A Joint Federal Vision Statement - July 2007

[fredtgreco]

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.

 

[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]

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]

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.

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

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

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.

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

Could you explain?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

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.

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

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

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.

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

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

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]

Thank you brother

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".

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.