Covenant and the doctrine of God?

Status
Not open for further replies.

jwright82

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I have been thinking about this lately and it appears to me that in the grand scheme of things covenant should logically precede the doctrine of God in systematic theology. It is only through God’s covenantal condescension and accommodation to us in revelation do we have a doctrine of God. I know that this is only a disagreement with the place of covenant theology in the confession and our systematic theologies. But it seems more natural to me. I will quote the WCF on the covenant and then the chapters I think should follow and tell me it doesn’t seem to flow better. What do ya’ll think about this?

CHAPTER VII
Of God's Covenant with Man.
I. 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.

II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.

III. Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.

IV. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ, the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.

V. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all fore-signifying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation, and is called the Old Testament.

VI. Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed, are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.

CHAPTER I.
Of the holy Scripture.
I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation; therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.

II. Under the name of holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the Books of the Old and New Testament, which are these:

Of the Old Testament

Genesis Ecclesiastes
Exodus The Song of Songs
Leviticus Isaiah
Numbers Jeremiah
Deuteronomy Lamentations
Joshua Ezekiel
Judges Daniel
Ruth Hosea
I Samuel Joel
II Samuel Amos
I Kings Obadiah
II Kings Jonah
I Chronicles Micah
II Chronicles Nahum
Ezra Habakkuk
Nehemiah Zephaniah
Esther Haggai
Job Zechariah
Psalms Malachi
Proverbs

Of the New Testament

The Gospels according to Thessalonians II
Matthew Timothy I
Mark Timothy II
Luke Titus
John Philemon
The Acts of the Apostles The Epistle to the
Paul's Epistles to the Romans Hebrews
Corinthians I The Epistle of James
Corinthians II The First and Second
Galatians Epistles of Peter
Ephesians The First, Second, and
Philippians Third Epistles of John
Colossians The Epistle of Jude
Thessalonians I The Revelation

All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life.

III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.

IV. The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

VI. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

X. The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

CHAPTER II.
Of God, and of the Holy Trinity.
I. There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his won glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin; and who will by no means clear the guilty.

II. God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth. In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them.

III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.
 
No, I think you are wrong (although I suspect such a reorganization might be amenable to many today).

1. In the order of knowing, Scripture comes first. How do you know anything about God or the covenant he has made? Through Scripture.
2. In the order of being, God comes first. A covenant requires parties. Existence precedes revelation, condescension, or making compacts.
3. In historic Reformed theology, the decree of election is (in the order of nature) prior to the covenant of redemption.
 
Last edited:
No, I think you are wrong (although I suspect such a reorganization might be amenable to many today).

1. In the order of knowing, Scripture comes first. How do you know anything about God or the covenant he has made? Through Scripture.
2. In the order being, God comes first. A covenant requires parties. Existence precedes revelation, condescension, or making compacts.
3. In historic Reformed theology, the decree of election is (in the order of nature) prior to the covenant of redemption.

Yes the place of scripture did cause me some unease, we learn of covenants from scripture. My argument is epistemologically saying that we have a doctrine of God from His covenantal revelation. Ontologically you are right but my point is epistemologically oriented.
 
It is difficult, if not impossible, to speak of God's ultimacy in what is essentially our accommodated language and by our limitations.

What is "more ultimate" for God: Ontology, Epistemology, or Ethic? A good argument can be mounted even for Ethic (!), since God wills his own existence, and always has (from eternity).

If man is independent, then ontology could precede everything, cotigo ergo sum. But revelationally, surely ethic precedes ontology, what should be comes before what IS. (I do NOT say that man thereby has a necessary existence, apart from the WILL of God, which is free). And then, if we push that back one step to the Creator himself, should there be any objection to the necessity of the existence of God? But we can't abstract that ultimate necessity from the divine existence himself, so we are left in a constant, self-referential circle when considering God, a se.


As for the original question, one could argue that Scripture itself is Covenant, not merely an idea derived from covenant. That we start to get a bit self-referential here should not scare us from noting the fact. Only that we recognize the limits of our linear logical steps, even while we affirm the indispensability of those same logical reference points, and that to have coherence to our thought and understanding, we need to start in some reasonable or justifiable place.
 
