The Trinity and the Covenant

[Wyres]

According to Dr. Scott Swain's book The Trinity: An Introduction, in Page 106, he wrote: "God’s internal operations also include his eternal plan and purpose for creatures, his eternal decree. Actions whose effects occur outside of God—actions properly described as God’s “works”—include the works of creation, providence, redemption, sanctification, and consummation. "

Where does the concept of the covenant falls into? Is it an internal operation, or is it an external operation? Traditionally, the understanding is that covenant is an external operation. What about the Covenant of Redemption? If the Covenant of Redemption is an internal operation, given the simplicity of God, does the Triune God need an agreement, how does it not fall into some form of tritheism? If the Covenant of Redemption is an external operation, is there a theological need for it instead of adopting the Westminster Standard's position? Finally, how does covenant reflect God's Triune work?

Thank you.

 

[1689owen]

Do the John Owen citations from here help?

An Appropriate Pact - Credo Magazine

Virtually any study of Reformed, covenant theology involves studying the covenant of redemption. It stands as an important link between the triune work of salvation and the unity of the Godhead, both in essence and in will. Largely a product of post-Reformation exegesis and doctrinal synthesis...

credomag.com

Especially,

This difficulty may be solved [by having regard to] the distinction of the persons in the unity of the divine essence, as … they act in natural and essential acts reciprocally one towards another. …As they subsist distinctly, so they also act distinctly in those works which are of external operation…. The will of God as to the peculiar actings of the Father is the will of the Father, and the will of God with regard unto the peculiar actings of the Son is the will of the Son; not by a distinction of sundry wills, but by the distinct application of the same will unto its distinct acts in the persons of the Father and the Son.

Of course, there is more to say. One extended treatment comes from J.V. Fesko (titled "The Trinity And the Covenant of Redemption" [edited 04/27]). Older treatments exist as well (see threads on this board with book recommendations).

 

[DNM300]

Do the John Owen citations from here help?

An Appropriate Pact - Credo Magazine

Virtually any study of Reformed, covenant theology involves studying the covenant of redemption. It stands as an important link between the triune work of salvation and the unity of the Godhead, both in essence and in will. Largely a product of post-Reformation exegesis and doctrinal synthesis...

credomag.com

Especially,


Of course, there is more to say. One extended treatment comes from J.V. Fesko (titled "Trinity and Creation"). Older treatments exist as well (see threads on this board with book recommendations).

Can you link Fesko’s work? I only know of that titled being authored by R. Barcellos. Can’t find any Trinity and Creation by Fesko

 

[ParticularBaptist]

Can you link Fesko’s work? I only know of that titled being authored by R. Barcellos. Can’t find any Trinity and Creation by Fesko

Wondering the same. Perhaps he meant "The Trinity and the Covenant of Redemption" Link

 

[MW]

Where does the concept of the covenant falls into? Is it an internal operation, or is it an external operation? Traditionally, the understanding is that covenant is an external operation. What about the Covenant of Redemption? If the Covenant of Redemption is an internal operation, given the simplicity of God, does the Triune God need an agreement, how does it not fall into some form of tritheism? If the Covenant of Redemption is an external operation, is there a theological need for it instead of adopting the Westminster Standard's position? Finally, how does covenant reflect God's Triune work?

The pactum salutis is a special category of the divine decrees as related to redemption. The divine decree itself is "an imminent act ad extra" (De Moor). To break that down, the act of decreeing is immanent in the divine essence. It does not produce any effect outside of God. However, the things that are decreed are outside of God, and hence called ad extra. Now the decree is personally appropriated as it regards redemption. The Father sends the Son. This is voluntary, not necessary. The Father must will to send the Son and the Son must agree to be sent. This is the pactum salutis. To deny it is to deny essential elements of the biblical testimony concerning the the divine decree to save the elect.

