God is a covenant, family, Trinitarian being?
- Thread starter yeutter
- Start date
- Status
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
As long as the terms are used analogically.
The persons of the Trinity enter into covenant with each other (Pactum Salutis), so that checks off.
The Father begets the Son. Those are familial terms. Yet I wouldn't read too much into it, since it is a spiritual begetting.
Obviously he is a Trinitarian being.
The persons of the Trinity enter into covenant with each other (Pactum Salutis), so that checks off.
The Father begets the Son. Those are familial terms. Yet I wouldn't read too much into it, since it is a spiritual begetting.
Obviously he is a Trinitarian being.
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
Why "friends" rather than something like "children"? I'm not saying friends is necessarily wrong, but it could convey a sense that we and God are all chummy equals. Plus, the children-of-God theme is more prominent in Scripture. If "friends" relates to a larger contextual point being made, very well. Else I might question that choice.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Abraham was God's friend (James 2)
The discussion about Professor Oliphint's understanding of the covenant caused me to think about this statement. When St. Athanasius talked about the incarnation he did not say, that God is a family Trinitarian being. I can not imagine St. Thomas Aquinas, or Bernard of Clairvaux using an expression like this. Bernard of Clairvaux might say that our God is a covenant God who adopts us as his children in Jesus, and shares His life with his adopted children.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
If we hold to the Pactum Salutis, as most Reformed do, then God is a covenantal being. And the language in John 17 is covenantal. When Jesus says "They will be one as we are one," it isn't oneness of being. Jesus isn't asking that we would share in the same oneness of being as the Father. It's covenantal language.
I am sorry. I did not make clear my concern. God is a covenantal being. That is not what I am questioning. Is it appropriate to call God a family being?
I'm having heartburn over saying God is covenant, regardless of the relationship within the Trinity. If you and I enter into a covenant, you would not say we are a covenant. I don't see the Westminster divines using this language at all in their description of God. When one uses the phrase "God is" in an ontological sense, it should square with the confession.
"Covenant" seems to be used there as an adjective, and "family" as well as the more obvious "Trinitarian."
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
As long as we are using analogical language. God is our father, but not like a physical father.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
The OP seems pasted from a website, and this appears to be a typo. It's odd to say that God is a covenant qua covenant. As Bruce said, it's probably meant to be "covenantal."
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
There's a huge difference between saying that God is essentially covenantal, and that the persons of the Trinity enter into a covenant in the pactum salutis. Contemporary neocalvinism wants anything that involves unity and diversity, or that involves relations, to be covenantal. It's usually done in a thoughtless way. I don't think it bodes well for the future of theology proper in Reformed circles.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Neo-Calvinism is divided on this point. What you've described is Kuyper's view, and Kuyper on the covenant is usually disastrous. I'm not persuaded that Schilder held to that view. He could have, but most of his stuff is still in Dutch.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Am I right in saying that the first quote is from David Engelsma? I ask because I see the Hoeksemites using this terminology a lot. I agree with Tyler's assessment here, and I have also had Hoeksemites tell me that it is wrong to conceive of God doing more or doing anything different than what he decreed to do (that argument came up in relation to discussions relating to their rejection of the covenant of works, though it was not in conversation with PRCA ministers). Such a view fails to distinguish between what is ad intra to God and what he has decreed ad extra to himself. It also fails to distinguish between God's absolute and ordained power and effectively limits divine omnipotence to what he does in the decree.
Last edited:
While the idea of "father," might imply the idea of family, scripture does not use this language, unless there is a nuance in the originals obscured in the plain reading of the texts. Jesus addresses the Father and we're taught to do the same.
God specifically creates a family in Eden and it seems a blurring of the creator/creation distinction to apply this term to the Trinity. It might be possible to say creation copies a heavenly existence, but scripture does not make the case. Indeed, the only point in creation that even comes close is the Imago Dei, and that attributes something of God to man, not the other way around.
Many of you in this discussion have a much better grasp on historical theology. Is a family/Trinity connection made before, to give a point in time, Abraham Kuyper?
God specifically creates a family in Eden and it seems a blurring of the creator/creation distinction to apply this term to the Trinity. It might be possible to say creation copies a heavenly existence, but scripture does not make the case. Indeed, the only point in creation that even comes close is the Imago Dei, and that attributes something of God to man, not the other way around.