As for the original question, one could argue that Scripture itself is Covenant, not merely an idea derived from covenant. That we start to get a bit self-referential here should not scare us from noting the fact. Only that we recognize the limits of our linear logical steps, even while we affirm the indispensability of those same logical reference points, and that to have coherence to our thought and understanding, we need to start in some reasonable or justifiable place.

I would agree with you here.
 
1. In the order of knowing, Scripture comes first. How do you know anything about God or the covenant he has made? Through Scripture.
Why would Natural Revelation not come first?
The very light of nature in man, and the works of God, declare plainly that there is a God; but his Word and Spirit only do sufficiently and effectually reveal him unto men for their salvation.
We know there is a God prior to knowing Him through His Word and Spirit.
 
Yes the place of scripture did cause me some unease, we learn of covenants from scripture. My argument is epistemologically saying that we have a doctrine of God from His covenantal revelation. Ontologically you are right but my point is epistemologically oriented.

Where do you learn that the relationship is covenantal? It's in Scripture. In the order of knowing (epistemologically) we know from Scripture that God has made a covenant. It is from Scripture's witness to itself that you would find out that they are the Scriptures of the covenant. It seems to me that your order starts with the adjective, rather than the noun: revelation may be covenantal, but covenantal is still a descriptive term that tells us what kind of revelation it is: and we can only learn what descriptive terms are appropriate from the revelation itself.

It seems to me that there is a strong tendency in our day to try to make "covenant" the controlling factor in all of our theology, and I think that is a trend that ought to be resisted.

Ben, that might be a can of worms too large for this thread. But in short order, the Confession doesn't have a separate chapter on natural revelation. Just from a practical standpoint, then, the Confession either has to start with Scripture or with God (and both patterns are found in Reformed confessions). In a broader sense, the fact that natural revelation is now marred and that our perceptions of it are even more marred mean that it is impossible to have a correct natural theology without the corrections and clarifications offered by Scripture.
 
In a broader sense, the fact that natural revelation is now marred and that our perceptions of it are even more marred mean that it is impossible to have a correct natural theology without the corrections and clarifications offered by Scripture.
Awesome answer... thanks... please excuse the thread drift.
 
Where do you learn that the relationship is covenantal? It's in Scripture. In the order of knowing (epistemologically) we know from Scripture that God has made a covenant. It is from Scripture's witness to itself that you would find out that they are the Scriptures of the covenant. It seems to me that your order starts with the adjective, rather than the noun: revelation may be covenantal, but covenantal is still a descriptive term that tells us what kind of revelation it is: and we can only learn what descriptive terms are appropriate from the revelation itself.

Very true. But Scripture may be first in order of knowing but that doesn't settle whether or not the doctrine of God should be after th edoctrine of teh covenants.
 
Who is the covenanting party? Who is the one who makes the covenant, condescending to sovereignly dispose of each and every facet of the covenant? Covenant is neither prior nor essential to God. Since without God you have no one to make the covenant, it seems quite logical to me be introduced to the party-contractor before you are introduced to the contract. Before we speak of the tie that binds, of the medium, we should speak of the agents bound, of the termini.
 
Who is the covenanting party? Who is the one who makes the covenant, condescending to sovereignly dispose of each and every facet of the covenant? Covenant is neither prior nor essential to God. Since without God you have no one to make the covenant, it seems quite logical to me be introduced to the party-contractor before you are introduced to the contract. Before we speak of the tie that binds, of the medium, we should speak of the agents bound, of the termini.

Yes but without the covenant you have no revelation. It seems like a circle.
 
Yes but without the covenant you have no revelation.

The Heaven's declare the glory of God.

John chapter one starts off with the Logos.

Is it really true that there is no revelation of God outside of the Covenant?

(Joh 1:1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

(Joh 1:2) He was in the beginning with God.


(Joh 1:3) All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.


(Joh 1:4) In him was life, and the life was the light of men.


