.


----------