Many of you in this discussion have a much better grasp on historical theology. Is a family/Trinity connection made before, to give a point in time, Abraham Kuyper?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Maybe....Probably....I'm not sure. The problem is that the Fathers were very clear that when we use the term "Father" or "Son," it is familial only on an analogical level. We say "Father" and "Son" because Scripture tells us to. We really don't see a full-orbed family theology read into it. The Fathers were reluctant to do so, because that would veer close to reading human concepts into what it means to be God, which is mythology and paganism.
That makes sense. I could not claim to know the history of the theology behind "Trinity as family" , but it didn't sound like anything I'd read from the Reformation, New England Puritans or the Westminster crowd. The term Father is certainly historic and it is likely reflects a major condescension for God to bring Himself into a description that his creation could understand.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
and biblical
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
Uh. . .who wrote the quote in the OP? Surprised someone hasn't asked that by now.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Charles Johnson
Puritan Board Junior
The only thing that raises an eyebrow with me is "own" because it reminds me of Osiander's doctrine of justification by participation in Christ's inherent, divine righteousness.
*Edit: after reading through other comments a lot of other things about it also bother me but that's still the biggest one*
*Edit: after reading through other comments a lot of other things about it also bother me but that's still the biggest one*
The original quote is a statement made by Jon J.Huisken. It is from the Adams Christian School website. They are a Grand Rapids, Michigan Christian elementary school that primarily serves the families of the Grand Rapids area Protestant Reformed Churches.
www.adamschristianschool.org/reformed-edu/
I have read similar things in other Kuyperian sources.
I am very sympathetic with much that the Protestant Reformed teach. I agree with their rejection of the free well meant offer. I am troubled by understandings of the Covenant that sound like the Covenant is conditional. But I am not of one mind with them on what the essence of the covenant is. The Bible seems to identify the covenant with God's oath or promise to save His people in Jesus Christ.
www.adamschristianschool.org/reformed-edu/
I have read similar things in other Kuyperian sources.
I am very sympathetic with much that the Protestant Reformed teach. I agree with their rejection of the free well meant offer. I am troubled by understandings of the Covenant that sound like the Covenant is conditional. But I am not of one mind with them on what the essence of the covenant is. The Bible seems to identify the covenant with God's oath or promise to save His people in Jesus Christ.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
Got it. Thanks.
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
This looks to me like someone is trying to be innovative with the Trinity. I suppose traditional language and teaching is too boring for some folks.
No.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Thomas, I sympathise with what you are saying with respect to the PRC. I have found, however, that Thomas Boston will give you everything that is good in relation to PRC covenant theology (the unconditional covenant of grace with the elect alone) without the bad bits (denial of the covenant of works, and so on).
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
If these guys are promoting Engelsma, then they are not Kuyperians.
Let's be careful not to refer to the PRC as if they are someplace else, or don't have a home here on the PB. We have PRC members on this site. If we can speak cordially, if strongly dissenting from each other, respecting baptism; then we should be able to graciously engage over disagreements of a similar nature with other members of our tribe.
I doubt that Professor David Engelsma would call himself a Kuyperian; though he was certainly interacting with Kuyper and Bavinck in his writings. My point was, that the quote from Mr. Jon J. Huisken diverges from what Charles Hodge, or Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield would say. It leaves me uncomfortable, in the same way that some of what Prof. Oliphint says leaves me scratching my head. Having said that I can not point to that quote and say error. I have seen similar things written, in a more nuanced fashion, by others who are clearly in the Kuyper / Bavinck camp.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Engelsma has been one of the biggest critics of Kuyper in the last 40 years. In fact, he is the biggest critic of Kuyper. And I mostly agree with Engelsma on this point.
And Hodge diverged from the Reformed tradition.
...Start with the revelation that God has made of himself in the constitution of our own nature and in his holy word. This method leads to the conclusion that God can think and act, that in him essence and attributes are not identical (I: 564).
“To say, as the schoolmen, and so many even of Protestant theologians, ancient and modern, were accustomed to say, that the divine attributes differ only in name, or in our conceptions, or in their effects, is to destroy all true knowledge of God...If in God knowledge is identical with eternity, knowledge with power, power with ubiquity, and ubiquity with holiness, then we are using words without meaning (I: 371-372).
- Status
Similar threads
