# God is a covenant, family, Trinitarian being?



## yeutter (Apr 2, 2019)

Are you comfortable with this statement? "G*od is a covenant, family, Trinitarian being*; who takes His elect people into His covenant fellowship, to be His friends, and to share His own life with them."


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 2, 2019)

As long as the terms are used analogically. 

The persons of the Trinity enter into covenant with each other (Pactum Salutis), so that checks off.

The Father begets the Son. Those are familial terms. Yet I wouldn't read too much into it, since it is a spiritual begetting.

Obviously he is a Trinitarian being.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K (Apr 2, 2019)

Why "friends" rather than something like "children"? I'm not saying friends is necessarily wrong, but it could convey a sense that we and God are all chummy equals. Plus, the children-of-God theme is more prominent in Scripture. If "friends" relates to a larger contextual point being made, very well. Else I might question that choice.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 2, 2019)

Abraham was God's friend (James 2)


----------



## yeutter (Apr 2, 2019)

The discussion about Professor Oliphint's understanding of the covenant caused me to think about this statement. When St. Athanasius talked about the incarnation he did not say, that God is a family Trinitarian being. I can not imagine St. Thomas Aquinas, or Bernard of Clairvaux using an expression like this. Bernard of Clairvaux might say that our God is a covenant God who adopts us as his children in Jesus, and shares His life with his adopted children.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 2, 2019)

yeutter said:


> The discussion about Professor Oliphint's understanding of the covenant caused me to think about this statement. When St. Athanasius talked about the incarnation he did not say, that God is a family Trinitarian being. I can not imagine St. Thomas Aquinas, or Bernard of Clairvaux using an expression like this. Bernard of Clairvaux might say that our God is a covenant God who adopts us as his children in Jesus, and shares His life with his adopted children.



If we hold to the Pactum Salutis, as most Reformed do, then God is a covenantal being. And the language in John 17 is covenantal. When Jesus says "They will be one as we are one," it isn't oneness of being. Jesus isn't asking that we would share in the same oneness of being as the Father. It's covenantal language.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## yeutter (Apr 2, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> If we hold to the Pactum Salutis, as most Reformed do, then God is a covenantal being. And the language in John 17 is covenantal. When Jesus says "They will be one as we are one," it isn't oneness of being. Jesus isn't asking that we would share in the same oneness of being as the Father. It's covenantal language.



I am sorry. I did not make clear my concern. God is a covenantal being. That is not what I am questioning. Is it appropriate to call God a family being?


----------



## jwithnell (Apr 2, 2019)

yeutter said:


> Are you comfortable with this statement? "G*od is a covenant, family, Trinitarian being*; who takes His elect people into His covenant fellowship, to be His friends, and to share His own life with them."


I'm having heartburn over saying God _is_ covenant, regardless of the relationship within the Trinity. If you and I enter into a covenant, you would not say we _are_ a covenant. I don't see the Westminster divines using this language at all in their description of God. When one uses the phrase "God is" in an ontological sense, it should square with the confession.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 2, 2019)

"Covenant" seems to be used there as an adjective, and "family" as well as the more obvious "Trinitarian."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 2, 2019)

yeutter said:


> I am sorry. I did not make clear my concern. God is a covenantal being. That is not what I am questioning. Is it appropriate to call God a family being?



As long as we are using analogical language. God is our father, but not like a physical father.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 2, 2019)

jwithnell said:


> I'm having heartburn over saying God _is_ covenant, regardless of the relationship within the Trinity.



The OP seems pasted from a website, and this appears to be a typo. It's odd to say that God is a covenant qua covenant. As Bruce said, it's probably meant to be "covenantal."


----------



## TylerRay (Apr 2, 2019)

There's a huge difference between saying that God is essentially covenantal, and that the persons of the Trinity enter into a covenant in the _pactum salutis._ Contemporary neocalvinism wants anything that involves unity and diversity, or that involves relations, to be covenantal. It's usually done in a thoughtless way. I don't think it bodes well for the future of theology proper in Reformed circles.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 2, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> Contemporary neocalvinism wants anything that involves unity and diversity, or that involves relations, to be covenantal. It's usually done in a thoughtless way. I don't think it bodes well for the future of theology proper in Reformed circles.



