# John Frame and "The Universal Covenant"



## JWY (Aug 31, 2017)

John Frame, on pg. 60-2 of his "_Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief_," discusses the concept of a 'Universal Covenant.' On page 62, Frame says:

"So God is the Lord, the King, over all the earth, before man comes on the scene. The created world is his servant. And of course, when you have a lord and a servant, you have a covenant. When Adam is created, he automatically comes under the jurisdiction of this covenant, for he, too, is a creature of God. Before God even speaks to him in Genesis 1:28, God has surrounded him with testimonies to his sovereignty and his requirements. So the universal covenant has a moral content, and we may assume that there are blessings for obedience to God's statutes and curses for disobedience." ​
In short, is Frame's presentation of a 'Universal Covenant' a theological novum? Is it a natural outworking of his emphasis on 'Lordship Theology'? Or is there more going on here?

Frame continues to make this distinction: On pg. 62 he states...

"When God through Isaiah indicts people of the whole earth because they have "transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant" (Isa. 24:5), he may be referring to the Edenic covenant, which I describe below, or to the universal covenant. I'm inclined to favor the latter, though the references in context of the curses on the earth as well as mankind could fit either covenant. The covenant-breakers here include the "host of heaven" according to verse 21, which, in contrast to the "kings of the earth," probably refers to the rebellious angels. The angels would not be included under the Edenic covenant, but they would be part of the universal covenant. Actually, however, it doesn't matter much what covenant Isaiah 24:5 specifically refers to, since the Edenic covenant and all later covenants are applications of the universal covenant to the human race." ​


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 31, 2017)

Dr Frame is just speaking to the Covenant of Works there.


----------



## TylerRay (Aug 31, 2017)

This is not the historic Reformed position, in which God enters into a covenant of works with Adam after creating him. Frame is teaching that creation is necessarily covenantal.

How a covenant can be made with something impersonal (i.e., creation) is beyond me. You can't enter into a covenant with an inanimate object. Further, in the historic Reformed position, Adam is the head of the covenant because it was made with him, and with his seed in him. For this to be true, Adam must be an original party to the covenant. In Frame's formulation, Adam is not an original party, but is enters into an existing covenant upon his creation.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JWY (Aug 31, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Dr Frame is just speaking to the Covenant of Works there.


Thanks David. Frame addresses the 'Edenic Covenant/COW' on pages 62-6. I'm questioning the distinction he is making between the two.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 31, 2017)

JWY said:


> when you have a lord and a servant, you have a covenant.



all covevants are made with mankind; hence, no mankind involved, no covenant.



JWY said:


> God has surrounded him with testimonies to his sovereignty and his requirements. So the universal covenant has a moral content, and we may assume that there are blessings for obedience to God's statutes and curses for disobedience."



Frame, liking to hear himself talk.......

Morality comes into play with the human creation only. Nature is neither moral or amoral.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JWY (Aug 31, 2017)

JWY said:


> John Frame, on pg. 60-2 of his "_Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief_," discusses the concept of a 'Universal Covenant.' On page 62, Frame says:
> 
> "So God is the Lord, the King, over all the earth, before man comes on the scene. The created world is his servant. And of course, when you have a lord and a servant, you have a covenant. When Adam is created, he automatically comes under the jurisdiction of this covenant, for he, too, is a creature of God. Before God even speaks to him in Genesis 1:28, God has surrounded him with testimonies to his sovereignty and his requirements. So the universal covenant has a moral content, and we may assume that there are blessings for obedience to God's statutes and curses for disobedience." ​
> Can anyone provide some insight into this concept? Historical, Systematic, Biblical-Theological implications, relationship to the Reformed theological tradition, creeds and/or confessions, proponents/opponents, theological debates concerning the topic, etc?





Scott Bushey said:


> all covevants are made with mankind; hence, no mankind involved, no covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks Scott. Frame does mention on pg. 18 that "_In Scripture, God makes many covenants with his creatures (not only with human beings - see Gen. 9:9-10)_." And in the footnotes he mentions that some "_theologians have even spoken of a pactum salutis, a kind of covenant within the Trinity_."


