# A Joint Federal Vision Statement - July 2007



## Civbert

A Joint Federal Vision Statement  (PDF)
The following is the opening statement:


> Many of us who have signed this statement are also confessionally bound to the Three Forms of Unity or to the Westminster Confession of Faith. The following brief statement therefore should be understood as being in harmony with those other confessional commitments, a supplement to them, and not an example of generating another system of doctrine. In any place where statements here would constitute an exception to whatever confessional standards we are under, they are exceptions that have been noted and approved by our respective presbyteries or classes. We have sought to maintain an eagerness to submit our teaching to our respective presbyteries for their evaluation, and see this statement as consistent with that desire.
> 
> In addition, in the books, articles and websites that are part of the broader Federal Vision discussion, there are many issues being discussed and distinctive positions held that are not addressed below. We have limited ourselves here to those issues that have been a significant part of recent controversy, or which, in our view, have silently contributed to it.
> 
> This statement represents the views of those who drafted it, contributed to it, and signed it. It should not be taken as a confessional statement by any ecclesiastical assembly or body, particularly the CREC. There are things stated here which do not represent the views of the CREC as a whole, or of certain CREC ministers in particular. The CREC is not an FV denomination, but is rather a confederation which welcomes convictions like these as being “within the Reformed pale.” This statement therefore represents the views of the CREC men who signed it, and it represents what CREC men who could not sign it believe to be within the realm of acceptable differences. It should further be noted that not all the signatures are from the CREC.
> 
> On the other side, there are many people who should be considered as full and friendly participants in the Federal Vision “conversation” who cannot sign this statement (even though they might want to) because of one or two issues—paedocommunion, say, or postmillennialism. This statement is not drawing the borders of our fellowship, and it certainly does not represent any club from which we are trying to exclude people.
> 
> We offer this statement in good faith, and we pray that it will do some good in promoting unity in the broader Church. At the same time, we recognize that some of our differences with our brothers in Christ are “sub-systematic” and may not be obvious on the surface, on the level of systematic theology—what one writer described as looking like the “same theology, different religion.”
> 
> We have no desire to present a “moving target,” but we do want to be teachable, willing to stand corrected, or to refine our formulations as critics point out ambiguties, confusions, or errors. We therefore ask others to accept that the following represents our honest convictions at this stage of the conversation. This statement is therefore not an attempt at evasion or trickery, but simply represents a desire to be as clear as we can be, given our circumstances.
> ...




It was signed by:
John Barach (minister, CREC)
Randy Booth (minister, CREC)
Tim Gallant (minister, CREC)
Mark Horne (minister, PCA)
Jim Jordan (minister, teacher at large)
Peter Leithart (minister, PCA)
Rich Lusk (minister, CREC)
Jeff Meyers (minister, PCA)
Ralph Smith (minister, CREC)
Steve Wilkins (minister, PCA)
Douglas Wilson (minister, CREC)​
Lot's of interesting things that one can comment about.


----------



## wsw201

I read this a couple of days ago. Same old tired song.


----------



## Poimen

I asked this question elsewhere but I will ask here too:

Is Jordan under the authority of any ecclesiastical body?


----------



## wsw201

He belongs to a micro-denomination. I think its about two or three churches.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Let's not start picking on micros...there are good reasons for some.


----------



## Poimen

wsw201 said:


> He belongs to a micro-denomination. I think its about two or three churches.



Which one? I find it curious that the document did not mention it.


----------



## wsw201

Daniel,

Its Providence National Presbytery and its 3 churches.


----------



## JohnV

I would like to see this statement explained more carefully:


> In any place where statements here would constitute an exception to whatever confessional standards we are under, they are exceptions that have been noted and approved by our respective presbyteries or classes.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Poimen

wsw201 said:


> Daniel,
> 
> Its Providence National Presbytery and its 3 churches.



Thanks Wayne. In case anyone is interested they have a website:

http://www.providencepresbytery.org/


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

Civbert said:


> A Joint Federal Vision Statement  (PDF)
> The following is the opening statement:
> 
> 
> It was signed by:
> John Barach (minister, CREC)
> Randy Booth (minister, CREC)
> Tim Gallant (minister, CREC)
> Mark Horne (minister, PCA)
> Jim Jordan (minister, teacher at large)
> Peter Leithart (minister, PCA)
> Rich Lusk (minister, CREC)
> Jeff Meyers (minister, PCA)
> Ralph Smith (minister, CREC)
> Steve Wilkins (minister, PCA)
> Douglas Wilson (minister, CREC)​



To quote a favorite cartoon commentator, "Blah, blah, blah... yackity smackity." 

It's the same "song" different verse.

I've manitained all along that most of their print and internet material puts me in mind of the throne room scene in Wizard of Oz. Lots of sound and pyrotechnics but no substance and all the while they are saying "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" or "Watch while we dazzle you with fancy words and humor, but don't pay attention to the what we really teach."


----------



## py3ak

Actually, this document raises at least one interesting question, already raised by T.E. Wilder on Lane's blog. 



> We affirm that the triune God is the archetype of all covenantal relations. All faithful theology and life is conducted in union with and imitation of the way God eternally is, and so we seek to understand all that the Bible teaches—on covenant, on law, on gospel, on predestination, on sacraments, on the Church—in the light of an explicit Trinitarian understanding.
> We deny that a mere formal adherence to the doctrine of the Trinity is sufficient to keep the very common polytheistic and unitarian temptations of unbelieving thought at bay.