(Joh 1:5) The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

(Psa 19:1) The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

(Psa 19:2) Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.


(Psa 19:3) There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.


(Psa 19:4) Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun,


(Psa 19:5) which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.


(Psa 19:6) Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them, and there is nothing hidden from its heat.


(Psa 19:7) The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple;


(Psa 19:8) the precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes;


(Psa 19:9) the fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; the rules of the LORD are true, and righteous altogether.


(Psa 19:10) More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb.


(Psa 19:11) Moreover, by them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward.


(Psa 19:12) Who can discern his errors? Declare me innocent from hidden faults.


(Psa 19:13) Keep back your servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me! Then I shall be blameless, and innocent of great transgression.


(Psa 19:14) Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in your sight, O LORD, my rock and my redeemer.
 
Who is the covenanting party? Who is the one who makes the covenant, condescending to sovereignly dispose of each and every facet of the covenant? Covenant is neither prior nor essential to God. Since without God you have no one to make the covenant, it seems quite logical to me be introduced to the party-contractor before you are introduced to the contract. Before we speak of the tie that binds, of the medium, we should speak of the agents bound, of the termini.

Yes but without the covenant you have no revelation. It seems like a circle.

I don't think that's necessarily true. For one thing, the covenant form of revelation is not necessary. For another thing, revelation does come to those outside the covenant - that's how they hear the terms of the covenant, after all. In other words, you don't have to be in covenant to be told about the covenant.

The whole idea of a covenant presupposes something: even the covenant of works presupposes the existence of parties and the possibility of a relationship between them. And of course the covenant of grace presupposes a preceding estrangement and barriers to be overcome.
 
I don't think that's necessarily true. For one thing, the covenant form of revelation is not necessary. For another thing, revelation does come to those outside the covenant - that's how they hear the terms of the covenant, after all. In other words, you don't have to be in covenant to be told about the covenant.

The whole idea of a covenant presupposes something: even the covenant of works presupposes the existence of parties and the possibility of a relationship between them. And of course the covenant of grace presupposes a preceding estrangement and barriers to be overcome.

Well isn’t it true that we can have no knowledge of him without, as the confession on the chapter of covenant, “a voluntary condescension” on the part of God? And it is “by way of covenant” that this condescension takes place. Was it not within the covenant that God always revealed himself? This doesn’t mean that people outside the covenant of grace can’t read the bible and understand at least what is being said, only that that revelation was given within the bounds of a covenant. God covenantally revealed to Adam what his purpose was and therefore how to interpret things, so from this I take it to mean that even natural knowledge is covenantal because all people are judged (within the COW) based on this knowledge.
 
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.

We could have no knowledge of God without his revelation, true. But what the confession says is that we could have no fruition of him except by voluntary condescension. But then look at what follows. It has pleased God to express that by way of covenant. There is no hint nor indication that the voluntary condescension couldn't have been expressed some other way. In other words, the chapter on the covenant definitely belongs after the chapters on God's decree and providence.

Defining natural knowledge of God as pertaining to the Covenant of Works is a bit imprecise: Adam also, in the covenant of works, was a recipient of supernatural revelation.
Besides this law written in their hearts, they received a command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; which while they kept were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.
 
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.

We could have no knowledge of God without his revelation, true. But what the confession says is that we could have no fruition of him except by voluntary condescension. But then look at what follows. It has pleased God to express that by way of covenant. There is no hint nor indication that the voluntary condescension couldn't have been expressed some other way. In other words, the chapter on the covenant definitely belongs after the chapters on God's decree and providence.

Defining natural knowledge of God as pertaining to the Covenant of Works is a bit imprecise: Adam also, in the covenant of works, was a recipient of supernatural revelation.
Besides this law written in their hearts, they received a command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; which while they kept were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.

Yeah I see your point. I am coming to consider this question as one of preference rather than necessity. You are right that decree and providence precede covenant but we only know that through the revelation given in the covenant. I think that at least a bare covenant theology of “voluntary condescension” in prolegomena to set the stage of the other doctrines. It would be like through the covenantal revelation of God we know that God freely decreed before any covenant to relate to his creatures by way of covenant. Does that make more sense?
 