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 31, 2017)

JWY said:


> Thanks David. Frame addresses the 'Edenic Covenant/COW' on pages 62-6. I'm questioning the distinction he is making between the two.


I thought that they were considered to be one and the same.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 31, 2017)

JWY said:


> Thanks Scott. Frame does mention on pg. 18 that "_In Scripture, God makes many covenants with his creatures (not only with human beings - see Gen. 9:9-10)_." And in the footnotes he mentions that some "_theologians have even spoken of a pactum salutis, a kind of covenant within the Trinity_."



Poole writes and to which I agree:



> i.e. My promise, for the beasts included in this covenant, ver. 10, are not capable of a covenant properly so called. And the word _covenant_ is oft used for a simple promise, as we shall see hereafter.



Matthew Poole, _Annotations upon the Holy Bible_, vol. 1 (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1853), 24.


----------



## JWY (Aug 31, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Poole writes and to which I agree:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew Poole, _Annotations upon the Holy Bible_, vol. 1 (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1853), 24.


Thanks Scott.


----------



## TylerRay (Aug 31, 2017)

JWY said:


> Thanks Scott. Frame does mention on pg. 18 that "_In Scripture, God makes many covenants with his creatures (not only with human beings - see Gen. 9:9-10)_." And in the footnotes he mentions that some "_theologians have even spoken of a pactum salutis, a kind of covenant within the Trinity_."


Covenants are only made between persons. The Pactum Salutis doesn't include impersonal beings.

You will find that Frame is often quite innovative--his doctrine sometimes has no historical precedent whatsoever.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JWY (Aug 31, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> Covenant are only made between persons. The Pactum Salutis doesn't include impersonal beings.
> 
> You will find that Frame is often quite innovative--his doctrine sometimes has no historical precedent whatsoever.


Thanks Tyler.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 31, 2017)

JWY said:


> Thanks Scott. Frame does mention on pg. 18 that "_In Scripture, God makes many covenants with his creatures (not only with human beings - see Gen. 9:9-10)_." And in the footnotes he mentions that some "_theologians have even spoken of a pactum salutis, a kind of covenant within the Trinity_."


What is the Covenant between the Persons of the Godhead called?


----------



## TylerRay (Aug 31, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> What is the Covenant between the Persons of the Godhead called?


The Pactum Salutis, or Covenant of Redemption.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 31, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> Covenant are only made between persons. The Pactum Salutis doesn't include impersonal beings.
> 
> You will find that Frame is often quite innovative--his doctrine sometimes has no historical precedent whatsoever.


It would include only those creature made in the image of God Himself.


----------



## Gforce9 (Aug 31, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> What is the Covenant between the Persons of the Godhead called?



Look up "Perichoresis"....


----------



## JWY (Aug 31, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> What is the Covenant between the Persons of the Godhead called?


Frame, on pg. 59 addresses this covenant as "the _covenant of redemption_ or in Latin the_ pactum salutis." _


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 31, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> The Pactum Salutis, or Covenant of Redemption.


Would this be seen as being the same as the agreement within God Himself to save sinners? I have read and heard that term before, but not the one that you mentioned here.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 31, 2017)

JWY said:


> Frame, on pg. 59 addresses this covenant as "the _covenant of redemption_ or in Latin the_ pactum salutis." _


This is separate and different then from the Covenant of Grace? And what scriptures are used to support this understanding between the trinity members?


----------



## TylerRay (Aug 31, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Would this be seen as being the same as the agreement within God Himself to save sinners? I have read and heard that term before, but not the one that you mentioned here.


Yes, sir.


----------



## TylerRay (Aug 31, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> This is separate and different then from the Covenant of Grace?


That's a matter of debate within Reformed circles.


----------



## JWY (Aug 31, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> This is separate and different then from the Covenant of Grace? And what scriptures are used to support this understanding between the trinity members?