This says basically three things.
1. The Trinity is the model for all covenant relations.
2. Theology must be Trinitarian.
3. The Trinitarianism of theology must be lived, practised.

I suppose that most of us would not have any difficulty with 2 or 3: Paul and Peter seem to have and use Trinitarian theology. 
But what about point number 1?


----------



## MW

py3ak said:


> But what about point number 1?



Covenant is an agreement between two parties. The "unity" of the three is more than mere agreement. Traditionally it is described as numeric, or consubstantiality. It is better to refer to "covenant" as the means which the Triune God has employed in order to make His elect partakers in His own blessed life and glory. To suggest that "covenant" in any sense describes the essential unity of the Godhead is un-Trinitarian.


----------



## py3ak

Let me see if I understand the critique. The Trinitarian relations are not _constituted_ by a covenant: they are ontological. 

Would this statement pose any difficulties for the covenant of redemption?



> Covenant is an agreement between two parties. The "unity" of the three is more than mere agreement. Traditionally it is described as numeric, or consubstantiality. It is better to refer to "covenant" as the means which the Triune God has employed in order to make His elect partakers in His own blessed life and glory. To suggest that "covenant" in any sense describes the essential unity of the Godhead is un-Trinitarian.


----------



## MW

py3ak said:


> Would this statement pose any difficulties for the covenant of redemption?



No, because one refers to the life of God in Himself, and the other to God's intention re. the elect.


----------



## py3ak

Very good, thank you.

Now in the FV statement they do remark that their views should not be taken as being contrary to the 3FU or Westminster Standards. But their statement on the Trinity doesn't seem to mesh neatly, does it? Am I missing something?


----------



## tewilder

py3ak said:


> Very good, thank you.
> 
> Now in the FV statement they do remark that their views should not be taken as being contrary to the 3FU or Westminster Standards. But their statement on the Trinity doesn't seem to mesh neatly, does it? Am I missing something?



Well, three things:

1) Leithart has talked about a relational theology in which essences are ends, not being. Also his post-modernist _Against Christianity_ contributes to the impression that he cannot consistently hold to a Nicene/Chalcedonian theology. 

2) Ralph Smith brought out three books on the Trinity, which have been critiqued by various people, notably by Rick Phillips. There the Trinity is a covenant relationship. It sounds like polytheism. Three gods sharing a family bond. Also, the FV anthopology says that man is created to participate in this covenant bond, so I sounds like man is part of God, too. Now the FV people deny that this is what the mean, but at the same time they seem unable to say what it is they mean. I think that unless people can show the consistency of doctrines such as these with the Nicene/Chalcedonian theology, they should not be allowed to teach their speculations under the label of orthodoxy. It they claim that this is forcing them into some "hyper technical" "scholastic" mold, then we say, "You are not part of Western Christian orthodoxy, let alone Reformed."

3) Jeff Meyers has a ritual Trinity. God in his view is an eternal mutual sacrifice of three persons. (See Leithart's essays on this at the Biblical Horizons website, for example.) Man is the image of God and thus _homo sacrificans_ and therefore sacrificial ritual, priesthood etc. is more basic than the sin/redemption cycle in Scripture, and the Aaronic priesthood, the New Testament sacraments, etc. and even the work of Christ are to be understood first in regard to this fundamental ritualism, and only secondly with regard to sin/salvation. This ritualism follows the symbol system build into creation (following the "insights" of Meredith Kline). 

What does this imply? First, I am not at all sure that 1, 2 and 3 are even compatible with each other. Second, it seems to be an altogether different theology from the Nicene/Chalcedonian and what is in every dogmatics book. Secondly, the FV do not seem to be disposed to make an effort to explain how all these things can go together. Third, certain critics of the FV, who are fond of Covenant Renewal ritualism prefer to pretend that the problem of point 3 does not exist.


----------



## Gryphonette

I have a real problem with the whole _covenant-within/between-the-Trinity_ theory, and this statement neatly summarizes it: "It sounds like polytheism. Three gods sharing a family bond."

It seems to me the trouble arises when a covenant is viewed as existing between _persons_ instead of _beings_. The LORD is a Trinitarian being while people are mono-beings. Three Persons/One Being vs. One Person/One Being.

A covenant is intended to establish a relationship between two _beings_, I'm thinking. The whole reason a covenant exists is because there was originally a disconnect between two _beings_ and a covenant establishes a connection between them.

If this is so then there can surely be no covenant within/between the Trinity as a disconnect never existed between them.


----------



## fredtgreco

Gryphonette said:


> I have a real problem with the whole _covenant-within/between-the-Trinity_ theory, and this statement neatly summarizes it: "It sounds like polytheism. Three gods sharing a family bond."
> 
> It seems to me the trouble arises when a covenant is viewed as existing between _persons_ instead of _beings_. The LORD is a Trinitarian being while people are mono-beings. Three Persons/One Being vs. One Person/One Being.
> 
> A covenant is intended to establish a relationship between two _beings_, I'm thinking. The whole reason a covenant exists is because there was originally a disconnect between two _beings_ and a covenant establishes a connection between them.
> 
> If this is so then there can surely be no covenant within/between the Trinity as a disconnect never existed between them.



Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The covenant of redemption _is_ a intra-Trinitarian covenant. But it is an economical (i.e. purposeful) covenant, not a ontological covenant (as Smith implies exists in the Trinity).


