Philosophy and Covenant Theology.

[jwright82]

I have read both Micheal Horton and K. Scott Oliphint saying that we can as christians provide better solutions to philosophical problems by dealing with them in a covenantal context. I find that idea absolutly fascinating. I am taking their lead and going with it. But I wanted to hear what ya'll think on the subject. If you want specific proposals on this idea than I will provide them as best I can.

 

[ZackF]

I have read both Micheal Horton and K. Scott Oliphint saying that we can as christians provide better solutions to philosophical problems by dealing with them in a covenantal context. I find that idea absolutly fascinating. I am taking their lead and going with it. But I wanted to hear what ya'll think on the subject. If you want specific proposals on this idea than I will provide them as best I can.

From my most meager knowledge of the matter it sounds Van Tillian to the core. Didn't Van Til go right through the jugular from the get go. No generic God business nor "mere Christianity" but right to the Sovereign God of the bible!!

 

[Philip]

James, what I find is that while in some cases, a scriptural worldview helps us in terms of providing answers, it also raises new problems, and muddies certain waters that without revelation would seem to be clear. In addition, Christian philosophers often have a very different set of concerns than their unbelieving counterparts.

 

[athanatos]

I am taking a course on it, taught by the good doctor. I'll let you know when I'm more qualified to speak!

 

[jwright82]

From my most meager knowledge of the matter it sounds Van Tillian to the core. Didn't Van Til go right through the jugular from the get go. No generic God business nor "mere Christianity" but right to the Sovereign God of the bible!!

I would say so.

James, what I find is that while in some cases, a scriptural worldview helps us in terms of providing answers, it also raises new problems, and muddies certain waters that without revelation would seem to be clear. In addition, Christian philosophers often have a very different set of concerns than their unbelieving counterparts.

You know all in all I can't disagree with you. But does looking at things from a covenantal P.O.V. raise less problems or more? That would be my first question in this thread

 

[jandrusk]

I tend to tackle it more from an prepositional worldview than a covenant one. Don't see what the correlation would be with the non-believer who would not be able to relate to a covenant relationship since they typically think they are center of their universe. Depends upon which philosophical system you are talking about since they vary so greatly.

 

[Philip]

But does looking at things from a covenantal P.O.V. raise less problems or more?

Can you give me an example of one which it solves?

 

[jwright82]

I tend to tackle it more from an prepositional worldview than a covenant one. Don't see what the correlation would be with the non-believer who would not be able to relate to a covenant relationship since they typically think they are center of their universe. Depends upon which philosophical system you are talking about since they vary so greatly.

Yeah but I think the question should be raised of whether or not our covenant theology can provide a better framework for dealing with these questions than a more abstract one?

Can you give me an example of one which it solves?

Yes but understand I have no specifics here and cannot argue in specifics over these things. So keep that in mind. The Reformed apologists that I refered to generaly wished to avoid uneeded abstarctions, like relating human responsibiblity to divine soveirghnty. Horton seems to be suggesting that covenant theology might provide a better alternative than human abstractions. The way I see it, in very humble fashion mind you, is that a covenant is a very concrete thing so the old problem of relating an abstract idea to concrete ones is, in a sense, resolved when you bring a concrete framework like the covenant into the mix. I can't give you specifics here but I can explore these options with anyone willing to dicuss them.

 

[MW]

I generally think of philosophy as descriptive and theology as prescriptive. Philosophy raises questions and theology answers them. Hence I would prefer if they were kept distinct. The conflation would only serve to raise the other disciplines to the dignity of theology and thereby challenge her distinctive place as the queen of the sciences.

 

[jwright82]

I generally think of philosophy as descriptive and theology as prescriptive. Philosophy raises questions and theology answers them. Hence I would prefer if they were kept distinct. The conflation would only serve to raise the other disciplines to the dignity of theology and thereby challenge her distinctive place as the queen of the sciences.

I definantly see your point but look at it this way. Theology is theology, and there philosophical consequences to that theology. So we tease out those consequences and from that basis work out a theological/philosophical answer to maybe the good old problems of philosophy, that have managed to not disapear for these years.