Frame passively mentions John 17:5. This is an interesting topic, but it's drifting away from my basic concern. In short, is Frame's presentation of a 'Universal Covenant' a theological novum? Is it a natural outworking of his emphasis on 'Lordship Theology'? Or is there more going on here? Thanks Dachaser.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 31, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> This is separate and different then from the Covenant of Grace? And what scriptures are used to support this understanding between the trinity members?



Matt McMahon helps here by utilizingJohn Owen's work on the subject:



> After initially setting forth the definition of the Covenant of Redemption, Owen demonstrates from Scripture those classic passages upholding this covenant. He states, “There are the Father and the Son as distinct persons agreeing together in counsel for the accomplishment of the common end, — the glory of God and the salvation of the elect. The end is expressed, Hebrews 2:9, 10, Hebrews 12:2. Now, thus it was, Zechariah 6:13, “The counsel of peace shall be between them both,” — “Inter ambos ipsos.” That is, the two persons spoken of, not the two offices there intimated, that shall meet in Christ. And who are these? The Lord Jehovah, who speaks, and the man whose name is jmæx,, “The Branch,” verse 12, who is to do all the great things there mentioned: “He shall grow up,” etc. But the counsel of peace, the design of our peace, is between them both; they have agreed and consented to the bringing about of our peace.” After substantiating Hebrews 2 and 12, he mentions the “counsel of peace” in Zechariah 6:13, demonstrating the Lord and the Branch agreeing to covenant together. Then, Owen makes an interesting point with a passage that is not commonly used. He quotes Isaiah 9:6, not in relation to the incarnation (the context normally used) but of the Covenant of Redemption, “Hence is that name of the Son of God, Isaiah 9:6, “Wonderful Counsellor.” It is in reference to the business there spoken of that he is so called. This is expressed at the beginning of the verse, “Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given.” To what end that was is known, namely, that he might be a Savior or a Redeemer, whence he is afterward called “The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace;” that is, a father to his church and people in everlasting mercy, the grand author of their peace, that procured it for them and established it unto them.” (12:630 AS)


----------



## TylerRay (Aug 31, 2017)

JWY said:


> Frame passively mentions John 17:5. This is an interesting topic, but it's drifting away from my basic concern. In short, is Frame's presentation of a 'Universal Covenant' a theological novum? Is it a natural outworking of his emphasis on 'Lordship Theology'? Or is there more going on here? Thanks Dachaser.


It's trendy in certain Reformed circles right now to describe anything relational as covenantal. Frame is right in the middle of this trend. Others who theologize in this way are Scott Oliphant, as well as the Federal Vision crowd. I call it hyper-covenantalism.

Frame is just applying this idea to the relationship between God and his creation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 31, 2017)

There seems to be some strangeness between those who believe Covenant and Creation are collapsed together. Frame and Kline are probably on two different spectrums. Here is a portion of a booklet I promoted as it was being discussed in the OPC. 
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...n-and-covenant-recast-and-collapsed-together/
*Creation and Covenant Recast and Collapsed Together*

Here is the portion of the booklet without the whole blog....


> The [Klinean] republication view teaches that man was in covenant with God at the very moment of creation. This is an important shift from the traditional viewpoint. Ontological considerations demand that there be at least a logical distinction (rather than a chronological or historical sequence) between God’s creating man and his entering into covenant with him. The [Klinean] republication teaching now erases this confessional distinction (which is based upon the “great disproportion” between the Creator and creature), and thereby turns God’s providential work of establishing the covenant into an aspect of the work of creation. Thus, we may say that the two distinct acts have been conflated or collapsed into essentially one act in this new view. For all intents and purposes, the relationship between God and man is not first that of sovereign Creator over his finite creature, but is from the point of creation a relationship of “God-in-covenant-with-man.” For Professor Kline and those who have followed his lead in the republication position, it is improper to even consider man’s existence apart from covenant. Thus, man’s covenantal status seems to “trump” his creaturely status. Professor Kline makes this clear in Kingdom Prologue.
> 
> “Man’s creation as image of God meant, as we have seen, that *the creating of the world was a covenant-making process.* There was no original non-covenantal order of mere nature on which the covenant was superimposed. Covenantal commitments were given by the Creator in the very act of endowing the mancreature with the mantle of the divine likeness. …The situation never existed in which man’s future was contemplated or presented in terms of a static continuation of the original state of blessedness (Kingdom Prologue [2000], p. 92).”