----------



## toddpedlar

Gryphonette said:


> I have a real problem with the whole _covenant-within/between-the-Trinity_ theory, and this statement neatly summarizes it: "It sounds like polytheism. Three gods sharing a family bond."
> 
> It seems to me the trouble arises when a covenant is viewed as existing between _persons_ instead of _beings_. The LORD is a Trinitarian being while people are mono-beings. Three Persons/One Being vs. One Person/One Being.
> 
> A covenant is intended to establish a relationship between two _beings_, I'm thinking. The whole reason a covenant exists is because there was originally a disconnect between two _beings_ and a covenant establishes a connection between them.
> 
> If this is so then there can surely be no covenant within/between the Trinity as a disconnect never existed between them.



I disagree with your premise, namely that there need be a disconnect between the persons involved in a covenant, and that covenants can only take place between "beings". Part of the problem here is that we have no knowledge (apart from God Himself) of a distinction of persons that is not a distinction of beings. In the Trinity, we have the personal distinction without a "being" distinction, and the Triune God is thus unique.

To posit that separate BEINGS is needed for a covenant isn't warranted, I think. 

If that objection goes by the wayside, then we still need to deal with the other premise with which I disagree - that there must needs be a disconnect. 

Adam was created in perfect harmony with God. There was no disconnect to repair, no breach to resolve. The covenant of life with Adam was in place between two already-in-harmony persons. We think of covenants in terms of being a breach-repairer because we are so attuned to thinking in terms of the covenant of Grace - but the covenant of life (and the covenant of redemption) need not be thought of in the same terms at all. 

Just a couple of cents out of the pot,

Todd


----------



## Davidius

toddpedlar said:


> I disagree with your premise, namely that there need be a disconnect between the persons involved in a covenant, and that covenants can only take place between "beings". Part of the problem here is that we have no knowledge (apart from God Himself) of a distinction of persons that is not a distinction of beings. In the Trinity, we have the personal distinction without a "being" distinction, and the Triune God is thus unique.
> 
> To posit that separate BEINGS is needed for a covenant isn't warranted, I think.



As I was reading this I thought about Job's statement that he had made a covenant with his eyes. He was only one being but made a covenant with himself to not do something.


----------



## Gryphonette

*But a breach was possible, was it not?*

"...we still need to deal with the other premise with which I disagree - that there must needs be a disconnect. 

Adam was created in perfect harmony with God. There was no disconnect to repair, no breach to resolve. The covenant of life with Adam was in place between two already-in-harmony persons. We think of covenants in terms of being a breach-repairer because we are so attuned to thinking in terms of the covenant of Grace - but the covenant of life (and the covenant of redemption) need not be thought of in the same terms at all." 

The covenant of life existed because of the possibility of a breach occurring, I'd think.

Can there be a similar breach within the Trinity?

I'd say not.


----------



## Civbert

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> As I was reading this I thought about Job's statement that he had made a covenant with his eyes. He was only one being but made a covenant with himself to not do something.



 Interesting point. So then you, as a person, can make a promise to yourself, and that doesn't imply that you are two persons. 

And while the intra-trinitarian covenant is between persons (God the Father and God the Son), your point illustrates that even if the one Godhead were to make a covenant with itself, that would not imply two Godheads. 

An intra-trinitarian covenant does not necessarily imply two persons are needed for a covenant, much less two Gods. We know that it is between two persons because they way Christ spoke of the Father and Paul spoke of our being reconciled to the Father through faith in the Son.


----------



## sotzo

Hopefully, this FV statement represents the last gasping breath of a passing doctrinal fad. I cannot understand how these ministers have so much time on their hands or the conscience to continue tinkering around with the doctrine of justification after what happened at the PCA's GA....give it up already and care for your congregations and cities!


----------



## Gryphonette

Civbert said:


> Interesting point. So then you, as a person, can make a promise to yourself, and that doesn't imply that you are two persons.
> 
> And while the intra-trinitarian covenant is between persons (God the Father and God the Son), your point illustrates that even if the one Godhead were to make a covenant with itself, that would not imply two Godheads.
> 
> An intra-trinitarian covenant does not necessarily imply two persons are needed for a covenant, much less two Gods. We know that it is between two persons because they way Christ spoke of the Father and Paul spoke of our being reconciled to the Father through faith in the Son.



It seems to me such a "covenant" would be akin to literary license, or for descriptive purposes only. 

A regenerate person...which Job presumably was....has both a divine nature and a sin nature, therefore it's reasonable for Job to, in effect, make a covenant with himself by promising his Spirit-given nature will not be trumped by his sin nature.

There is a constant war going on inside a regenerate person, as sin struggles to regain its mastery.

This isn't a problem for the LORD. 

I'm nothing close to a theologian, but as I've understood it a covenant either establishes a relationship where none existed before (as in marriage), or it is an agreement between two parties (only two? can a covenant be established between three or more parties? I don't know) regarding purpose, as it was put elsewhere in the thread.

Since the LORD is one in Being and purpose, immutable, sovereign, etc. I'm puzzled as to how He could ever be truly said to establish a covenant with Himself. Granted there is language in Scripture that sounds as if that occurs, but then there is language in Scripture wherein He says He changed His mind, or turned from His purpose. He speaks so as to communicate with us, however, so uses language we understand, and often speaks from our vantage point (as in saying the sun rises and sets, even though it doesn't actually do that).

Since a covenant is made either to effect a change (in relationship or activity), or to maintain an existing situation (such as Adam's relationship with God in the Garden), yet God never changes, and is the same now as He ever was and ever will be, I don't believe it's accurate to say there actually exists a covenant within the Trinity.

I mean, did the Father, Son and Holy Spirit truly sit down and discuss and thrash out the terms of the covenant of redemption? Were They ever _not _as one in purpose?