Neo-Calvinism is divided on this point. What you've described is Kuyper's view, and Kuyper on the covenant is usually disastrous. I'm not persuaded that Schilder held to that view. He could have, but most of his stuff is still in Dutch.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 2, 2019)

yeutter said:


> Are you comfortable with this statement? "G*od is a covenant, family, Trinitarian being*; who takes His elect people into His covenant fellowship, to be His friends, and to share His own life with them."





TylerRay said:


> There's a huge difference between saying that God is essentially covenantal, and that the persons of the Trinity enter into a covenant in the _pactum salutis._ Contemporary neocalvinism wants anything that involves unity and diversity, or that involves relations, to be covenantal. It's usually done in a thoughtless way. I don't think it bodes well for the future of theology proper in Reformed circles.


 
Am I right in saying that the first quote is from David Engelsma? I ask because I see the Hoeksemites using this terminology a lot. I agree with Tyler's assessment here, and I have also had Hoeksemites tell me that it is wrong to conceive of God doing more or doing anything different than what he decreed to do (that argument came up in relation to discussions relating to their rejection of the covenant of works, though it was not in conversation with PRCA ministers). Such a view fails to distinguish between what is _ad intra_ to God and what he has decreed _ad extra_ to himself. It also fails to distinguish between God's absolute and ordained power and effectively limits divine omnipotence to what he does in the decree.


----------



## jwithnell (Apr 2, 2019)

While the idea of "father," might imply the idea of family, scripture does not use this language, unless there is a nuance in the originals obscured in the plain reading of the texts. Jesus addresses the Father and we're taught to do the same. 

God specifically creates a family in Eden and it seems a blurring of the creator/creation distinction to apply this term to the Trinity. It might be possible to say creation copies a heavenly existence, but scripture does not make the case. Indeed, the only point in creation that even comes close is the _Imago Dei_, and that attributes something of God to man, not the other way around. 

Many of you in this discussion have a much better grasp on historical theology. Is a family/Trinity connection made before, to give a point in time, Abraham Kuyper?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 2, 2019)

jwithnell said:


> Is a family/Trinity connection made before, to give a point in time, Abraham Kuyper?



Maybe....Probably....I'm not sure. The problem is that the Fathers were very clear that when we use the term "Father" or "Son," it is familial only on an analogical level. We say "Father" and "Son" because Scripture tells us to. We really don't see a full-orbed family theology read into it. The Fathers were reluctant to do so, because that would veer close to reading human concepts into what it means to be God, which is mythology and paganism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwithnell (Apr 2, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The problem is that the Fathers were very clear that when we use the term "Father" or "Son," it is familial only on an analogical level. We say "Father" and "Son" because Scripture tells us to.


 That makes sense. I could not claim to know the history of the theology behind "Trinity as family" , but it didn't sound like anything I'd read from the Reformation, New England Puritans or the Westminster crowd. The term Father is certainly historic and it is likely reflects a major condescension for God to bring Himself into a description that his creation could understand.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 2, 2019)

jwithnell said:


> The term Father is certainly historic



and biblical


----------



## bookslover (Apr 2, 2019)

Uh. . .who wrote the quote in the OP? Surprised someone hasn't asked that by now.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 2, 2019)

bookslover said:


> Uh. . .who wrote the quote in the OP? Surprised someone hasn't asked that by now.



See 1b
https://www.adamschristianschool.org/reformed-edu/


----------



## Charles Johnson (Apr 2, 2019)

The only thing that raises an eyebrow with me is "own" because it reminds me of Osiander's doctrine of justification by participation in Christ's inherent, divine righteousness.
*Edit: after reading through other comments a lot of other things about it also bother me but that's still the biggest one*

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## yeutter (Apr 3, 2019)

The original quote is a statement made by Jon J.Huisken. It is from the Adams Christian School website. They are a Grand Rapids, Michigan Christian elementary school that primarily serves the families of the Grand Rapids area Protestant Reformed Churches.
www.adamschristianschool.org/reformed-edu/

I have read similar things in other Kuyperian sources.