 

[Philip]

the old problem of relating an abstract idea to concrete ones is, in a sense, resolved when you bring a concrete framework like the covenant into the mix.

What philosophers have written on this one?

Philosophy raises questions and theology answers them.

Theology, I find, raises more questions than it answers (see also: Trinitarian theology). This isn't bad, mind you.

 

[MW]

Theology, I find, raises more questions than it answers

Then it is not theologia vera.

 

[MW]

Theology is theology, and there philosophical consequences to that theology.

Philosophy is the handmaid. If there are philosophical consequences to theology, it is for philosophy to work those out, not theology.

 

[Philip]

Theology, I find, raises more questions than it answers

Then it is not theologia vera.

Sure it is. Just because the trinity raises more questions than it answers doesn't make it untrue---it just means that I've possibly reached my limit.

 

[MW]

Theology, I find, raises more questions than it answers

Then it is not theologia vera.

Sure it is. Just because the trinity raises more questions than it answers doesn't make it untrue---it just means that I've possibly reached my limit.

No, it means you are exceeding your limit -- a limit which can only be defined by true theology.

 

[Philip]

No, it means you are exceeding your limit -- a limit which can only be defined by true theology.

So if I still have logical questions about trinitarian doctrine, I've exceeded my limit?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Getting back to the OP, the problem that I have with the statement is that it sort of makes the assumption that systematic theology is grounded in philosophy and covenant theology is grounded in revelation. It's sort of an unstated assumption but I think undergirds it.

Reformed systematic theology has always worked backward from revelation and then used logic (philosophy if you like) to try to determine by GNC what may be known from what is revealed. Because, it is organized and systematic it sort of takes on the air of extra-Biblical to some but good systematic theology is trying to be fair to what is revealed and not moving beyond that point.

The concern I have with modern attempts to recast systematics according to covenant theology is that I see folks claiming a "Biblical" approach for themselves while claiming that the older forms are philosophical.

Where this also seems to go is that some have this "Suzerein treaty" grid overlaid on top of Covenant theology that is clashing with some older systematics. Consequently, Biblical="suzerein treaty ideas" and all the older stuff that doesn't have those ideas are seen as not Biblical but philosophical.

Now, at the end of the day, maybe there were mistakes made in the formation of systematics and we ought to be constantly searching the Scriptures for ways we might tighten up our understanding of things. That said, let's not claim that older sytematics are philosophical simply because the starting point of early Systematizers was not a Klinean understanding of revelation.

Thus, I think the issue is better seen as newer thinkers disagreeing with earlier views of the Scriptures. If the Klinean view is established as true Theology then Systematics ought to naturally proceed from there. Let's not make it a matter, however, of philosophy vs. covenant theology but one view of revelation in the past vs a new view today.

 

[jwright82]

Theology is theology, and there philosophical consequences to that theology.

Philosophy is the handmaid. If there are philosophical consequences to theology, it is for philosophy to work those out, not theology.

Only I completly agree. Your absolutly right theology should not seek to answer these questions philosophy should. But I guess I would say that I start, presuposse, with my theology and work out, using the methods and ideas of philosophy, an answer (or possible answer) to these questions. One essential piece of my theology is covenant theology. I think that the point Horton is making is that it is abstract speculation that has been problimatic in the past to relating the abstract to the concrete (the historical problem of universals). I never said that this idea was absolutly right only a fascinating idea. I fo rone am going to explore it myself but, alas, at the end of the day it could be wrong.

What philosophers have written on this one?

None that I know of. Oliphint said that anyone doing this kind of philosophy would "be virtualy alone" in the field. They have, as far as I know, provided only very rough frameworks for this (more like passing comments). Here is the talk that he gave that got me thinking about it Christian Essentialism - ReformedForum.org. I started this thread to explore the idea with fellow reformed christians to get a feel for it and try it out.

Getting back to the OP, the problem that I have with the statement is that it sort of makes the assumption that systematic theology is grounded in philosophy and covenant theology is grounded in revelation. It's sort of an unstated assumption but I think undergirds it.

