Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology, A Comparitive Analysis by Guy Prentiss Waters has just hit the shelves. Bought my copy today! Looks good
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I would disagree with you for this reason. Though are some critics of the FV who are theonomists (for that matter, I embrace the term, because I have a love for God's holy law), nonetheless most of the FV men do share a theonomic background as a common denominator. So I'm not convinced that Dr. Waters observations in that respect are unwarranted.Originally posted by ChristianTrader
A comment and a question
Comment: The book has some unnecessary and unwarranted words about how Theonomy is somehow the trigger for the FV problem, then has to somewhat backtrack and admit that some of the most vehement critics of FV are Theonomists. He should have just left Theonomy out of it.
I think the following quote from Calvin may be what Dr. Calhoun may have had in mind...Question: A quote from Dr. Calhoun's comments on Reformation 21 blog:
"One. The Federal Vision theology tends toward speculation, especially in its views of the Trinity. Its discussion of the inner workings of the Trinity (as covenant within the Godhead) goes beyond the limits of biblical revelation and probes into "God as He is in Himself""”a depth of understanding that, according to Calvin, has not been revealed to us. We can only know "God as He is toward us," and with that knowledge we must be satisfied."
How widespread of a view is it, that talking about a covenant within the Godhead is overly speculative?
CT
Originally posted by DTK
I would disagree with you for this reason. Though are some critics of the FV who are theonomists (for that matter, I embrace the term, because I have a love for God's holy law), nonetheless most of the FV men do share a theonomic background as a common denominator. So I'm not convinced that Dr. Waters observations in that respect are unwarranted.Originally posted by ChristianTrader
A comment and a question
Comment: The book has some unnecessary and unwarranted words about how Theonomy is somehow the trigger for the FV problem, then has to somewhat backtrack and admit that some of the most vehement critics of FV are Theonomists. He should have just left Theonomy out of it.
I think the following quote from Calvin may be what Dr. Calhoun may have had in mind...Question: A quote from Dr. Calhoun's comments on Reformation 21 blog:
"One. The Federal Vision theology tends toward speculation, especially in its views of the Trinity. Its discussion of the inner workings of the Trinity (as covenant within the Godhead) goes beyond the limits of biblical revelation and probes into "God as He is in Himself""”a depth of understanding that, according to Calvin, has not been revealed to us. We can only know "God as He is toward us," and with that knowledge we must be satisfied."
How widespread of a view is it, that talking about a covenant within the Godhead is overly speculative?
CT
John Calvin (1509-1564): Moreover, Satan, in order to tear our faith from its very roots, has always been instigating great battles, partly concerning the divine essence of the Son and the Spirit, partly concerning the distinction of the persons. He has during nearly all ages stirred up ungodly spirits to harry orthodox teachers over this matter can today also is trying to kindle a new fire from the old embers. For these reasons, it is important here to resist the perverse ravings of certain persons. Hitherto it has been my particular intention to lead by the hand those who are teachable, but not to strive hand to hand with the inflexible and the contentious. But now the truth which has been peaceably shown must be maintained against all the calumnies of the wicked. And yet I will exert especial effort to the end that they who lend ready and open ears to God´s Word may have a firm standing ground, Here, indeed, if anywhere in the secret mysteries of Scripture, we ought to play the philosopher soberly and with great moderation; let us use great caution that neither our thoughts nor our speech go beyond the limits to which the Word of God itself extends. For how can the human mind measure off the measureless essence of God according to its own little measure, a mind as yet unable to establish for certain the nature of the sun´s body, though men´s eyes daily gaze upon it? Indeed, how can the mind by its own leading come to search out God´s essence when it cannot even get to its own? Let us then willingly leave to God the knowledge of himself. For, as Hilary says, he is the one fit witness to himself, and is not known except through himself. But we shall be "œleaving it to him" if we conceive him to be as he reveals himself to us, without inquiring about him elsewhere than from his Word. On this question there are extant five homilies of Chrysostom Against the Anomoeans; yet not even these could restrain the presumptuous Sophists from giving their stuttering tongues free rein. For in this matter they have behaved no more modestly than they usually do everywhere. We ought to be warned by the unhappy outcome of this presumption so that we may take care to apply ourselves to this question with teachableness rather than with subtlety. And let us not take it into our heads either to seek out God anywhere else than in his Sacred Word, or to think anything about him that is not prompted by his Word, or to speak anything that is not taken from that Word. But if some distinction does exist in the one divinity of Father, Son, and Spirit "” something hard to grasp "” and occasions to certain minds more difficulty and trouble than is expedient, let it be remembered that men´s minds, when they indulge their curiosity, enter into a labyrinth. And so let them yield themselves to be ruled by the heavenly oracles, even though they may fail to capture the height of the mystery. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), Book I.13.21, pp. 145-146.