This is why I dislike any suggestion of an unlimited atonement; it requires there to be a division of purpose within the Trinity, with Christ dying to save every person without exception, yet Him only effectively saving those the Father gave Him.

There has never been a division of purpose within the Trinity, I don't believe. If there has never _been_ such a division, or even the theoretical _possibility _of such a division, there is no necessity for a covenant.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

I suspect that there's some social Trinitarianism lurking in the new FV statement. 

There is discussion of it and links to other discussions of the statement on the HB. The general link is below and you can find the posts there.

rsc


----------



## Romans922

fredtgreco said:


> It is an economical (i.e. purposeful) covenant, not a ontological covenant



Can someone, maybe even Fred clarify what is being said here. That meaning can you please distinguish and explain the meaning of economical covenant and ontological covenant.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Gents,

Interesting discussion about Covenants between persons but let's keep the discussion on track.

Thanks for the great summary T.E. Their inability to harmonize between themselves as well as their willingness to run roughshod over historic creeds proves a point I've been making a long time about an approach to theology that steps out of the context of the Church and views it as an independent exercise where the individual gets to call the shots.

The typical rejoinder when you call one of these guys un-Confessional is to cry foul and to point to some luminary who holds their view. Frankly, if we want to justify any heresy we can find men throughout history that can support our novel thinking.

These men are as unstable as water. Their approach to theology is not moored in the Church and, until it is, they will continue to drift further into rebellion.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JohnV

SemperFideles said:


> Thanks for the great summary T.E. Their inability to harmonize between themselves as well as their willingness to run roughshod over historic creeds proves a point I've been making a long time about an approach to theology that steps out of the context of the Church and views it as an independent exercise where the individual gets to call the shots.
> 
> The typical rejoinder when you call one of these guys un-Confessional is to cry foul and to point to some luminary who holds their view. Frankly, if we want to justify any heresy we can find men throughout history that can support our novel thinking.
> 
> These men are as unstable as water. Their approach to theology is not moored in the Church and, until it is, they will continue to drift further into rebellion.



I agree, Rich. I would say it differently, but I agree. 

This is how I would say it:

There was a day, not too long ago (at least within my memory) when a statement like the joint statement stated above was reason enough to discipline these men. It was called being schismatic. It doesn't have to be that what is being taught is outright heresy for it to be schismatic. Causing division in the church can also be achieved by preaching things that are not doctrine, personal views, even though these views may not in themselves be heretical. Dividing congregations over personal views is being schismatic. 

Championing things that are not part of that which a minister is called to preach causes that particular thing to be contentious among the congregation. It is supposed to be that people can and may differ on such things to the benefit of a congregation, not to their hurt. It just isn't part of an office-bearer's calling to be taking sides. Unity is to be promoted, not things which cause division. 

Notice that the signers of the above statement are all office-bearers. And notice that they're not defending their views as THE defined doctrine of the Word; they're defending these things as their own points of view. They're not even claiming that everyone needs to agree to these views. They're OK with people disagreeing. In other words, these things are not even deemed as doctrinal by these signers. 

It can't be any clearer: they're inciting schism within the unity of the faith.

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## py3ak

tewilder said:


> Well, three things:
> 
> 1) Leithart has talked about a relational theology in which essences are ends, not being. Also his post-modernist _Against Christianity_ contributes to the impression that he cannot consistently hold to a Nicene/Chalcedonian theology.
> 
> 2) Ralph Smith brought out three books on the Trinity, which have been critiqued by various people, notably by Rick Phillips. There the Trinity is a covenant relationship. It sounds like polytheism. Three gods sharing a family bond. Also, the FV anthopology says that man is created to participate in this covenant bond, so I sounds like man is part of God, too. Now the FV people deny that this is what the mean, but at the same time they seem unable to say what it is they mean. I think that unless people can show the consistency of doctrines such as these with the Nicene/Chalcedonian theology, they should not be allowed to teach their speculations under the label of orthodoxy. It they claim that this is forcing them into some "hyper technical" "scholastic" mold, then we say, "You are not part of Western Christian orthodoxy, let alone Reformed."
> 
> 3) Jeff Meyers has a ritual Trinity. God in his view is an eternal mutual sacrifice of three persons. (See Leithart's essays on this at the Biblical Horizons website, for example.) Man is the image of God and thus _homo sacrificans_ and therefore sacrificial ritual, priesthood etc. is more basic than the sin/redemption cycle in Scripture, and the Aaronic priesthood, the New Testament sacraments, etc. and even the work of Christ are to be understood first in regard to this fundamental ritualism, and only secondly with regard to sin/salvation. This ritualism follows the symbol system build into creation (following the "insights" of Meredith Kline).
> 
> What does this imply? First, I am not at all sure that 1, 2 and 3 are even compatible with each other. Second, it seems to be an altogether different theology from the Nicene/Chalcedonian and what is in every dogmatics book. Secondly, the FV do not seem to be disposed to make an effort to explain how all these things can go together. Third, certain critics of the FV, who are fond of Covenant Renewal ritualism prefer to pretend that the problem of point 3 does not exist.



On point 1, I suppose that is the background to some of them thinking (as the document goes on to say) that human beings *don't* have essences to be changed. I suppose that then turns new birth into an official (but non-essential?) entrance into the new creation?

I have heard some FV supporters rumbling about theosis and making claims about the ontological nature of salvation. This is supposedly derived from the Fathers; but of course James White can say that he believes in theosis in Athanasius' sense, but I doubt that they would have much sympathy with him. And there was some noise about the incarnation being in some sense repeated in us.