It seems to me that there is a strong tendency in our day to try to make "covenant" the controlling factor in all of our theology, and I think that is a trend that ought to be resisted.

I am curious Ruben what errors or problems do you see resulting from this “Trend”?
 
James, I'm sure it would be fine to acknowledge that revelation has come to us in a covenant form, but I'm not persuaded it's the most necessary thing to say at the outset.

As to potential problems, one is simply the reduction of covenant to a meaningless word that sounds cool. All our blessings are covenant blessings, of course, but if covenant becomes simply the catch-all term of approval it obscures the role it actually has to play. For instance, if "covenant" is applied to everything ultimately it can come to mean nothing more than "relationship".
Another is that covenant can become practically hypostasized - people begin to assert that God is naturally, essentially in covenant. At that point, divine freedom is taken away, and in some cases the ontological oneness of the Trinity can be de-emphasized over against a covenantal oneness.
Or again, some assert that man was created in covenant - was in covenant by virtue of creation rather than providential disposition. This can also undercut God's sovereignty in the covenant of works, and undermine the accent of voluntary condescension.
Another issue is that when covenant becomes the controlling category of all theological reflection, it is possible to forget that this too is an anthropomorphism and an accommodation. Or we run the risk of attempting to approach theology by means of a central dogma; but Reformed theology, at least, has not historically fallen pray to having a central dogma, but has rather derived its theology from the irreducible complexity of Scripture teaching. And it would not surprise me if an exaggeration of the place of the covenant eventually led Reformed theologians to the idea (held by some Lutherans) that Christ is the cause of election.

Lest I be misunderstood, let me clarify that the doctrine of the covenant is very important to me, and I love Olevianus' approach to the statements of the Apostle's Creed - taking them as the articles of the covenant between God and man. But in order for the covenant to be properly appreciated for what it is, we must not say that ultimately it is everything else as well. There is an inadequate christocentric principle, and if the idea of christocentrism can be abused, it's unsurprising that the idea of covenant can also be pushed beyond its boundaries.
 
Last edited:
James, I'm sure it would be fine to acknowledge that revelation has come to us in a covenant form, but I'm not persuaded it's the most necessary to say at the outset.

As to potential problems, one is simply the reduction of covenant to a meaningless word that sounds cool. All our blessings are covenant blessings, of course, but if covenant becomes simply the catch-all term of approval it obscures the role it actually has to play. For instance, if "covenant" is applied to everything ultimately it can come to mean nothing more than "relationship".
Another is that covenant can become practically hypostasized - people begin to assert that God is naturally, essentially in covenant. At that point, divine freedom is taken away, and in some cases the ontological oneness of the Trinity can be de-emphasized over against a covenantal oneness.
Or again, some assert that man was created in covenant - was in covenant by virtue of creation rather than providential disposition. This can also undercut God's sovereignty in the covenant of works, and undermine the accent of voluntary condescension.
Another issue is that when covenant becomes the controlling category of all theological reflection, it is possible to forget that this too is an anthropomorphism and an accommodation. Or we run the risk of attempting to approach theology by means of a central dogma; but Reformed theology, at least, has not historically fallen pray to having a central dogma, but has rather derived its theology from the irreducible complexity of Scripture teaching. And it would not surprise me if an exaggeration of the place of the covenant eventually led Reformed theologians to the idea (held by some Lutherans) that Christ is the cause of election.

Lest I be misunderstood, let me clarify that the doctrine of the covenant is very important to me, and I love Olevianus' approach to the statements of the Apostle's Creed - taking them as the articles of the covenant between God and man. But in order for the covenant to be properly appreciated for what it is, we must not say that ultimately it is everything else as well. There is an inadequate christocentric principle, and if the idea of christocentrism can be abused, it's unsurprising that the idea of covenant can also be pushed beyond its boundaries.

Thanks Ruben, all I can say to all you posted is yes and amen. Thanks for pointing out those errors that we should all avoid. All things in moderation, including a single doctrine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top