Tritheism, multiple wills, EFS, subordinationism, etc. are all avoided by the simple recognition that there are divine appropriations. The Father wills the divine will as the Father. Hence it is appropriate for Him to send the Son. And the Son wills the divine will as the Son. Hence it is appropriate for Him to be sent. One only needs to read the Gospel of John to see that this is what is happening in the divine mission of the Son. One must revert to divine appropriations to explain this relationship whether he agrees with the pactum salutis or not. But once he has done so he could have no issue with the pactum salutis since it is nothing other than the divine decree to save the elect.

 

[Wyres]

The pactum salutis is a special category of the divine decrees as related to redemption. The divine decree itself is "an imminent act ad extra" (De Moor). To break that down, the act of decreeing is immanent in the divine essence. It does not produce any effect outside of God. However, the things that are decreed are outside of God, and hence called ad extra. Now the decree is personally appropriated as it regards redemption. The Father sends the Son. This is voluntary, not necessary. The Father must will to send the Son and the Son must agree to be sent. This is the pactum salutis. To deny it is to deny essential elements of the biblical testimony concerning the the divine decree to save the elect.

Tritheism, multiple wills, EFS, subordinationism, etc. are all avoided by the simple recognition that there are divine appropriations. The Father wills the divine will as the Father. Hence it is appropriate for Him to send the Son. And the Son wills the divine will as the Son. Hence it is appropriate for Him to be sent. One only needs to read the Gospel of John to see that this is what is happening in the divine mission of the Son. One must revert to divine appropriations to explain this relationship whether he agrees with the pactum salutis or not. But once he has done so he could have no issue with the pactum salutis since it is nothing other than the divine decree to save the elect.

Thank you Rev. Winzer. Nonetheless, something still confuses me. We said there is only one God, and God has only one will. There are no multiple wills. Yet, when it is explained, even with divine appropriation, it seems like each divine person has a will, hence there are three wills in the Godhead. Can you help clarify this? Thank you.

 

[1689owen]

Can you link Fesko’s work? I only know of that titled being authored by R. Barcellos. Can’t find any Trinity and Creation by Fesko

Wondering the same. Perhaps he meant "The Trinity and the Covenant of Redemption" Link

I mixed up the titles, and stand corrected as now fixed in the original post.

I know this is directed at @MW probably,

Yet, when it is explained, even with divine appropriation, it seems like each divine person has a will, hence there are three wills in the Godhead. Can you help clarify this?

but I can't say it better than John Owen in my initial post: Each person wills the [singular] divine will as the person.
You may want to read him in context:
https://www.monergism.com/exposition-epistle-hebrews-ebook -> vol2

 

[1689owen]

Also, one of the most helpful threads on appropriations is this one: https://puritanboard.com/threads/inseparable-operations-and-divine-appropriations.114785/

 

[MW]

Thank you Rev. Winzer. Nonetheless, something still confuses me. We said there is only one God, and God has only one will. There are no multiple wills. Yet, when it is explained, even with divine appropriation, it seems like each divine person has a will, hence there are three wills in the Godhead. Can you help clarify this? Thank you.

I can try. In all of these things it is good to keep in mind that when we speak of essence we are speaking of one and unity and when we speak of persons we are speaking of three and diversity.

Because will is a property of nature, not a property of person, the divine will is numerically one. Thus, God does not have three wills. The Father does not will one thing, the Son another, and the Spirit another. There is one willing essence.

When we speak of persons we are in the realm of diverse properties -- the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten, the Spirit is proceeding. Each person wills the one divine will, but does so according to His personal property. This is the classical doctrine of personal appropriation. The Father wills as Father, the Son wills as Son, and the Spirit wills as Spirit. The will is one; the mode of willing is three.

This framework allows us to affirm divine simplicity and real personal distinctions. The Father sends the Son. The Son willingly becomes incarnate. The Spirit willingly proceeds to apply redemption. These are not three different volitions, but one volition personally expressed in three manners. The external works of the Trinity are undivided, but also personally appropriated.

With this framework in place we can account both for the category of will as a property of essence and the personality of the Persons working according to their diverse properties.