I totally disagree with Kline here. I am not sure what context Frame is speaking in since I don't have the book but it sounds strange to me. Does he quote anyone significant as a reference for his understanding?

More on the Kline stuff here....
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/?s=Kline+Creation


----------



## JWY (Aug 31, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> It's trendy in certain Reformed circles right now to describe anything relational as covenantal. Frame is right in the middle of this trend. Others who theologize in this way are Scott Oliphant, as well as the Federal Vision crowd. I call it hyper-covenantalism.
> 
> Frame is just applying this idea to the relationship between God and his creation.


Thanks Tyler.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 31, 2017)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> There seems to be some strangeness between those who believe Covenant and Creation are collapsed together. Frame and Kline are probably on two different spectrums. Here is a portion of a booklet I promoted as it was being discussed in the OPC.
> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...n-and-covenant-recast-and-collapsed-together/
> *Creation and Covenant Recast and Collapsed Together*
> 
> ...


I thought that God could only be in a Covenant relationship with sentient creatures made in His very own image?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 31, 2017)

See section III. on this page for Witsius on this.


----------



## JWY (Aug 31, 2017)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> There seems to be some strangeness between those who believe Covenant and Creation are collapsed together. Frame and Kline are probably on two different spectrums. Here is a portion of a booklet I promoted as it was being discussed in the OPC.
> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...n-and-covenant-recast-and-collapsed-together/
> *Creation and Covenant Recast and Collapsed Together*
> 
> ...


Thank you sir! That is very helpful. Frame's first statement under the subheading "The Universal Covenant" on pg. 60 says: 

"_That universal perspective persists when we move from eternity into time, where we consider God's covenant with the created world_." 

then, on pg 61 he states: 

"_Anything God creates is necessarily under his lordship: under his control, subject to his authority, confronted by his presence. So his covenant lordship does not begin with the creation of man_." 

This subsection ('The Universal Covenant') directly follows a subsection titled the 'Eternal Covenant of Redemption', and right before a subsection titled 'The Edenic Covenant.'


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 31, 2017)

I am not sure he is equating the Covenant of Redemption with the Universal but you make it sound like that. If So, I would like to know how this is Universal and how he defines Universal? Is he equating the Covenant of Redemption with the Universal covenant?

And is there any mention of this passage with the context? This is bringing me a lot of strange questions. 


> (Rom 8:18) For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
> (Rom 8:19) For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
> (Rom 8:20) For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
> (Rom 8:21) Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
> ...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 31, 2017)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> See section III. on this page for Witsius on this.


Matthew, 
First off it would be beneficial if you posted the section.


> III. But ברית is variously taken in Scripture: sometimes improperly, and sometimes properly. Improperly, it denotes the following things:—1st. An immutable ordinance made about a thing: in this sense God mentions “his covenant of the day, and his covenant of the night,” Jer. 33:20. That is, that fixed ordinance made about the uninterrupted vicissitude of day and night, which, chap. 31:36, is called חק, that is, statute, limited or fixed, which nothing is to be added to, or taken from. In this sense is included the notion of a testament, or of a last irrevocable will. Thus God said, Numb. 18:19 “I have given thee and thy sons, and thy daughters with thee להק עילם ברית מלח עילם חיא, by a statute for ever: it is a covenant of salt for ever.” This observation is of use, more fully to explain the nature of the covenant of grace, which the apostle proposes under the similitude of a testament, the execution of which depends upon the death of the testator, Heb. 9:15, 16, 17. To which notion both the Hebrew ברית, and the Greek διαθὴκη, may lead us. 2dly. A sure and stable promise, though not mutual. Exod. 34:10: “הנה אנכי ברת ברית behold, I make a covenant; before all thy people I will do marvels.” Isa. 59:21: “This is my covenant with them, my spirit shall not depart from them.” 3dly. It signifies also a precept; and to cut or make a covenant, is to give a precept. Jer. 34:13, 14: “I made a covenant with your fathers, saying, At the end of seven years let ye go every man his brother.” Hence it appears in what sense the decalogue is called God’s covenant. But properly, it signifies a mutual agreement between parties with respect to something. Such a covenant passed between Abraham, Mamre, Escol, and Aner, who are called, בעלי ברית אברם “confederates with Abraham,” Gen. 14:13. Such also was that between Isaac and Abimelech, Gen. 26:28, 29; between Jonathan and David, 1 Sam. 18:2. And of this kind is likewise that which we are now to treat of between God and man.



