John Frame and "The Universal Covenant"

[Dachaser]

Matthew,
First off it would be beneficial if you posted the section.


This is still confusing when we speak of what Frame is reportedly saying in my opinion. I have never heard of a Universal Covenant.

How can God be in a Covenant relationship apart from Grace of Calvary being extended, so how can that apply to non human things?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

How can God be in a Covenant relationship apart from Grace of Calvary being extended, so how can that apply to non human things?

That is why I am asking the questions I am asking. Evidently Creation suffers because of us so there is some attachment probably. That is why I am asking what is meant by Universal Covenant. Is it somehow attached in relation to the Covenant of Redemption in this thinking? What is meant by.... I would like to learn about this. It sounds strange to me but I don't have enough knowledge. I am going to ask a Prof from RPTS if he has heard of this.

On another note, The Covenant of Works is a Covenantal Relationship that doesn't have Christ as it's Mediator by the cross.

 

[TylerRay]

I am not sure he is equating the Covenant of Redemption with the Universal but you make it sound like that. If So, I would like to know how this is Universal and how he defines Universal? Is he equating the Covenant of Redemption with the Universal covenant?

Randy,
Note that the mention of the Covenant of Redemption was a footnote to the following: "In Scripture, God makes many covenants with his creatures (not only with human beings - see Gen. 9:9-10)."

I think Frame's point is that a covenant does not necessarily involve humans. His proof of that is that many have posited the Covenant of Redemption, an intra-Trinitarian covenant. The problem is that he goes from saying that it isn't necessary that humans be party to a covenant to saying that covenants can be made with impersonal things (i.e., creation as a whole).

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

https://puritanboard.com/threads/john-frame-and-the-universal-covenant.93661/#post-1143098

Thanks Tyler, That is why I posted the question above with the Roman's citation.

 

[iainduguid]

Randy,
Note that the mention of the Covenant of Redemption was a footnote to the following: "In Scripture, God makes many covenants with his creatures (not only with human beings - see Gen. 9:9-10)."

I think Frame's point is that a covenant does not necessarily involve humans. His proof of that is that many have posited the Covenant of Redemption, an intra-Trinitarian covenant. The problem is that he goes from saying that it isn't necessary that humans be party to a covenant to saying that covenants can be made with impersonal things (i.e., creation aas a whole).

Without speaking to Frame's larger point, Scripture clearly speaks of God making a covenant with impersonal things, namely "day" and "night" in Jeremiah 33:20, which in context does seem to be a reference back to the established order of creation.

 

[TylerRay]

Without speaking to Frame's larger point, Scripture clearly speaks of God making a covenant with impersonal things, namely "day" and "night" in Jeremiah 33:20, which in context does seem to be a reference back to the established order of creation.

Do you not think that that is a figure of speech, though?

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; Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.

It is clear that the point in the passage is not that God has a covenant with day and night, but that his covenant with his people is as certain as day and night.

Calvin:

He confirms the same thing, but by introducing a similitude; for he shews that God's covenant with the people of Israel would not be less firm than the settled order of nature. Unceasing are the progresses of the sun, moon, and stars; continual is the succession of day and night. This settled state of things is so fixed, that in so great and so multiplied a variety there is no change. We have now rain, then fair weather, and we have various changes in the seasons; but the sun still continues its daily course, the moon is new every month, and the revolving of day and night, which God has appointed, never ceases; and this unbroken order declares, as it is said in Psalm 19, the wonderful wisdom of God. The Prophet then sets before us here the order of nature, and says, that God's covenant with his Church shall be no less fixed and unchangeable than what it is with mankind, with regard to the government of the world.

Gill offers another plausible explanation:

The same with the ordinances of the sun, moon, and stars, Jeremiah 31:35; the original constitution and law of nature, settled from the beginning of the world, and observed ever since, in the constant revolution of day and night; and which was formed into a covenant and promise to Noah, after the deluge, that day and night should not cease, as long as the earth remained, Genesis 8:22

So, his view is that the "covenant of the day, etc." was the covenant with Noah.