 

[1689owen]

@MW: For clarification of my own thoughts/language, You wouldn't say "Each person has the divine essence according to their diverse properties", would you? And you wouldn't say "Each person has the divine will according to their diverse properties", either, would you? (That's why I said "Each person wills ...".)

 

[MW]

@MW: For clarification of my own thoughts/language, You wouldn't say "Each person has the divine essence according to their diverse properties", would you? And you wouldn't say "Each person has the divine will according to their diverse properties", either, would you? (That's why I said "Each person wills ...".)

This is probably semantic territory. The divine essence is simple, not a thing that can be "had." But divines will sometimes speak of each person "possessing" the essence. I suppose "possess" and "has" approximate in meaning. This kind of language is somewhat natural and to be expected, but it is not precise. Even with divine attributes we improperly say He "has" goodness, when in fact He "is" goodness.

Because God is actus purissimus, the most proper way to speak of Him is with active verbs, not verbs of possession. In God, being and acting are identical. But since Scripture itself uses relational and analogical language we should not be too pedantic on this. It says, the Father "hath life" in Himself, and gave to the Son to "have life" in Himself. I think it is a human instinct to reach for this kind of language because it gives a conceptual handle on something that is very difficult to conceive.

So hearing the word "has" we should technically make a mental conversion and say "is." In fact, God does not "have" will, He is will, i.e., the pure act of willing. Will is not a faculty or potency in God; it is identical with His essence. So if somebody improperly says "Each person has the divine will," we would have to convert that to mean "Each person wills," etc. But I would say we are somewhere near the farthest limits of human language at this point.

 

[Wyres]

The pactum salutis is a special category of the divine decrees as related to redemption. The divine decree itself is "an imminent act ad extra" (De Moor). To break that down, the act of decreeing is immanent in the divine essence. It does not produce any effect outside of God. However, the things that are decreed are outside of God, and hence called ad extra. Now the decree is personally appropriated as it regards redemption. The Father sends the Son. This is voluntary, not necessary. The Father must will to send the Son and the Son must agree to be sent. This is the pactum salutis. To deny it is to deny essential elements of the biblical testimony concerning the the divine decree to save the elect.

Tritheism, multiple wills, EFS, subordinationism, etc. are all avoided by the simple recognition that there are divine appropriations. The Father wills the divine will as the Father. Hence it is appropriate for Him to send the Son. And the Son wills the divine will as the Son. Hence it is appropriate for Him to be sent. One only needs to read the Gospel of John to see that this is what is happening in the divine mission of the Son. One must revert to divine appropriations to explain this relationship whether he agrees with the pactum salutis or not. But once he has done so he could have no issue with the pactum salutis since it is nothing other than the divine decree to save the elect.

Rev Winzer, I am still a little confused. Are you saying decree as a verb (the act of) is ontological, while decree as a noun (the content) is soteric/economic? So is the Covenant of Redemption ontological or soteric/economic? Thank you.

 

[MW]

Rev Winzer, I am still a little confused. Are you saying decree as a verb (the act of) is ontological, while decree as a noun (the content) is soteric/economic? So is the Covenant of Redemption ontological or soteric/economic? Thank you.

If the decree is being used as a verb it would be the act of decreeing. If the decree is being used as a noun it could refer to one of two things. The decree itself or the things decreed. It is like the word promise or purpose.

The act of decreeing is immanent in God. This is God's act and must be Himself doing it. This must be eternal, simple and identical with God's essence, otherwise God could not be simple and actus purissimus. The decree itself produces no effect outside of God. It simply foreordains what shall be. It is in God, but it concerns things outside God.

The content of the decree concerns ad extra realities. These are the things decreed -- creation, providence, redemption. They are contingent and temporal in their execution.

So the act is immanent. The object is ad extra. This is De Moor's and the tradition's classical distinction.

Neither "ontological" or "economic" is quite right for the covenant of redemption. It is not ontological, because it does not belong to the necessary internal life of God as in generation/spiration. And it is not economic because it is not a temporal act in history like the incarnation. It is an eternal immanent act of the divine will that is personally appropriated by Father, Son, and Spirit as it concerns the ad extra work of redemption.