Do these ideas necessarily redefine God, deny the Creator-creature distinction, and confuse glorification with divinization? If essences are "ends" what would prohibit us from becoming God?


----------



## tewilder

py3ak said:


> On point 1, I suppose that is the background to some of them thinking (as the document goes on to say) that human beings *don't* have essences to be changed. I suppose that then turns new birth into an official (but non-essential?) entrance into the new creation?
> 
> I have heard some FV supporters rumbling about theosis and making claims about the ontological nature of salvation. This is supposedly derived from the Fathers; but of course James White can say that he believes in theosis in Athanasius' sense, but I doubt that they would have much sympathy with him. And there was some noise about the incarnation being in some sense repeated in us.
> 
> Do these ideas necessarily redefine God, deny the Creator-creature distinction, and confuse glorification with divinization? If essences are "ends" what would prohibit us from becoming God?



I think that the correct answer here is that we don't know because the FV writers don't know. They are neither precise nor systematic thinkers in regard to philosophy or theology. The true meaning and implication of many things that they say is left unresolved. 

They would claim that they do not intend the consequences you mention, but they will not express themselves in a way that makes clear that these are not logical implications of what they say.


----------



## fredtgreco

Romans922 said:


> Can someone, maybe even Fred clarify what is being said here. That meaning can you please distinguish and explain the meaning of economical covenant and ontological covenant.



It is not essential to the nature of God that He covenants. The FV view appears to be (following Ralph Smith) that God _must_ by His nature covenant within the Trinity. This is not the Biblical view. The Biblical view is that covenanting for God is for us. Even the intra-Trinitarian covenant has respect to the salvation of men. God's relationship with Himself (within the Trinity) is of His essence (perichoresis), rather than a result of covenanting.

For a much better and fuller treatment of the doctrine of perichoresis, listen to the lectures of Doug Kelly on the Trinity. They are the ones in the iTunes Systematic Theology podcast.

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## py3ak

I suppose they would say that the reference to the creeds and confessions means that any ambiguity is to be nuanced in the direction of orthodoxy. But questioning whether there is such a thing as essence seems to necessarily raise certain questions for the Athanasian formula, it seems to me.


----------



## Romans922

fredtgreco said:


> It is not essential to the nature of God that He covenants. The FV view appears to be (following Ralph Smith) that God _must_ by His nature covenant within the Trinity. This is not the Biblical view. The Biblical view is that covenanting for God is for us. Even the intra-Trinitarian covenant has respect to the salvation of men. God's relationship with Himself (within the Trinity) is of His essence (perichoresis), rather than a result of covenanting.
> 
> For a much better and fuller treatment of the doctrine of perichoresis, listen to the lectures of Doug Kelly on the Trinity. They are the ones in the iTunes Systematic Theology podcast.




Oh, that helps out greatly, thanks.


----------



## TexasBerean

In my humble opinion, the FV proponents by this statment, though under a flag of clarity and charitable "promotion of unity in the broader church" have simply manifested their inability, or more probably, lack of desire to promote either. In the third page of the statement, they discourage the use of, "hyper-specialized terminology" that is "extrabiblical" in regular teaching because they believe it "has the effect of confusing the saints and of estranging them from contact with the biblical use of the same language." I disagree, the very purpose of this precise theological language is to serve clarity and the unity of the church. Clarity and Unity do not seem to be their intentions when they seek to deny the precise theological, doctrinal language by which the two are progressed. It seems they would much rather use the words of scripture and the several confessions to which they subscribe to mean whatever they wish them to mean. Confessing the inerrancy of scripture, and the good Christian confessions, is meant to restrict the flexibility of interpretation of life and death doctrines such as justification and "final justification" (if there were such a thing). By denying the strict and precise use of language in the confessions they seek to purchase the wiggle room to say what they wish. This is evidenced by their statement "We deny that confessional commitments in any way require us to avoid using the categories and terms of scripture even when the confessional use of such words is necessarily more narrow and circumscribed." Certainly words in scripture can be used for different meanings (i.e. Justification when used by Paul or James) and so it is imperative for the sake of unity and clarity that we agree on a well defined, precise theological language. Otherwise, there is no common ground for debate: how can we understand eachother when we dont agree on language?


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

From page 3 of the "statement"

"At the same time, we do deny that such translations are superior to or equal to the rhetoric employed by the Spirit in the text, and we believe that the employment of such hyper-specialized terminology in the regular teaching and preaching of the Church has the unfortunate effect of confusing the saints and of estranging them from contact with the biblical use of the same language."​ 
Pasted from other parts of the document (emphasis added)​ 
Those covenant members who are not *elect in the decretal sense* enjoy the common
operations of the Spirit in varying degrees, but not in the same way that those who are
elect do.​



_We deny 
_that such a distinction excludes other helpful distinctions, *such as the historical **church and eschatological church*. *The historical Church generally corresponds to the visible Church—all those who profess the true religion, together with their children—and the eschatological Church should be understood as the full number of God’s chosen as they will be seen on the day of resurrection*.​

Baptism formally engrafts a person into the Church, *which means that baptism is into the Regeneration,* that time when the Son of Man sits upon His glorious throne (Matt. 19:28).​ 
_*We deny *_​_
_​_
_*that baptism automatically guarantees that the baptized will share in the eschatological Church. We deny **the common misunderstanding of baptismal regeneration—i.e. that an “effectual call” rebirth is automatically wrought in the one baptized. *Baptism apart from a growing and living faith is not saving, but rather damning. But _we deny _that trusting God's promise through baptism elevates baptism to a human work. God gives baptism as assurance of His grace to us personally, as our names are spoken when we are baptized. 