DTK
Originally posted by armourbearer
I believe the idea of covenant as a metaphysical concept originated with the Dutch, especially the Kuyperian school. William Young contributed an excellent artice to WTJ on the differences between traditional and neo-Calvinism.
I would maintain that consubstantiality rules out an inter-Trinitarian covenant. It doesn't rule out an ad extra covenant, however, as is avowed in the so-called "covenant of redemption."
Dear CT,Is this any different than saying that HyperCalvinists have a common denominator of Calvinism?
It is also much easier to blame the whole thing on Van Til, which quite a few people have, for Shepherd was VanTillian while never being a Theonomist.
Originally posted by DTK
I would disagree with you for this reason. Though are some critics of the FV who are theonomists (for that matter, I embrace the term, because I have a love for God's holy law), nonetheless most of the FV men do share a theonomic background as a common denominator. So I'm not convinced that Dr. Waters observations in that respect are unwarranted.Originally posted by ChristianTrader
A comment and a question
Comment: The book has some unnecessary and unwarranted words about how Theonomy is somehow the trigger for the FV problem, then has to somewhat backtrack and admit that some of the most vehement critics of FV are Theonomists. He should have just left Theonomy out of it.
I like the term "shared hermaneutic" you used. That's a good way of looking at it.Originally posted by AdamM
Rich, I agree completely. At some level all of the distinctives boil down to hermeneutics and after rubbing on this stuff for years now, I am convinced that that's the root of the problem. Our confessional standards function as a shared hermeneutic and when that hermeneutic is rejected and replaced by another system, you get all of these disconnects and bizarre contortions trying to bring the two together.
Originally posted by armourbearer
Not off the top of my head. But the purpose of a covenant is to bring two different parties into agreement. Consubstantiality tells us "these three are one." Hence there is no room for a covenant.
One chapter of Patrick Gillespie's Ark of the Covenant is to be found here:
http://www.truecovenanter.com/supralapsarian/pgilles_aoc_cap03.html
I remember he has some good preliminary points for discussing it, but can't recall him saying anything about the Trinity.
There are also chapters in Dickson's Therapeutica Sacra and Rutherford's Covenant of Life Opened. The COR tends to take on a life of its own under these authors.
Marrowmen like Thomas Boston rejected the idea of it being different from the covenant of grace, and I tend to agree with him. There is one everlasting covenant according to Scripture, and two historical covenants which bring the everlasting covenant to realisation.
Sorry, tried to respond before I went to bed but server wasn't working.Originally posted by turmeric
Rich, what's hyper-paternalism?
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
Originally posted by armourbearer
I believe the idea of covenant as a metaphysical concept originated with the Dutch, especially the Kuyperian school. William Young contributed an excellent artice to WTJ on the differences between traditional and neo-Calvinism.
I would maintain that consubstantiality rules out an inter-Trinitarian covenant. It doesn't rule out an ad extra covenant, however, as is avowed in the so-called "covenant of redemption."
Do you have a link or name of any works on how consubstantiatlity rules out an inter-Trinitarian covenant or how the one can accep the COR while rejection inter-Trinitarian covenants?
CT
It is also much easier to blame the whole thing on Van Til, which quite a few people have, for Shepherd was VanTillian while never being a Theonomist.
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
I discuss this at some length in the forthcoming volume (to be published in Nov? by P&R)
cheers,
rsc
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
I discuss this at some length in the forthcoming volume (to be published in Nov? by P&R)
cheers,
rsc
Which/what volume is this?
CT
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
As I understand the history of Reformed theology, there basically two different and complimentary ways of speaking about the covenant of redemption (pactum salutis or consilium pacis - council of peace).
One way is to think of it with respect to Son's obedience, in which case it is spoken of in more legal terms or when it has the elect in view, as in WLC and in Boston, it can be identified with the covenant of grace. It's not that there are really different covenant theologies at work, but the same PS/CP from different angles.
The assumption behind the PS is the strong trinitarian theology found in Calvin and others where the trinitarian persons are conceived as subsistences, consubstantial, but quite distinct persons with distinct properties such that they are able to enter into legal personal relations with one another.
To use consubstanitality to rule out the PS is saying more than needs to be said and using consubstantiality in a way that is foreign to our tradition. Consubstantiality guarantees the success of the PS but it doesn't eliminate the possibility of intra-trinitarian covenant.
I discuss this at some length in the forthcoming volume (to be published in Nov? by P&R)