This is still confusing when we speak of what Frame is reportedly saying in my opinion. I have never heard of a Universal Covenant.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 31, 2017)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Matthew,
> First off it would be beneficial if you posted the section.
> 
> 
> This is still confusing when we speak of what Frame is reportedly saying in my opinion. I have never heard of a Universal Covenant.


How can God be in a Covenant relationship apart from Grace of Calvary being extended, so how can that apply to non human things?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 31, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> How can God be in a Covenant relationship apart from Grace of Calvary being extended, so how can that apply to non human things?


That is why I am asking the questions I am asking. Evidently Creation suffers because of us so there is some attachment probably. That is why I am asking what is meant by Universal Covenant. Is it somehow attached in relation to the Covenant of Redemption in this thinking? What is meant by.... I would like to learn about this. It sounds strange to me but I don't have enough knowledge. I am going to ask a Prof from RPTS if he has heard of this.

On another note, The Covenant of Works is a Covenantal Relationship that doesn't have Christ as it's Mediator by the cross.


----------



## TylerRay (Aug 31, 2017)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I am not sure he is equating the Covenant of Redemption with the Universal but you make it sound like that. If So, I would like to know how this is Universal and how he defines Universal? Is he equating the Covenant of Redemption with the Universal covenant?


Randy,
Note that the mention of the Covenant of Redemption was a footnote to the following: "_In Scripture, God makes many covenants with his creatures (*not only with human beings* - see Gen. 9:9-10)_."

I think Frame's point is that a covenant does not necessarily involve humans. His proof of that is that many have posited the Covenant of Redemption, an intra-Trinitarian covenant. The problem is that he goes from saying that it isn't necessary that humans be party to a covenant to saying that covenants can be made with impersonal things (i.e., creation as a whole).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 31, 2017)

https://puritanboard.com/threads/john-frame-and-the-universal-covenant.93661/#post-1143098

Thanks Tyler, That is why I posted the question above with the Roman's citation.


----------



## iainduguid (Aug 31, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> Randy,
> Note that the mention of the Covenant of Redemption was a footnote to the following: "_In Scripture, God makes many covenants with his creatures (*not only with human beings* - see Gen. 9:9-10)_."
> 
> I think Frame's point is that a covenant does not necessarily involve humans. His proof of that is that many have posited the Covenant of Redemption, an intra-Trinitarian covenant. The problem is that he goes from saying that it isn't necessary that humans be party to a covenant to saying that covenants can be made with impersonal things (i.e., creation aas a whole).


Without speaking to Frame's larger point, Scripture clearly speaks of God making a covenant with impersonal things, namely "day" and "night" in Jeremiah 33:20, which in context does seem to be a reference back to the established order of creation.


----------



## TylerRay (Aug 31, 2017)

iainduguid said:


> Without speaking to Frame's larger point, Scripture clearly speaks of God making a covenant with impersonal things, namely "day" and "night" in Jeremiah 33:20, which in context does seem to be a reference back to the established order of creation.


Do you not think that that is a figure of speech, though?


> 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; _Then_ may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.


It is clear that the point in the passage is not that God has a covenant with day and night, but that his covenant with his people is as certain as day and night.

Calvin:


> He confirms the same thing, but by introducing a similitude; for he shews that God's covenant with the people of Israel would not be less firm than the settled order of nature. Unceasing are the progresses of the sun, moon, and stars; continual is the succession of day and night. This settled state of things is so fixed, that in so great and so multiplied a variety there is no change. We have now rain, then fair weather, and we have various changes in the seasons; but the sun still continues its daily course, the moon is new every month, and the revolving of day and night, which God has appointed, never ceases; and this unbroken order declares, as it is said in Psalm 19, the wonderful wisdom of God. The Prophet then sets before us here the order of nature, and says, that God's covenant with his Church shall be no less fixed and unchangeable than what it is with mankind, with regard to the government of the world.