There are other examples. But really, aren't these examples of "hyper-specialized terminology"? Or, more properly, new terms to describe old errors?​​​


----------



## TexasBerean

Well said Rev.!


----------



## AV1611

armourbearer said:


> Covenant is an agreement between two parties.



I would have to ask from where you asertained this definition for the covenant between Jehovah and Abraham in Genesis 15 is certainly not an agreement between two parties as is clearly seen.



armourbearer said:


> The "unity" of the three is more than mere agreement.



Indeed, it is a unity of essence in the bond of love.



armourbearer said:


> Traditionally it is described as numeric, or consubstantiality. It is better to refer to "covenant" as the means which the Triune God has employed in order to make His elect partakers in His own blessed life and glory.



Louis Berkhof writes in his _Systematic Theology_ that the Reformed view of the covenant is one of communion and this can be seen in (amongst others) Kuyper, Bavinck and of course Hoeksema. Indeed I would urge PB members to read Hoeksema's treatment of the covenant in the first volume of his _Reformed Dogmatics_ but failing that his _The Covenant: God's Tabernacle with Men_ 

I would argue that the covenant purpose of God is to manifest his own Trinitarian covenant life through the taking of a people for his own possession and establishing a covenant with them in Christ Jesus. We must start with God and the key point to consider in highlighted in 1 John 5:7 which reads thus: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” God is both three and one. One in essence and yet three in person. The Father is distinct from the Son and the Holy Ghost. The Son is distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is distinct from the Father and the Son. Whist they are three they exist as one and such is the glorious mystery of the Trinity. There is one divine life but three who live it. God is three living as one in a perfect unity of being yet as three distinct persons. From this we can say that the triune God lives a perfect and complete life within himself and this life is one of covenant – the fellowship and communion he enjoys with himself in the unity of essence and the trinity of person. This Trinitarian life is the life of the covenant for all three persons live in communion with one another and so the divine life of the trinity is a life of intimate communion and friendship. God has revealed this covenant by taking his people into his own triune life and this he does through Christ. God dwells with his people in Christ and so we read “they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us” (Matthew 1:23). In Christ the covenant is manifested and yet it is fully fulfilled in eternity as we read in Revelation 21:2-4 saying “And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.” I would then define the covenant thus: _The Covenant of God is the most blessed communion and intimate friendship between the triune God, as Sovereign-Friend, and his chosen people in Christ Jesus, as servant-friends._ 



armourbearer said:


> To suggest that "covenant" in any sense describes the essential unity of the Godhead is un-Trinitarian.



Could you explain?


----------



## Puritan Sailor

AV1611 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Covenant is an agreement between two parties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would have to ask from where you asertained this definition for the covenant between Jehovah and Abraham in Genesis 15 is certainly not an agreement between two parties as is clearly seen.
Click to expand...

It's called a "diatheke", a superior Lord imposing the covenant upon an inferior vassal, hence an agreement between two parties.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Puritan Sailor said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Covenant is an agreement between two parties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would have to ask from where you asertained this definition for the covenant between Jehovah and Abraham in Genesis 15 is certainly not an agreement between two parties as is clearly seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called a "diatheke", a superior Lord imposing the covenant upon an inferior vassal, hence an agreement between two parties.
Click to expand...


Thomas Vincent, _The Shorter Catechism of the Westminster Assembly Explained and Proved from Scripture_:



> XII. Ques. What special act of providence did God exercise toward man, in the estate wherein he was created?
> Ans. When God had created man, he entered into a covenant of life with him, upon. condition of perfect obedience; forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death.
> 
> Q. 1. What is a covenant?
> A. A covenant is a mutual agreement and engagement, between two or more parties to give or do something.



Fisher's Catechism:



> Quest. 12
> 
> Q. 6. What is a covenant?
> 
> A. A mutual free compact and agreement between two parties, upon express terms or conditions.



Herman Witsius, _The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man_, Vol. 1, p. 45:



> A covenant of God with man, is an agreement between God, about the way of obtaining consummate happiness; including a commination of eternal destruction, with which the contemner of the happiness, offered in that way, is to be punished.



Ibid, Vol. 2, p. 252:



> God promised to give the Messiah, and with all manner of blessings, earthly, spiritual, heavenly, to Abraham and his seed, and that all these should come from his seed. God required of Abraham by covenant, that he should walk before him. Circumcision was the sign and seal of this covenant; so that all, who duly submitted to this, according to God's prescription, were solemnly declared by God himself to be partkaers of the promises made to Abraham: and, at the same time openly avowed, that, by a lively faith, they received the promised Messiah, and expected from him blessings of every kind.