I am very sympathetic with much that the Protestant Reformed teach. I agree with their rejection of the free well meant offer. I am troubled by understandings of the Covenant that sound like the Covenant is conditional. But I am not of one mind with them on what the essence of the covenant is. The Bible seems to identify the covenant with God's oath or promise to save His people in Jesus Christ.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Apr 3, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> See 1b
> https://www.adamschristianschool.org/reformed-edu/



Got it. Thanks.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Apr 3, 2019)

yeutter said:


> Are you comfortable with this statement? "G*od is a covenant, family, Trinitarian being*; who takes His elect people into His covenant fellowship, to be His friends, and to share His own life with them."



This looks to me like someone is trying to be innovative with the Trinity. I suppose traditional language and teaching is too boring for some folks.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tom Hart (Apr 3, 2019)

yeutter said:


> *God is a...family...*



No.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 3, 2019)

yeutter said:


> I am very sympathetic with much that the Protestant Reformed teach. I agree with their rejection of the free well meant offer. I am troubled by understandings of the Covenant that sound like the Covenant is conditional. But I am not of one mind with them on what the essence of the covenant is. The Bible seems to identify the covenant with God's oath or promise to save His people in Jesus Christ


Thomas, I sympathise with what you are saying with respect to the PRC. I have found, however, that Thomas Boston will give you everything that is good in relation to PRC covenant theology (the unconditional covenant of grace with the elect alone) without the bad bits (denial of the covenant of works, and so on).


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 3, 2019)

yeutter said:


> I have read similar things in other Kuyperian sources.



If these guys are promoting Engelsma, then they are not Kuyperians.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 3, 2019)

Let's be careful not to refer to the PRC as if they are someplace else, or don't have a home here on the PB. We have PRC members on this site. If we can speak cordially, if strongly dissenting from each other, respecting baptism; then we should be able to graciously engage over disagreements of a similar nature with other members of our tribe.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## yeutter (Apr 3, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> If these guys are promoting Engelsma, then they are not Kuyperians.


I doubt that Professor David Engelsma would call himself a Kuyperian; though he was certainly interacting with Kuyper and Bavinck in his writings. My point was, that the quote from Mr. Jon J. Huisken diverges from what Charles Hodge, or Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield would say. It leaves me uncomfortable, in the same way that some of what Prof. Oliphint says leaves me scratching my head. Having said that I can not point to that quote and say error. I have seen similar things written, in a more nuanced fashion, by others who are clearly in the Kuyper / Bavinck camp.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 3, 2019)

yeutter said:


> I doubt that Professor David Engelsma would call himself a Kuyperian; though he was certainly interacting with Kuyper and Bavinck in his writings.



Engelsma has been one of the biggest critics of Kuyper in the last 40 years. In fact, he is the biggest critic of Kuyper. And I mostly agree with Engelsma on this point.


yeutter said:


> Mr. Jon J. Huisken diverges from what Charles Hodge



And Hodge diverged from the Reformed tradition.


...Start with the revelation that God has made of himself in the constitution of our own nature and in his holy word. This method leads to the conclusion that God can think and act, _*that in him essence and attributes are not identical*_ (I: 564).

“To say, as the schoolmen, and so many even of Protestant theologians, ancient and modern, were accustomed to say, that the divine attributes differ only in name, or in our conceptions, or in their effects, _*is to destroy all true knowledge of God.*_..If in God knowledge is identical with eternity, knowledge with power, power with ubiquity, and ubiquity with holiness,* then we are using words without meaning (I: 371-372).*

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 3, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Engelsma has been one of the biggest critics of Kuyper in the last 40 years. In fact, he is the biggest critic of Kuyper. And I mostly agree with Engelsma on this point.