Gill offers another plausible explanation:


> The same with the ordinances of the sun, moon, and stars, Jeremiah 31:35; the original constitution and law of nature, settled from the beginning of the world, and observed ever since, in the constant revolution of day and night; and which was formed into a covenant and promise to Noah, after the deluge, that day and night should not cease, as long as the earth remained, Genesis 8:22


So, his view is that the "covenant of the day, etc." was the covenant with Noah.

How does an impersonal object become party to a covenant?


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 31, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> How can God be in a Covenant relationship apart from Grace of Calvary being extended, so how can that apply to non human things?



I'm not sure what you are asking. God was in a covenant with Adam, which didn't seem to have the "grace of Cavalry" in mind. And then there is the Covenant of Redemption among/between the persons of the Trinity.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Aug 31, 2017)

I've found Frame to say some odd things sometimes.


----------



## timfost (Sep 1, 2017)

Gen. 9:8-17:

"Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying: “And as for Me, behold, *I establish My covenant with you and with your descendants after you, and with every living creature that is with you: the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you, of all that go out of the ark, every beast of the earth*. Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” And God said: “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud; and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.”

I am not commenting on Frame particularly, but God absolutely makes covenants with His creation, namely all living things as is clear in Gen. 9.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JWY (Sep 1, 2017)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I am not sure he is equating the Covenant of Redemption with the Universal but you make it sound like that. If So, I would like to know how this is Universal and how he defines Universal? Is he equating the Covenant of Redemption with the Universal covenant?
> 
> And is there any mention of this passage with the context? This is bringing me a lot of strange questions.





PuritanCovenanter said:


> I am not sure he is equating the Covenant of Redemption with the Universal but you make it sound like that. If So, I would like to know how this is Universal and how he defines Universal? Is he equating the Covenant of Redemption with the Universal covenant?
> 
> And is there any mention of this passage with the context? This is bringing me a lot of strange questions.


I think Frame is trying to show that the 'UC' as he has presented it, is organically related to the CoR, yet distinct from the CoR and the CoW. 

Frame does appeal to the Romans texts you mentioned in a preceding paragraph where I believe he is actually tying the CoR and the UC together. Frame states:

"2. _Individual and Universal_. The _pactum salutis_ focuses, of course, on God's elect people, those who are finally saved. In that sense its object is particular, not universal. But Scripture often indicates that salvation has a cosmic dimension. When man falls, he brings the rest of creation down with him (Gen. 3:17-19). Creation will not be delivered from this curse until the consumation of redemption, so it longs and groans for that day (Rom. 8:18-22). Through Jesus, God reconciles all things to himself (Col. 1:19-20) and makes "all things new" (Rev. 21:5). So the _pactum _has a universal meaning."
​I'm trying to be charitable in my reading of this because, well, it's John Frame. I have tremendous respect for his work and have benefited greatly from his writing and teaching. But his 'UC' concept seems new to me and that is cause for concern.


----------



## JWY (Sep 1, 2017)

timfost said:


> Gen. 9:8-17:
> 
> "Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying: “And as for Me, behold, *I establish My covenant with you and with your descendants after you, and with every living creature that is with you: the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you, of all that go out of the ark, every beast of the earth*. Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” And God said: “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud; and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.”
> 
> I am not commenting on Frame particularly, but God absolutely makes covenants with His creation, namely all living things as is clear in Gen. 9.


Thanks Tim.


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 1, 2017)

timfost said:


> Gen. 9:8-17:
> 
> "Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying: “And as for Me, behold, *I establish My covenant with you and with your descendants after you, and with every living creature that is with you: the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you, of all that go out of the ark, every beast of the earth*. Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” And God said: “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud; and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.”
> 
> I am not commenting on Frame particularly, but God absolutely makes covenants with His creation, namely all living things as is clear in Gen. 9.