How does an impersonal object become party to a covenant?

 

[RamistThomist]

How can God be in a Covenant relationship apart from Grace of Calvary being extended, so how can that apply to non human things?

I'm not sure what you are asking. God was in a covenant with Adam, which didn't seem to have the "grace of Cavalry" in mind. And then there is the Covenant of Redemption among/between the persons of the Trinity.

 

[JTB.SDG]

I've found Frame to say some odd things sometimes.

 

[timfost]

Gen. 9:8-17:

"Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying: “And as for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your descendants after you, and with every living creature that is with you: the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you, of all that go out of the ark, every beast of the earth. Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” And God said: “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud; and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.”

I am not commenting on Frame particularly, but God absolutely makes covenants with His creation, namely all living things as is clear in Gen. 9.

 

[JWY]

I am not sure he is equating the Covenant of Redemption with the Universal but you make it sound like that. If So, I would like to know how this is Universal and how he defines Universal? Is he equating the Covenant of Redemption with the Universal covenant?

And is there any mention of this passage with the context? This is bringing me a lot of strange questions.

I am not sure he is equating the Covenant of Redemption with the Universal but you make it sound like that. If So, I would like to know how this is Universal and how he defines Universal? Is he equating the Covenant of Redemption with the Universal covenant?

And is there any mention of this passage with the context? This is bringing me a lot of strange questions.

I think Frame is trying to show that the 'UC' as he has presented it, is organically related to the CoR, yet distinct from the CoR and the CoW.

Frame does appeal to the Romans texts you mentioned in a preceding paragraph where I believe he is actually tying the CoR and the UC together. Frame states:

"2. Individual and Universal. The pactum salutis focuses, of course, on God's elect people, those who are finally saved. In that sense its object is particular, not universal. But Scripture often indicates that salvation has a cosmic dimension. When man falls, he brings the rest of creation down with him (Gen. 3:17-19). Creation will not be delivered from this curse until the consumation of redemption, so it longs and groans for that day (Rom. 8:18-22). Through Jesus, God reconciles all things to himself (Col. 1:19-20) and makes "all things new" (Rev. 21:5). So the pactum has a universal meaning."
​

I'm trying to be charitable in my reading of this because, well, it's John Frame. I have tremendous respect for his work and have benefited greatly from his writing and teaching. But his 'UC' concept seems new to me and that is cause for concern.

 

[JWY]

Gen. 9:8-17:

"Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying: “And as for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your descendants after you, and with every living creature that is with you: the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you, of all that go out of the ark, every beast of the earth. Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” And God said: “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud; and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.”

I am not commenting on Frame particularly, but God absolutely makes covenants with His creation, namely all living things as is clear in Gen. 9.

Thanks Tim.

 

[TylerRay]

Gen. 9:8-17:

"Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying: “And as for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your descendants after you, and with every living creature that is with you: the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you, of all that go out of the ark, every beast of the earth. Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” And God said: “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud; and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.”

I am not commenting on Frame particularly, but God absolutely makes covenants with His creation, namely all living things as is clear in Gen. 9.

It seems clear to me that the point in the text is that God is making a covenant with Noah and his posterity which has implied ramifications for the rest of creation. That is, the "effect of the covenant," as Calvin calls it, toward "brute animals" is accidental, rather than essential to the covenant.

I'll gladly grant that the text says that the covenant is with the beasts, but it does so improperly (that is not to say erroneously)--it is a figure of speech, showing that there are implications for the beasts.

I think that, implied in all of this, is the question of what a covenant actually is. If a covenant has moral implications for all parties to the covenant (which it does, I maintain), then impersonal beings (who are not free moral agents) can not be parties to a covenant.

 

[Dachaser]

Randy,
Note that the mention of the Covenant of Redemption was a footnote to the following: "In Scripture, God makes many covenants with his creatures (not only with human beings - see Gen. 9:9-10)."