Reformed systematic theology has always worked backward from revelation and then used logic (philosophy if you like) to try to determine by GNC what may be known from what is revealed. Because, it is organized and systematic it sort of takes on the air of extra-Biblical to some but good systematic theology is trying to be fair to what is revealed and not moving beyond that point.

The concern I have with modern attempts to recast systematics according to covenant theology is that I see folks claiming a "Biblical" approach for themselves while claiming that the older forms are philosophical.

Where this also seems to go is that some have this "Suzerein treaty" grid overlaid on top of Covenant theology that is clashing with some older systematics. Consequently, Biblical=suzerein treaty ideas and all the older stuff that doesn't have those ideas are seen as not Biblical but philosophical.

Now, at the end of the day, maybe there were mistakes made in the formation of systematics and we ought to be constantly searching the Scriptures for ways we might tighten up our understanding of things. That said, let's not claim that older sytematics are philsophical. Even that recasting of systematics is going to require GNC and these new covenantal ideas need to stand toe-to-toe with older ideas about the covenant. In other words, we need not *assume* that the newer covenantal formulations are what Reformed covenant theology has always been. That needs to be established or, if not, show that the older ways of viewing these things were defective.

Simply asserting that the newer views are "Covenant Theology" and that we need to rework Systematic Theology according to them troubles me because I'm not convinced that the newer views accord fully with Scipture and Systematic theology needs to be informed only by revelation using GNC as a tool to build its parts.

I agree that we shouldn't recast older Systematic Theology to be more "philosophical". But doesn't Horton and Oliphint get their cue from Muller and his work? Are they not seeking to reapply those old ways of thinking? If what we are doing is essentially the VanTillian notion of "I do not leave my theology at the door" when doing philosophy (or anyother body of knowledge)? I am not the expert on classical Reformed Dogmatics that you and armourbearer are but that line of thought seems to be right to me. If this is all so than I can start from a theology of the covenant to work out a philosophy, using the methods of philosophy, of whatever?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I agree that we shouldn't recast older Systematic Theology to be more "philosophical". But doesn't Horton and Oliphint get their cue from Muller and his work? Are they not seeking to reapply those old ways of thinking? If what we are doing is essentially the VanTillian notion of "I do not leave my theology at the door" when doing philosophy (or anyother body of knowledge)? I am not the expert on classical Reformed Dogmatics that you and armourbearer are but that line of thought seems to be right to me. If this is all so than I can start from a theology of the covenant to work out a philosophy, using the methods of philosophy, of whatever?

I think you need to read what I wrote more carefully. I'm not an expert in classical Reformed Dogmatics but simply a student of it.

My point was not that it is an issue of whether one starts from a theology of the covenant but whether or not that theology of the covenant is what is revealed. In other words, it's a debate on whether some of the recent developments of Covenant theology are Scriptural. If the starting point is in question then the Systematics will be questionable. It's hardly a settled point that the new understandings of the Covenant are the basis upon which to proceed to systematics.

 

[jwright82]

I think you need to read what I wrote more carefully. I'm not an expert in classical Reformed Dogmatics but simply a student of it.

My point was not that it is an issue of whether one starts from a theology of the covenant but whether or not that theology of the covenant is what is revealed. In other words, it's a debate on whether some of the recent developments of Covenant theology are Scriptural. If the starting point is in question then the Systematics will be questionable. It's hardly a settled point that the new understandings of the Covenant are the basis upon which to proceed to systematics.

I got you, I thought you were refering to Kline and Horton on the whole "Suzerein treaty" thing. I to had kind of a problem with Horton casting that version of "recent developments" as "Covenant Theology" itself, along with the whole Neo-2K and republication of the C.O.W. stuff in his book The God of Promise. I mean it is o.k. to believe that your version is the biblical one but to knowingly cast it as the Reformed view is a little underhanded in my mind knowing that there is disagreement amaongst Reformed beleivers.

