God is a covenant, family, Trinitarian being?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
In relation to Kuyperian common grace, this analysis is correct. But DJE still agrees with Abraham Kuyper on many things. Remember that the RFPA republished one of Abraham Kuyper's books.
 
Are you comfortable with this statement? "God is a covenant, family, Trinitarian being; who takes His elect people into His covenant fellowship, to be His friends, and to share His own life with them."

Not really..who is the quote from ??
 
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.
That I could be comfortable with
 
Are you comfortable with this statement? "God is a covenant, family, Trinitarian being; who takes His elect people into His covenant fellowship, to be His friends, and to share His own life with them."

As has been pointed out, covenant is being used here as an adjective. In other words, God is a covenantal being. This thread is a good reminder for members of the PRC that we need to be careful in the language that we use and not assume that everyone else knows what we mean.

The same applies to the term family. And I am fairly confident that what is meant by this is that God is a relational being. This is intended to highlight the centrality of the intra-Trinitarian relationships that God has within himself.
 
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.

When members of the PRC use the word "friend" to describe the covenant that God has established with us, we are drawing both from Scripture (as has been pointed out) and from the historical development of the doctrine of the covenant. To give one specific example, "friendship" is an integral part of Cocceius' covenant theology.
 
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.

Daniel, this is not the first time that you have used the term "Hoeksemite." Whether you intend it as a pejorative, please understand that it comes across that way. As a member of the PRCA, I have a high regard for Herman Hoeksema. However, I do not wish to be known as a Hoeksemite; that is not part of my identity. I ask that you please stop using that term to describe members of our denomination as though we are somehow a sect.
 
Daniel, this is not the first time that you have used the term "Hoeksemite." Whether you intend it as a pejorative, please understand that it comes across that way. As a member of the PRCA, I have a high regard for Herman Hoeksema. However, I do not wish to be known as a Hoeksemite; that is not part of my identity. I ask that you please stop using that term to describe members of our denomination as though we are somehow a sect.
I am referring to people who follow Herman Hoeksema's theology as opposed to Reformed Orthodoxy. I think it is a legitimate designation to distinguish those who adhere to Herman Hoeksema's unique tenets from the confessional Reformed. (I realise that the PRCA subscribe to the 3FU, with some exceptions to the original Belgic Confession on the civil magistrate, but I consider their covenant theology to be beyond the bounds of the Reformed confessions.) It is no more pejorative than using Thomist, Calvinist, Clarkian, or Van Tillian. I am not implying that most people in the PRCA idolise Herman Hoeksema, just that they adhere to his views.
 
As has been pointed out, covenant is being used here as an adjective. In other words, God is a covenantal being. This thread is a good reminder for members of the PRC that we need to be careful in the language that we use and not assume that everyone else knows what we mean.

The same applies to the term family. And I am fairly confident that what is meant by this is that God is a relational being. This is intended to highlight the centrality of the intra-Trinitarian relationships that God has within himself.
The contemporary, non-Reformed, Christian philosopher, Richard Swinburne, uses similar language to say that God is a relational being. I don't know why this use of the term family to mean relational, whether done by followers of Swinburne or by Jon Huisken leaves me uncomfortable, but it does. I appreciate the fact that most of the brethren think that this is an appropriate, though novel way to speak about God as a relational being.
 
The contemporary, non-Reformed, Christian philosopher, Richard Swinburne, uses similar language to say that God is a relational being. I don't know why this use of the term family to mean relational, whether done by followers of Swinburne or by Jon Huisken leaves me uncomfortable, but it does. I appreciate the fact that most of the brethren think that this is an appropriate, though novel way to speak about God as a relational being.

It's not novel. Thomas Aquinas was defining the persons of the Trinity as "relations" since the late 1200s. God is a relational being. That's one of the reasons we aren't Muslims. Muslims worship a monad.
 
It's not novel. Thomas Aquinas was defining the persons of the Trinity as "relations" since the late 1200s. God is a relational being. That's one of the reasons we aren't Muslims. Muslims worship a monad.
Of course God is personal, and relational. Again, I failed to make myself clear. Using the term family to describe the relational aspect of God is what I find novel.
 
Daniel, this is not the first time that you have used the term "Hoeksemite." Whether you intend it as a pejorative, please understand that it comes across that way. As a member of the PRCA, I have a high regard for Herman Hoeksema. However, I do not wish to be known as a Hoeksemite; that is not part of my identity. I ask that you please stop using that term to describe members of our denomination as though we are somehow a sect.
Also, Matt, I think it is necessary to use the term Hoeksemite to distinguish those who hold to Hoeksemite theology from the PRCA, as many people who hold to the distinctive tenets of Hoeksemism are not PRCA members. Indeed, I have known some cage-stage types who were only interested in listening to PRCA preaching when it was teaching Hoeksemite distinctives, but not when they were emphasising sanctification and practical godliness.
 
I don't have a particular problem with how the statement is phrased, as long as certain possibilities are excluded. While I hold to the pactum salutis, and would argue that, therefore, the persons of the Godhead do have a covenantal agreement among them, there is the error of a social Trinitarianism that borders on tri-theism that I would want to guard against. I am not saying that Mr. Huisken holds to such a position. But if I want to use covenantal language about the Trinity, the error of tri-theism is the main error to avoid. Covenantal realities cannot work the same way among the persons of the Trinity as they do between God and man. Between God and man there is no sharing of essence as there is in the Trinity. In my mind, these caveats are essentially important whenever covenant language is used in descriptions of God.
 
Also, Matt, I think it is necessary to use the term Hoeksemite to distinguish those who hold to Hoeksemite theology from the PRCA, as many people who hold to the distinctive tenets of Hoeksemism are not PRCA members. Indeed, I have known some cage-stage types who were only interested in listening to PRCA preaching when it was teaching Hoeksemite distinctives, but not when they were emphasising sanctification and practical godliness.

That's right. I've seen FV guys (ironically) quote Hoeksema on the Covenant of Works. Further, Rushdoony promoted Hoekesma on Covenant of Works and Predestination.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top