I think Frame's point is that a covenant does not necessarily involve humans. His proof of that is that many have posited the Covenant of Redemption, an intra-Trinitarian covenant. The problem is that he goes from saying that it isn't necessary that humans be party to a covenant to saying that covenants can be made with impersonal things (i.e., creation as a whole).

Even the Covenant made between the Persons of the Trinity though entails between sentient actual beings, and not between them and creation.

 

[Dachaser]

It seems clear to me that the point in the text is that God is making a covenant with Noah and his posterity which has implied ramifications for the rest of creation. That is, the "effect of the covenant," as Calvin calls it, toward "brute animals" is accidental, rather than essential to the covenant.

I'll gladly grant that the text says that the covenant is with the beasts, but it does so improperly (that is not to say erroneously)--it is a figure of speech, showing that there are implications for the beasts.

I think that, implied in all of this, is the question of what a covenant actually is. If a covenant has moral implications for all parties to the covenant (which it does, I maintain), then impersonal beings (who are not free moral agents) can not be parties to a covenant.

Your last paragraph is the standard Reformed viewpoint on Covenant then, correct?

 

[Dachaser]

I think Frame is trying to show that the 'UC' as he has presented it, is organically related to the CoR, yet distinct from the CoR and the CoW.

Frame does appeal to the Romans texts you mentioned in a preceding paragraph where I believe he is actually tying the CoR and the UC together. Frame states:

"2. Individual and Universal. The pactum salutis focuses, of course, on God's elect people, those who are finally saved. In that sense its object is particular, not universal. But Scripture often indicates that salvation has a cosmic dimension. When man falls, he brings the rest of creation down with him (Gen. 3:17-19). Creation will not be delivered from this curse until the consumation of redemption, so it longs and groans for that day (Rom. 8:18-22). Through Jesus, God reconciles all things to himself (Col. 1:19-20) and makes "all things new" (Rev. 21:5). So the pactum has a universal meaning."
​

I'm trying to be charitable in my reading of this because, well, it's John Frame. I have tremendous respect for his work and have benefited greatly from his writing and teaching. But his 'UC' concept seems new to me and that is cause for concern.

He just might be equating his view of the UC to what Paul implies that the fall affecting all of creation, and so the Cross will rectify that relationship back to creation by the death and resurrection of Christ.

 

[TylerRay]

Even the Covenant made between the Persons of the Trinity though entails between sentient actual beings, and not between them and creation.

I wouldn't call the persons of the Trinity sentient, and I wouldn't distinguish them in being, but you get my point above: The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are personal (accommodated/analogical though this language may be).

 

[Dachaser]

I wouldn't call the persons of the Trinity sentient, and I wouldn't distinguish them in being, but you get my point above: The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are personal (accommodated/analogical though this language may be).

Sentient to me would just be referring to the truth of each person being self aware and thinking, and they all are the same as to their essence and Being.

 

[TylerRay]

Sentient to me would just be referring to the truth of each person being self aware and thinking, and they all are the same as to their essence and Being.

We're off topic, but to say that the persons of the Godhead are each sentient would be to deny divine impassibility, immutability, eternity, and simplicity, by claiming that there is a succession of thoughts in the "minds" of the persons. Further, to claim that each has a distinct mind implies a denial of the substantial unity of the persons, and also constitutes another denial of divine simplicity.

The reason i mentioned the claim that they are distinguished in being is because you referred to them as "sentient beings."

 

[TylerRay]

Your last paragraph is the standard Reformed viewpoint on Covenant then, correct?

That's my understanding. Before I will give a definite yes, I'll have to consult some systematic theologies for a precise and technical definition of covenant.

 

[Dachaser]

God is sentient though, as He has thoughts and is self aware.

 

[timfost]

It seems clear to me that the point in the text is that God is making a covenant with Noah and his posterity which has implied ramifications for the rest of creation. That is, the "effect of the covenant," as Calvin calls it, toward "brute animals" is accidental, rather than essential to the covenant.