I mean I believe that VanTillian Apologetics is Reformed Apologetics but i don't like to refer to it as that because there is healthy disagreement amongst honest Reformed thinkers on this issue to make it unfair to slant terms like that, so I refrain. I don't adopt Horton more extreme views and I do not believe that Oliphint does either, but I could be wrong.

I used the term "expert" to respectfully show my humility in recognizing that you and armourbearer know more about it than I do. So I would rather learn from you on what is classical or not and not tell you what is classical or not.

 

[Philip]

None that I know of. Oliphint said that anyone doing this kind of philosophy would "be virtualy alone" in the field.

You see, the problem is that I can't really think of any philosophical questions that theology would solve without raising more questions. The other thing is that theology gives Christian philosophers a peculiar set of concerns that make their work such that they are not necessarily going to be concerned with the same things as their secular counterparts. A Christian philosopher will have theological concerns.

At any rate, I can't think of how covenant theology in particular is going to be relevant to philosophy (except possibly in the theory of contract law---which is mostly interesting to lawyers).

As a Christian in philosophy, I've found that my faith means that I have to live with a ton of ambiguity---the issues of Christ and culture for me aren't theoretical, but a reality that I have to wrestle with most days.

 

[jwright82]

You see, the problem is that I can't really think of any philosophical questions that theology would solve without raising more questions. The other thing is that theology gives Christian philosophers a peculiar set of concerns that make their work such that they are not necessarily going to be concerned with the same things as their secular counterparts. A Christian philosopher will have theological concerns.

At any rate, I can't think of how covenant theology in particular is going to be relevant to philosophy (except possibly in the theory of contract law---which is mostly interesting to lawyers).

As a Christian in philosophy, I've found that my faith means that I have to live with a ton of ambiguity---the issues of Christ and culture for me aren't theoretical, but a reality that I have to wrestle with most days.

Well now wait a minute lets explore the whole freedom issue. Now abstractions of "divine sovierghnty" and "human freedom" have, as you said, raised more problems than they have solved. But here is Horton on this:

Similarly, covenant theology provides a broader biblical context for relating divine and human agency. A covenant involves two parties, so if we begin with the covenant rather than with abstract philosophical questions, the whole discussion changes significantly.

It is often supposed that Calvinism highlights a set of biblical passages on God’s sovereignty, while Arminians emphasize other passages that teach human responsibility. Thus, this rivalry is simply the consequence of not teaching both with the correct scriptural balance. There certainly is a hyper-Calvinism that fits this description, preoccupied with a distorted concept of God’s sovereignty that then pushes everything else to the periphery. Here we do encounter that deductive approach of a central dogma criticized above. But hyper-Calvinism is not Calvinism. When Reformed theology hears Scripture teaching both divine sovereignty and human responsibility, divine election and the universal offer of the gospel, it affirms both even though it confesses that it does not know quite how God coordinates them behind the scenes.

But Arminianism, like hyper-Calvinism, seems to begin with an all-controlling presupposition from which it deduces the possible interpretations of Scripture. That central dogma appears to be a certain libertarian concept of human freedom according to which human responsibility requires a will that is not only free of external coercion, but free of the preferences and character of the willing agent.

When we read all of these passages on divine sovereignty and human responsibility within the context of the covenant and its historical unfolding, however, abstract and speculative questions are exchanged for concrete and historical ones. God does not limit his sovereignty, or any other of his other attributes, to make space for human freedom. Rather, his freedom is the very space within which our creaturely freedom is possible (Acts 17:24-28). But neither is God a capricious despot who exercises arbitrary power. Instead, he condescends not only to create, but to bind himself to his creation in the form of covenants.

By articulating its view of God’s sovereignty within the context of Triune love in the eternity (the covenant of redemption), solidarity with all that he has made (the covenant of creation), and his saving purposes in Christ and by his Spirit (the covenant of grace), covenant theology is able to give proper place not only to “pro-sovereignty” verses in Scripture, but to those passages that emphasize also the significance of human action. In the covenant, both the Lord and the Servant are on trial for their faithfulness: there simply can be no choice between whose action we take seriously. This focus curbs our speculative tendencies. Not by probing God’s secret counsels in eternity, but by concentrating on historical unfolding of his covenants with us do we come to know that we are heirs in Christ. Doing so keeps our feet on the ground.