Wilhelmus a Brakel, _The Christian's Reasonable Service_, Vol. 1, pp. 428-429:



> The Greek refer to a covenant as ... (_diatheke_)....The difference, among others, between a testament and a covenant is that in the making of a testament there is no permission needed from the heir, whereas mutual acquiescence of both parties is a necessary prerequisite to a covenant. ... (_diatheke_) is most certainly very suitable to describe the covenant of grace, for it is a covenant which has the element of a testament in it, and it is a testament which has something of a covenant in it. _It is a covenantal testament_, and a _testamental covenant_.
> 
> In our language "covenant" is derived from the word "to bind,"[1] whereby things which previously were not connected, are joined together and united. In a covenant, parties which previously were not one but existed separately, are bound together and thus united.
> 
> The word "covenant" has many connotations in God's Word, due to the nature of the agreement or covenant:
> 
> (1) It can refer to _an immutable promise_. "And I, behold, I establish My covenant with you, and with your seed after you; and with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth" (Gen. 9:9-10). No mention is made of any acquiescence by the animals, but it is nevertheless stated that the covenant was made with them. This is nothing less than a promise, at least as far as one of the parties is concerned, promises being a constituent element of a covenant;
> 
> (2) It can refer to _a sure and unbreakable ordinance_. "Thus saith the LORD; if ye can break My covenant of the day, and My covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season..." (Jer. 33:20).
> 
> (3) Peace is a result of a covenant, and therefore, by way of comparison, "covenant" is used to designate peace. "For thou shalt be in league with the stones of the field: and the beasts of the field shall be at peace with thee" (Job 5:23).
> 
> (4) He who partakes of a covenant must take great care not to conduct himself contrary to the covenant. Therefore the act of careful observation is referred to as a covenant. "I made a covenant with mine eyes" (Job 31:1).
> 
> (5) A covenant includes laws which are conditional requirements, and therefore _a command_ is called a covenant. "And He declared unto you His covenant, which He commanded you to perform, even ten commandments" (Deu. 4:13). Actually, these ten words did not constitute the covenant, for the covenant had been established earlier. However, they were laws to which members of the covenant were obliged to adhere.
> 
> (6) _The administration of the covenant_ is occasionally also referred to as the covenant. "This is My covenant...Every man child among you shall be circumcised" (Gen. 17:10). Thus, the new administration of this singular covenant, which already was established with Adam and Eve immediately after the fall, bears the name "covenant." "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah" (Jer. 31:31). These are all the figurative meanings of "covenant."
> 
> [1] In Dutch the connection between the noun and the verb is more obvious. "Verbond in onze taal komt af van binden." This agrees with the English definition of covenant: "a formal, solemn, and binding agreement."



Thomas Boston, _Works_, _The Preface to the Ten Commandments_, Vol. 2, p. 86



> 1. What covenant is this? It is the covenant whereby he was Israel's God before the giving of the law on Sinai; for this plainly relates to a former relation betwixt them, by virtue of which they were brought out of Egypt. This was then no other but the covenant with Abraham and his seed, Gen 17:7, and Gen 15:18, and by virtue of the covenant-promise to Abraham, it was, that they were delivered out of Egypt, Gen 15:13-14, etc. That was not the covenant of works, for it is still opposed to the law, Rom 4, therefore, it is the covenant of grace.
> 
> Under this covenant with Abraham all Israel according to the flesh were in an external manner, whereby God had a more special right over them than the rest of the world; and so is it with all who are within the visible church at this day. But Israel according to the Spirit, the elect of God, and believers, the spiritual seed of Abraham, were and are most properly under this covenant, and that in a saving manner. Rom 4:11-13. So that this reason is not general to all the world, but peculiar to the church.


----------



## AV1611

Thank you brother 



Puritan Sailor said:


> It's called a "diatheke", a superior Lord imposing the covenant upon an inferior vassal, hence an agreement between two parties.



Your conclusion, however, does not follow from you statement i.e. "a superior Lord imposing the covenant upon an inferior vassal" is not equal to "an agreement between two parties".

I would point to this by John Gill. In it he points out the following:

A covenant properly made between man and man, is by stipulation and restipulation, in which they make mutual promises, or conditions, to be performed by them; whether to maintain friendship among themselves, and to strengthen themselves against their common enemies, or to do mutual service to each other, and to their respective posterities; such was the confederacy between Abraham, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; and the covenant between Abimelech and Isaac, and between David and Jonathan (Gen. 14:13, 26:28; 1 Sam. 20:15, 16, 42, 23:18). Now,

Such a covenant, properly speaking, cannot be made between God and man; for what can man restipulate with God, which is in his power to do or give to him, and which God has not a prior right unto? God may, indeed, condescend to promise that to man, which otherwise he is not bound to give; and he may require of man, that which he has no right to refuse, and God has a right unto, without making any such promise; and therefore, properly speaking, all this cannot formally constitute a covenant, which is to be entered into of free choice on both sides; and especially such a covenant cannot take place in fallen man, who has neither inclination of will to yield the obedience required, nor power to perform it.​
Indeed Hoeksema echoes this saying:

Grave objections may be raised against this presentation of the idea of God's covenant. The most serious and fundamental of these is that man cannot really be a party, a contracting party, in relation to the living God. For God is God. He is the infinite, the eternal, the self-existent, the perfectly self-sufficient One. He is the Lord, the sovereign Creator, of Whom, and through Whom, and unto Whom are all things. There is none beside Him. And man is a mere creature that owes his whole existence, all that he is and has, his entire being, with body and soul, with mind and will and strength, with all his powers and talents and possessions, in every relationship and every moment of his life, to his Lord and Creator. God is always the overflowing Fount of all good, and man is always the dependent and needy creature, who must drink from that Fountain. God is the self-sufficient I AM, man is constantly and completely dependent on Him. How, then, shall that creature assume the position of a party in relation to his God? What obligation could he possibly assume beside that which is already incumbent upon him, without any special agreement: that he shall love the Lord his God with all his strength? Can the fulfillment of this solemn obligation ever become a condition for higher favors and richer blessings? 