In relation to Kuyperian common grace, this analysis is correct. But DJE still agrees with Abraham Kuyper on many things. Remember that the RFPA republished one of Abraham Kuyper's books.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## terry43 (Apr 3, 2019)

yeutter said:


> Are you comfortable with this statement? "G*od is a covenant, family, Trinitarian being*; who takes His elect people into His covenant fellowship, to be His friends, and to share His own life with them."



Not really..who is the quote from ??


----------



## terry43 (Apr 3, 2019)

yeutter said:


> The discussion about Professor Oliphint's understanding of the covenant caused me to think about this statement. When St. Athanasius talked about the incarnation he did not say, that God is a family Trinitarian being. I can not imagine St. Thomas Aquinas, or Bernard of Clairvaux using an expression like this. Bernard of Clairvaux might say that our God is a covenant God who adopts us as his children in Jesus, and shares His life with his adopted children.


That I could be comfortable with


----------



## mgkortus (Apr 3, 2019)

yeutter said:


> Are you comfortable with this statement? "*God is a covenant, family, Trinitarian being*; who takes His elect people into His covenant fellowship, to be His friends, and to share His own life with them."



As has been pointed out, covenant is being used here as an adjective. In other words, God is a _covenantal_ being. This thread is a good reminder for members of the PRC that we need to be careful in the language that we use and not assume that everyone else knows what we mean. 

The same applies to the term family. And I am fairly confident that what is meant by this is that God is a _relational_ being. This is intended to highlight the centrality of the intra-Trinitarian relationships that God has within himself.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## mgkortus (Apr 3, 2019)

Jack K said:


> Why "friends" rather than something like "children"? I'm not saying friends is necessarily wrong, but it could convey a sense that we and God are all chummy equals. Plus, the children-of-God theme is more prominent in Scripture. If "friends" relates to a larger contextual point being made, very well. Else I might question that choice.



When members of the PRC use the word "friend" to describe the covenant that God has established with us, we are drawing both from Scripture (as has been pointed out) and from the historical development of the doctrine of the covenant. To give one specific example, "friendship" is an integral part of Cocceius' covenant theology.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## mgkortus (Apr 3, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Am I right in saying that the first quote is from David Engelsma? I ask because I see the Hoeksemites using this terminology a lot. I agree with Tyler's assessment here, and I have also had Hoeksemites tell me that it is wrong to conceive of God doing more or doing anything different than what he decreed to do (that argument came up in relation to discussions relating to their rejection of the covenant of works, though it was not in conversation with PRCA ministers). Such a view fails to distinguish between what is _ad intra_ to God and what he has decreed _ad extra_ to himself. It also fails to distinguish between God's absolute and ordained power and effectively limits divine omnipotence to what he does in the decree.



Daniel, this is not the first time that you have used the term "Hoeksemite." Whether you intend it as a pejorative, please understand that it comes across that way. As a member of the PRCA, I have a high regard for Herman Hoeksema. However, I do not wish to be known as a Hoeksemite; that is not part of my identity. I ask that you please stop using that term to describe members of our denomination as though we are somehow a sect.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 4, 2019)

mgkortus said:


> Daniel, this is not the first time that you have used the term "Hoeksemite." Whether you intend it as a pejorative, please understand that it comes across that way. As a member of the PRCA, I have a high regard for Herman Hoeksema. However, I do not wish to be known as a Hoeksemite; that is not part of my identity. I ask that you please stop using that term to describe members of our denomination as though we are somehow a sect.