As far as the covenant with animals being "accidental," I would encourage you to consider the purpose (even multiple purposes) that the Noahic covenant serves. It goes beyond "implied ramifications" for the rest or creation-- it actually says "This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth."

I'll gladly grant that the text says that the covenant is with the beasts, but it does so improperly (that is not to say erroneously)--it is a figure of speech, showing that there are implications for the beasts.

Sometimes the reformed have too many categories for their own good. The text says the opposite of what you posit. We must be very careful that our system of theology is informed by God's Word, and not our system re-interpreting God's Word.

Some things to consider:

1. This covenant does not have conditions for "all flesh." Therefore, it is suitable to be made with both rational and irrational creatures.

2. The blessings are temporal, not eternal and is thus suitable for everything material, particularly the living.

3. The God of mercy makes a covenant with representatives of everything that had just been destroyed by water. Not only was mankind saved, but animals.

I think that, implied in all of this, is the question of what a covenant actually is. If a covenant has moral implications for all parties to the covenant (which it does, I maintain), then impersonal beings (who are not free moral agents) can not be parties to a covenant.

Again, why not expand your understanding of a covenant than restrain the Word of God?

 

[lynnie]

all covevants are made with mankind; hence, no mankind involved, no covenant.



Frame, liking to hear himself talk.......

Morality comes into play with the human creation only. Nature is neither moral or amoral.

Can we say morality is only with humanity? Are not angels moral beings? Job 38 says the angels sang for joy watching the earth created, so they existed before man. Wasn't there a covenantal relationship there- ie, if you rebel you will be kicked out of heaven and one day thrown into the lake of fire?

I would agree that we don't assign morality to animals and plants and rocks. But if angels can obey or rebel, doesn't there have to be a covenant behind obedience and rebellion?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Can we say morality is only with humanity? Are not angels moral beings? Job 38 says the angels sang for joy watching the earth created, so they existed before man. Wasn't there a covenantal relationship there- ie, if you rebel you will be kicked out of heaven and one day thrown into the lake of fire?

I would agree that we don't assign morality to animals and plants and rocks. But if angels can obey or rebel, doesn't there have to be a covenant behind obedience and rebellion?

Good question. I will respond only with what I know. The scriptures do not address the issues of the autonomy of angels, prior to their rebellion. One can see however, after that predetermined fall of these rebellious angels, by God, autonomy doesn't any longer seem to be an issue-at least to what we know. It is quite possible that there continues to be fallen angels and God deals with them apart from us being aware of anymore.

In regards to 'covenant'. The Hebrew word:
1285. בְּרִית berith (136b); from an unused word; a covenant:—allied(1), allies*(1), covenant(275), covenants(1), El-berith*(1), league(2), treaty(4).

The word is specific and there is only this word in the OT, which is specific to cutting and blood. I don't see anywhere in scripture where any sacrifice or cutting was done in the name of angels. Hence, all covenants are made either on behalf of mankind or directly related to man.

 

[Dachaser]

Good question. I will respond only with what I know. The scriptures do not address the issues of the autonomy of angels, prior to their rebellion. One can see however, after that predetermined fall of these rebellious angels, by God, autonomy doesn't any longer seem to be an issue-at least to what we know. It is quite possible that there continues to be fallen angels and God deals with them apart from us being aware of anymore.

In regards to 'covenant'. The Hebrew word:
1285. בְּרִית berith (136b); from an unused word; a covenant:—allied(1), allies*(1), covenant(275), covenants(1), El-berith*(1), league(2), treaty(4).

The word is specific and there is only this word in the OT, which is specific to cutting and blood. I don't see anywhere in scripture where any sacrifice or cutting was done in the name of angels. Hence, all covenants are made either on behalf of mankind or directly related to man.

Covenant also seems to be tied directly into the Messiah given to us as promised by God in Genesis 3. so anything that would be in a Covenant relationship with God would have to be tied back to the coming Messiah. Now Paul also does seem to place creation/nature itself though as under the curse of the Fall, and it too shall be reborn again, so could frame be getting the Universal Covenant of his from there?