Man can bring nothing to God, for the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof; His are all the gold and silver, and the cattle on a thousand hills. He can do nothing for God, Who is absolutely self-sufficient. All the good man has is a gift of grace, of free and sovereign favor from his God. Even the privilege that he may love and serve his Creator is a gift of divine goodness, for which he owes Him thanks. How then can the relation between this absolutely sovereign Lord and this wholly dependent creature ever be or become a pact or agreement with mutual conditions and stipulations? How could man ever merit eternal life, or, in fact, merit anything with God, by fulfilling certain conditions. Do I make a pact with the worm that crawls at my feet? Or can a man that owes me a thousand dollars make a claim to new favors by paying his debt? How, then, can the speck of dust that is man ever assume the position of a party in relation to God, and merit special favors and blessings by paying to God what he already owes Him? The relation between God and man can never really be that of an agreement between contracting parties, with mutual stipulations, conditions, and promises!​


----------



## Puritan Sailor

AV1611 said:


> Thank you brother
> 
> 
> 
> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a "diatheke", a superior Lord imposing the covenant upon an inferior vassal, hence an agreement between two parties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your conclusion, however, does not follow from you statement i.e. "a superior Lord imposing the covenant upon an inferior vassal" is not equal to "an agreement between two parties".
Click to expand...

Actually it is. That was how covenants were made in the ANE. They are not equal parties and no one has ever stated they were. But two parties they are. God condescends to make the covenant with man yet remains God in doing so because he determines the stipulations, just as a suzerain would stipulate to a vassal. This is standard Reformed theology. It's unfortunate that Hoeksema got it wrong.


----------



## AV1611

Puritan Sailor said:


> Actually it is. That was how covenants were made in the ANE. They are not equal parties and no one has ever stated they were. But two parties they are. God condescends to make the covenant with man yet remains God in doing so because he determines the stipulations, just as a suzerain would stipulate to a vassal. This is standard Reformed theology. It's unfortunate that Hoeksema got it wrong.



How then do you exegete Genesis 15?


----------



## CDM

fredtgreco said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone, maybe even Fred clarify what is being said here. That meaning can you please distinguish and explain the meaning of economical covenant and ontological covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not essential to the nature of God that He covenants. The FV view appears to be (following Ralph Smith) that God _must_ by His nature covenant within the Trinity. This is not the Biblical view. The Biblical view is that covenanting for God is for us. Even the intra-Trinitarian covenant has respect to the salvation of men. God's relationship with Himself (within the Trinity) is of His essence (perichoresis), rather than a result of covenanting.
> 
> *For a much better and fuller treatment of the doctrine of perichoresis, listen to the lectures of Doug Kelly on the Trinity.* They are the ones in the iTunes Systematic Theology podcast.
Click to expand...


 I wrote my paper on perichoresis for Dr. Kelly's Sys I class in 06. I'll put it in the The PuritanBoard Theological Journal Forum for those wo may not be familiar with this central Trinitarian doctrine.


----------



## Stephen

I read the statement of those holding to the FV position. Except for some obvious points like paedo-communion and the absence of imputation, I cannot disagree with some of what they say. The problem I see is that many of these men are not clear or articulate in explaning their position. Some of them have never been theologically trained (Doug Wilson), so they do not present their case well. Some of the language they use does raise some red flags for me.


----------



## sotzo

How can the Joint Statement reconcile the following sentences in it?

This:
"We deny that creedal or systematic understandings of scriptural truth can ever be given a place of parity with Scripture, or primacy over Scripture."

In light of this:
"We affirm that the triune God is the archetype of all covenantal relations. All faithful
theology and life is conducted in union with and imitation of the way God eternally is, and so we seek to understand all that the Bible teaches—on covenant, on law, on gospel, on predestination, on sacraments, on the Church—in the light of an explicit Trinitarian understanding."

Wouldn't statement 1 nullify statement 2? The Trinity is a "creedal" and "systematic" formulation, flowing from Scripture certainly, but needing extra-biblical language nontheless to describe the doctrine. Per statement 1 above it seems to me orthodox terms such as "hypostasis" would be deemed inferior to Scripture.

Am I misinterpreting their Statement?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

sotzo said:


> How can the Joint Statement reconcile the following sentences in it?
> 
> This:
> "We deny that creedal or systematic understandings of scriptural truth can ever be given a place of parity with Scripture, or primacy over Scripture."
> 
> In light of this:
> "We affirm that the triune God is the archetype of all covenantal relations. All faithful
> theology and life is conducted in union with and imitation of the way God eternally is, and so we seek to understand all that the Bible teaches—on covenant, on law, on gospel, on predestination, on sacraments, on the Church—in the light of an explicit Trinitarian understanding."
> 
> Wouldn't statement 1 nullify statement 2? The Trinity is a "creedal" and "systematic" formulation, flowing from Scripture certainly, but needing extra-biblical language nontheless to describe the doctrine. Per statement 1 above it seems to me orthodox terms such as "hypostasis" would be deemed inferior to Scripture.
> 
> Am I misinterpreting their Statement?



Yes, you're missing something. You're forgetting to use the word Covenant. If you do then you can eschew systematic theology that doesn't use your terminology and forces you to define what your saying in a clear manner that can be criticized. But, as long as you use this word to broad brush stuff you don't really understand yourself, you can be really fuzzy about a bunch of inconsistent topics and claim that you're being Trinitarian.

Because, after all, what is the Trinity? Oh, it's a Covenant. What does that mean? Stop being so systematic!


----------



## sotzo

Thanks Rich. I'm beginning to see the "cake and eat it too" in the NPP/FV.


----------