It seems clear to me that the point in the text is that God is making a covenant with Noah and his posterity which has implied ramifications for the rest of creation. That is, the "effect of the covenant," as Calvin calls it, toward "brute animals" is accidental, rather than essential to the covenant.

I'll gladly grant that the text says that the covenant is with the beasts, but it does so _improperly (_that is not to say _erroneously)_--it is a figure of speech, showing that there are implications for the beasts.

I think that, implied in all of this, is the question of what a covenant actually is. If a covenant has moral implications for all parties to the covenant (which it does, I maintain), then impersonal beings (who are _not_ free moral agents) can not be parties to a covenant.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 1, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> Randy,
> Note that the mention of the Covenant of Redemption was a footnote to the following: "_In Scripture, God makes many covenants with his creatures (*not only with human beings* - see Gen. 9:9-10)_."
> 
> I think Frame's point is that a covenant does not necessarily involve humans. His proof of that is that many have posited the Covenant of Redemption, an intra-Trinitarian covenant. The problem is that he goes from saying that it isn't necessary that humans be party to a covenant to saying that covenants can be made with impersonal things (i.e., creation as a whole).


Even the Covenant made between the Persons of the Trinity though entails between sentient actual beings, and not between them and creation.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 1, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> It seems clear to me that the point in the text is that God is making a covenant with Noah and his posterity which has implied ramifications for the rest of creation. That is, the "effect of the covenant," as Calvin calls it, toward "brute animals" is accidental, rather than essential to the covenant.
> 
> I'll gladly grant that the text says that the covenant is with the beasts, but it does so _improperly (_that is not to say _erroneously)_--it is a figure of speech, showing that there are implications for the beasts.
> 
> I think that, implied in all of this, is the question of what a covenant actually is. If a covenant has moral implications for all parties to the covenant (which it does, I maintain), then impersonal beings (who are _not_ free moral agents) can not be parties to a covenant.


Your last paragraph is the standard Reformed viewpoint on Covenant then, correct?


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 1, 2017)

JWY said:


> I think Frame is trying to show that the 'UC' as he has presented it, is organically related to the CoR, yet distinct from the CoR and the CoW.
> 
> Frame does appeal to the Romans texts you mentioned in a preceding paragraph where I believe he is actually tying the CoR and the UC together. Frame states:
> 
> ...


He just might be equating his view of the UC to what Paul implies that the fall affecting all of creation, and so the Cross will rectify that relationship back to creation by the death and resurrection of Christ.


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 1, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Even the Covenant made between the Persons of the Trinity though entails between sentient actual beings, and not between them and creation.


I wouldn't call the persons of the Trinity sentient, and I wouldn't distinguish them in being, but you get my point above: The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are personal (accommodated/analogical though this language may be).


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 1, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> I wouldn't call the persons of the Trinity sentient, and I wouldn't distinguish them in being, but you get my point above: The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are personal (accommodated/analogical though this language may be).


Sentient to me would just be referring to the truth of each person being self aware and thinking, and they all are the same as to their essence and Being.


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 1, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Sentient to me would just be referring to the truth of each person being self aware and thinking, and they all are the same as to their essence and Being.


We're off topic, but to say that the persons of the Godhead are each sentient would be to deny divine impassibility, immutability, eternity, and simplicity, by claiming that there is a succession of thoughts in the "minds" of the persons. Further, to claim that each has a distinct mind implies a denial of the substantial unity of the persons, and also constitutes another denial of divine simplicity.

The reason i mentioned the claim that they are distinguished in being is because you referred to them as "sentient beings."

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 1, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Your last paragraph is the standard Reformed viewpoint on Covenant then, correct?


That's my understanding. Before I will give a definite _yes_, I'll have to consult some systematic theologies for a precise and technical definition of _covenant._


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 1, 2017)

God is sentient though, as He has thoughts and is self aware.