I am referring to people who follow Herman Hoeksema's theology as opposed to Reformed Orthodoxy. I think it is a legitimate designation to distinguish those who adhere to Herman Hoeksema's unique tenets from the confessional Reformed. (I realise that the PRCA subscribe to the 3FU, with some exceptions to the original Belgic Confession on the civil magistrate, but I consider their covenant theology to be beyond the bounds of the Reformed confessions.) It is no more pejorative than using Thomist, Calvinist, Clarkian, or Van Tillian. I am not implying that most people in the PRCA idolise Herman Hoeksema, just that they adhere to his views.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## yeutter (Apr 4, 2019)

mgkortus said:


> As has been pointed out, covenant is being used here as an adjective. In other words, God is a _covenantal_ being. This thread is a good reminder for members of the PRC that we need to be careful in the language that we use and not assume that everyone else knows what we mean.
> 
> The same applies to the term family. And I am fairly confident that what is meant by this is that God is a _relational_ being. This is intended to highlight the centrality of the intra-Trinitarian relationships that God has within himself.


The contemporary, non-Reformed, Christian philosopher, Richard Swinburne, uses similar language to say that God is a relational being. I don't know why this use of the term family to mean relational, whether done by followers of Swinburne or by Jon Huisken leaves me uncomfortable, but it does. I appreciate the fact that most of the brethren think that this is an appropriate, though novel way to speak about God as a relational being.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 4, 2019)

yeutter said:


> The contemporary, non-Reformed, Christian philosopher, Richard Swinburne, uses similar language to say that God is a relational being. I don't know why this use of the term family to mean relational, whether done by followers of Swinburne or by Jon Huisken leaves me uncomfortable, but it does. I appreciate the fact that most of the brethren think that this is an appropriate, though novel way to speak about God as a relational being.



It's not novel. Thomas Aquinas was defining the persons of the Trinity as "relations" since the late 1200s. God is a relational being. That's one of the reasons we aren't Muslims. Muslims worship a monad.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## yeutter (Apr 4, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> It's not novel. Thomas Aquinas was defining the persons of the Trinity as "relations" since the late 1200s. God is a relational being. That's one of the reasons we aren't Muslims. Muslims worship a monad.


 Of course God is personal, and relational. Again, I failed to make myself clear. Using the term family to describe the relational aspect of God is what I find novel.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 4, 2019)

mgkortus said:


> Daniel, this is not the first time that you have used the term "Hoeksemite." Whether you intend it as a pejorative, please understand that it comes across that way. As a member of the PRCA, I have a high regard for Herman Hoeksema. However, I do not wish to be known as a Hoeksemite; that is not part of my identity. I ask that you please stop using that term to describe members of our denomination as though we are somehow a sect.


Also, Matt, I think it is necessary to use the term Hoeksemite to distinguish those who hold to Hoeksemite theology from the PRCA, as many people who hold to the distinctive tenets of Hoeksemism are not PRCA members. Indeed, I have known some cage-stage types who were only interested in listening to PRCA preaching when it was teaching Hoeksemite distinctives, but not when they were emphasising sanctification and practical godliness.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 4, 2019)

I don't have a particular problem with how the statement is phrased, as long as certain possibilities are excluded. While I hold to the _pactum salutis_, and would argue that, therefore, the persons of the Godhead do have a covenantal agreement among them, there is the error of a social Trinitarianism that borders on tri-theism that I would want to guard against. I am not saying that Mr. Huisken holds to such a position. But if I want to use covenantal language about the Trinity, the error of tri-theism is the main error to avoid. Covenantal realities cannot work the same way among the persons of the Trinity as they do between God and man. Between God and man there is no sharing of essence as there is in the Trinity. In my mind, these caveats are essentially important whenever covenant language is used in descriptions of God.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 4, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Also, Matt, I think it is necessary to use the term Hoeksemite to distinguish those who hold to Hoeksemite theology from the PRCA, as many people who hold to the distinctive tenets of Hoeksemism are not PRCA members. Indeed, I have known some cage-stage types who were only interested in listening to PRCA preaching when it was teaching Hoeksemite distinctives, but not when they were emphasising sanctification and practical godliness.



That's right. I've seen FV guys (ironically) quote Hoeksema on the Covenant of Works. Further, Rushdoony promoted Hoekesma on Covenant of Works and Predestination.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------