Pages 18-20 in his book God of Promise. I think he nicley in theory avoids the uneccessary abstractions that traditional formulations of this problem seem to fall into. Again it is receptive in the sense that we sit and receive revelation from God about this much and do not speculate beyond that. I do believe that we can answer some, or most of, the traditional problems of this issue starting from this framework.

 

[Philip]

James, the fact is that it simply doesn't do this: the covenant interactions of God with creation only serve to highlight the ambiguity. It's clear that we have to hold both together---but that doesn't resolve things: it means that we can't resolve them by going to extremes. There's more to wrestle with, not less.

 

[jwright82]

James, the fact is that it simply doesn't do this: the covenant interactions of God with creation only serve to highlight the ambiguity.

In what way? The issue is not abstract and speculative but concrete and historical. Doe sit answer every question? No but it avoids traditional problems with abstract and speculative formulations, which are to be avoided.

---------- Post added at 02:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:42 PM ----------

it means that we can't resolve them by going to extremes. There's more to wrestle with, not less.

How is there more to wrestle with and not less?

 

[Philip]

No but it avoids traditional problems with abstract and speculative formulations, which are to be avoided.

In what way, exactly? The problem of trying to account for God's sovereignty and human responsibility is still present. How can we hold the two without contradiction? That's the question.

The only thing that it solves is something of an existential problem.

How is there more to wrestle with and not less?

Because we have, on the one hand, the absolute sovereignty of God, and on the other, the absolute responsibility of man. The history of the covenant makes this clearer: it doesn't resolve the dilemma. The problem isn't which side to take seriously: it's the fact that we have to take both seriously.

 

[jwright82]

In what way, exactly? The problem of trying to account for God's sovereignty and human responsibility is still present. How can we hold the two without contradiction? That's the question.

The only thing that it solves is something of an existential problem.

Well withen the covenant we have freedom, limited creaturley freedom. You get a contradiction when you describe it as absolute sovereignty and absolute freedom, abstract ways of looking at it.

Because we have, on the one hand, the absolute sovereignty of God, and on the other, the absolute responsibility of man. The history of the covenant makes this clearer: it doesn't resolve the dilemma. The problem isn't which side to take seriously: it's the fact that we have to take both seriously.

But you are assuming that this issue can be completly resolved, it cannot. The question is can bare human reason with the use of abstractions penetrate the mind of God and resolve this?

 

[Philip]

Well withen the covenant we have freedom, limited creaturley freedom. You get a contradiction when you describe it as absolute sovereignty and absolute freedom, abstract ways of looking at it.

I said absolute responsibility, not absolute freedom. Secondly, covenant highlights the distinction---I don't see how it resolves the problem.

But you are assuming that this issue can be completly resolved, it cannot. The question is can bare human reason with the use of abstractions penetrate the mind of God and resolve this?

I'm not saying it does: I'm saying that putting things in the context of Covenant only makes things more complicated, not less. I'm currently involved in a discussion over the law, and I'll tell you right now that some of the things God tells the people to do and holds them responsible for don't make a whole lot of sense to me. I believe them because they're true, but holding them to be true means that I have to live with a lot of ambiguity.

 

[mvdm]

The concern I have with modern attempts to recast systematics according to covenant theology is that I see folks claiming a "Biblical" approach for themselves while claiming that the older forms are philosophical.

That's what I was thinking. If it's Horton's covenant theology that is the lens by which he advocates interpreting philosophy, then one needs to reconsider the utility of such an idea.

 

[MW]

So if I still have logical questions about trinitarian doctrine, I've exceeded my limit?

The only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him. Your questions are not theology. Theology answers your questions.

 

[Philip]

So if I still have logical questions about trinitarian doctrine, I've exceeded my limit?

The only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him. Your questions are not theology. Theology answers your questions.

So what are my questions, if not theological? If theology answers my questions, why do I still have them? If theology is supposed to answer all questions, then why so much mystery?