 

[Wyres]

@MW Thank you for your answer. I have to spend some time to chew the cud. There is another question which is outside of this post, i.e concerning the teaching of Karl Barth and Karl Rahner on the Immanent Trinity and Economic Trinity, I believe they taught the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity and vice versa? I believe they did so to bridge the distinction ("gap") between the Ontological Trinity and the Economic Trinity (https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/44529). It seems to have been imbibed by many reformed people. Is there a problem of this view of the two Karls? Thank you.

 

[sc_q_jayce]

This framework allows us to affirm divine simplicity and real personal distinctions. The Father sends the Son. The Son willingly becomes incarnate. The Spirit willingly proceeds to apply redemption. These are not three different volitions, but one volition personally expressed in three manners. The external works of the Trinity are undivided, but also personally appropriated.

Curious question - in history, is the confusion of person and will a point of argumentation that early modalists argued to support their view? As I read this, I could not help but imagine I was watching the origins of a heresy pop out of a volcano like molten lava.

 

[MW]

@MW Thank you for your answer. I have to spend some time to chew the cud. There is another question which is outside of this post, i.e concerning the teaching of Karl Barth and Karl Rahner on the Immanent Trinity and Economic Trinity, I believe they taught the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity and vice versa? I believe they did so to bridge the distinction ("gap") between the Ontological Trinity and the Economic Trinity (https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/44529). It seems to have been imbibed by many reformed people. Is there a problem of this view of the two Karls? Thank you.

In classical theology the immanent is what God is eternally in Himself; the economic is what God is towards us in creation and redemption. The doctrine of the Creator-creature distance and of divine accommodation necessitates this distinction. In Trinitarian discussion the language was so ingrained that it gave the impression there are two Trinities. Rahner's rule was an over-correction which was intended to resolve this unnecessary use of language. We should not think we are speaking about two actually different things.

Rahner and Barth were concerned by the impression that there was a "hidden God" behind revelation, One who is different in Himself than He is towards us. For Rahner this left a gap between God's eternal life and His saving work. So he proposed the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity, and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity. But this does not clarify anything. It collapses the conceptual distinction which makes "theology" possible in the first place. Without an accommodated revelation God is too high for us to understand. His greatness none can comprehend.

At its heart the Rahner rule makes two things identical that must remain distinct -- the Father eternally begetting the Son and the Son incarnate. Classical theology teaches that the missions reveal the processions, but they do not constitute them. Rahner's Rule makes them identical. That is the over‑correction. And it creates a whole range of new problems.

The solution, which avoids both errors, is to say the economic Trinity truly reveals the immanent Trinity, but it does not exhaust it. God is toward us as He is in Himself. This is in Christ, the God-man, who Himself constitutes a mystery we cannot comprehend. He is God with us. Yet God's own immanent and eternal life is not dependent on His works in time.

Treier at thirdmill is correct on two points: The economic Trinity truly reveals the immanent Trinity. God's works manifest who He is. There is no "false God" in revelation. Likewise, God reveals Himself freely. Creation and redemption are free acts of God, not necessary emanations. These two points are orthodox.

But Treier introduces another concept when he says the economic Trinity "corresponds" to the ontological Trinity. A quiet shift has happened at that point. There is no gap. The only caveat allowed is divine freedom. This would mean God's eternal identity includes His historical acts and God's being is partly constituted by His relation to creation. This undermines divine aseity and simplicity.

However, the thirdmill "answer" is so brief that it could be taken to mean any number of things. It is simply incomplete and insufficient as an answer.

 

[MW]

Curious question - in history, is the confusion of person and will a point of argumentation that early modalists argued to support their view? As I read this, I could not help but imagine I was watching the origins of a heresy pop out of a volcano like molten lava.

I can't recall reading that people like Sabellius or Praxeas were speaking of "will" as a category or a formal argument. Tertullian is clear on the two substances; and he would have reflected biblical language that the Son was sent by the will of the Father, but I don't think he would have addressed this technical point. It comes out later in the Cappadocians and Augustine.