# Divine-Human Relationships



## natewood3 (Jun 7, 2008)

Do relationships between God and man necessarily have to be covenantal? Is it possible for God to have relationships with human beings without the relationship being in the form of a covenant?


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 8, 2008)

natewood3 said:


> Do relationships between God and man necessarily have to be covenantal? Is it possible for God to have relationships with human beings without the relationship being in the form of a covenant?



Can you think of an example?


----------



## Leslie (Jun 8, 2008)

How about the relationship between God and Cain? That does not seem to have been a covenant but there were some presuppositions underlying God's conversation with Cain over the murder of Abel.


----------



## jwithnell (Jun 8, 2008)

My gut would be to say no -- God has a unilateral relationship with us -- he sets the terms and we either meet the conditions of those terms (only possible through Christ) or we are in rebellion against him. We find great assurance in this because there is no "shadow of changing" with God; He (and His way of relating to us) is never changing today or tomorrow. That doesn't eclipse that He created us to be unique individuals and can treat us as such. Much like a parent might have a different way of relating to a quiet child than one who is more outgoing.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 8, 2008)

I think the Confession answers that rather well.


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


 (WCF VII.1)

That God is our Creator and we are His creatures is a relationship established by the fact of our creation, which (_pace_ James Jordan and all his sources) is not intrinsically covenantal. But in order for God to be our God in the way of blessedness and reward (Genesis 15:1), something more was required, a voluntary condescension on the part of God, which He chose to express by way of covenant.


----------



## natewood3 (Jun 8, 2008)

I am asking with the covenant with Adam in mind. It seems that sin makes it necessary for God to deal with mankind in a covenantal fashion, but I am trying to determine whether a covenant with Adam is actually _necessary_. What do we lose or gain by saying there is a covenant made with Adam before the Fall?


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 8, 2008)

natewood3 said:


> Do relationships between God and man necessarily have to be covenantal? Is it possible for God to have relationships with human beings without the relationship being in the form of a covenant?



How are you defining covenant relationship as opposed to just a relationship?

CT


----------



## a mere housewife (Jun 8, 2008)

natewood3 said:


> I am asking with the covenant with Adam in mind. It seems that sin makes it necessary for God to deal with mankind in a covenantal fashion, but I am trying to determine whether a covenant with Adam is actually _necessary_. What do we lose or gain by saying there is a covenant made with Adam before the Fall?



Rather co-incidentally, Ruben posted this today.

It argues that we lose the framework in which to understand many verses and the whole 'law' aspect of Scripture, as well as the law-keeping of Christ.


----------



## Hippo (Jun 8, 2008)

ChristianTrader said:


> natewood3 said:
> 
> 
> > Do relationships between God and man necessarily have to be covenantal? Is it possible for God to have relationships with human beings without the relationship being in the form of a covenant?
> ...



I think that this question is important, I disagree with those that seek to import the necessity of human co-operation in a covenetal relationship.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 8, 2008)

natewood3 said:


> I am asking with the covenant with Adam in mind. It seems that sin makes it necessary for God to deal with mankind in a covenantal fashion, but I am trying to determine whether a covenant with Adam is actually _necessary_. What do we lose or gain by saying there is a covenant made with Adam before the Fall?



What do we gain? We gain an understanding of how Adam could have had any fruition of God as his blessedness and reward. 
What do we lose by saying God made a covenant with Adam? Nothing: the blessing of the Lord makes rich and He adds no sorrow with it. We lose nothing by affirming the teaching of Scripture.
What do we lose by not accepting the covenant of works? We then mentally give Adam a natural claim on God, which given the Creator-creature distinction could not exist: we make God a debtor to His creation contrary to Romans 11:35.


----------



## natewood3 (Jun 9, 2008)

I am thinking through this issue, so I am not quite sure how I would define the distinction. That is sort of why I am asking. Obviously, God had a relationship with Abraham and Israel and David before there was any kind of covenant. So would that mean that they had some "claim on God"? God still established the relationship with Abraham and Israel and David, so it was based on God's initiation and grace. 

From what I have seen, it seems that some equate a relationship with God as a covenant with God. In other words, if one is in a relationship with God, then he is necessarily in a covenant with God. If that is so, how can God have a relationship with Abraham, etc. and then proceed to establish a covenant with him after He has already established a covenant? Would it be more correct to say that the covenant formalizes or ratifies the preexisting, elective relationship between the two?


----------



## Barnpreacher (Jun 9, 2008)

natewood3 said:


> I am asking with the covenant with Adam in mind. It seems that sin makes it necessary for God to deal with mankind in a covenantal fashion, but I am trying to determine whether a covenant with Adam is actually _necessary_. What do we lose or gain by saying there is a covenant made with Adam before the Fall?



Wouldn't we lose an understanding of the basic truth of Scripture? As Ruben posted concerning the Confession, we lose any fruition of God as our blessedness and reward. We lose the simple truth of Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15 concerning the parallel between Adam and Christ. We lose the truth of Christ as our Second Adam and Covenant Head fulfilling all our righteousness by obeying the law in our stead.

I would say we lose quite a lot if we say the Bible doesn't teach a covenant made with Adam before the Fall.


----------