----------



## timfost (Sep 2, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> It seems clear to me that the point in the text is that God is making a covenant with Noah and his posterity which has implied ramifications for the rest of creation. That is, the "effect of the covenant," as Calvin calls it, toward "brute animals" is accidental, rather than essential to the covenant.



As far as the covenant with animals being "accidental," I would encourage you to consider the purpose (even multiple purposes) that the Noahic covenant serves. It goes beyond "implied ramifications" for the rest or creation-- it actually says "This is the sign of the covenant which I have *established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth*." 



> I'll gladly grant that the text says that the covenant is with the beasts, but it does so _improperly (_that is not to say _erroneously)_--it is a figure of speech, showing that there are implications for the beasts.



Sometimes the reformed have too many categories for their own good.  The text says the opposite of what you posit. We must be very careful that our system of theology is informed by God's Word, and not our system re-interpreting God's Word. 

Some things to consider:

1. This covenant does not have conditions for "all flesh." Therefore, it is suitable to be made with both rational and irrational creatures.

2. The blessings are temporal, not eternal and is thus suitable for everything material, particularly the living.

3. The God of mercy makes a covenant with representatives of everything that had just been destroyed by water. Not only was mankind saved, but animals.



> I think that, implied in all of this, is the question of what a covenant actually is. If a covenant has moral implications for all parties to the covenant (which it does, I maintain), then impersonal beings (who are _not_ free moral agents) can not be parties to a covenant.



Again, why not _expand_ your understanding of a covenant than _restrain_ the Word of God?


----------



## lynnie (Sep 3, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> all covevants are made with mankind; hence, no mankind involved, no covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Can we say morality is only with humanity? Are not angels moral beings? Job 38 says the angels sang for joy watching the earth created, so they existed before man. Wasn't there a covenantal relationship there- ie, if you rebel you will be kicked out of heaven and one day thrown into the lake of fire? 

I would agree that we don't assign morality to animals and plants and rocks. But if angels can obey or rebel, doesn't there have to be a covenant behind obedience and rebellion?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 3, 2017)

lynnie said:


> Can we say morality is only with humanity? Are not angels moral beings? Job 38 says the angels sang for joy watching the earth created, so they existed before man. Wasn't there a covenantal relationship there- ie, if you rebel you will be kicked out of heaven and one day thrown into the lake of fire?
> 
> I would agree that we don't assign morality to animals and plants and rocks. But if angels can obey or rebel, doesn't there have to be a covenant behind obedience and rebellion?



Good question. I will respond only with what I know. The scriptures do not address the issues of the autonomy of angels, prior to their rebellion. One can see however, after that predetermined fall of these rebellious angels, by God, autonomy doesn't any longer seem to be an issue-at least to what we know. It is quite possible that there continues to be fallen angels and God deals with them apart from us being aware of anymore.

In regards to 'covenant'. The Hebrew word:
*1285*. בְּרִית *berith* (136b); from an unused word; _a covenant_:—allied(1), allies*(1), covenant(275), covenants(1), El-berith*(1), league(2), treaty(4).

The word is specific and there is only this word in the OT, which is specific to cutting and blood. I don't see anywhere in scripture where any sacrifice or cutting was done in the name of angels. Hence, all covenants are made either on behalf of mankind or directly related to man.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 5, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Good question. I will respond only with what I know. The scriptures do not address the issues of the autonomy of angels, prior to their rebellion. One can see however, after that predetermined fall of these rebellious angels, by God, autonomy doesn't any longer seem to be an issue-at least to what we know. It is quite possible that there continues to be fallen angels and God deals with them apart from us being aware of anymore.
> 
> In regards to 'covenant'. The Hebrew word:
> *1285*. בְּרִית *berith* (136b); from an unused word; _a covenant_:—allied(1), allies*(1), covenant(275), covenants(1), El-berith*(1), league(2), treaty(4).
> ...


Covenant also seems to be tied directly into the Messiah given to us as promised by God in Genesis 3. so anything that would be in a Covenant relationship with God would have to be tied back to the coming Messiah. Now Paul also does seem to place creation/nature itself though as under the curse of the Fall, and it too shall be reborn again, so could frame be getting the Universal Covenant of his from there?


----------

