Jeff, welcome from this seasoned veteran of four days on this list. You commented on the need to overhaul the confession’s chapter on the covenant. It might be an interesting thought experiment to see what that could look like. Do you (or anyone else) want to take a shot at that and submit a draft revision? (I am assuming you can squeeze that in amid sermon preparation this week, can’t you? It’s only Tuesday.)
Rewriting WCF 7
September 18, 2007 by jmuether
Posted in Federal Vision | 17 Comments
17 Responses
Leave a comment Cancel reply
Archives
- December 2013
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
Meta
Categories
Recent Comments
When it comes to things like confessional documents, I would be disposed towards an overall conservatism, as well as trying to accommodate differences historically embedded within the tradition, rather than giving my own idiosyncrasies or emphases confessional status. Besides, if anything, the WCF is already more detailed and specific on a number of matters than it really needs to be, so I hardly want to add to that.
Still, if I may be so bold, here’s a shot at a revision, at least of sections 1 and 2:
1. The difference between God and creatures is so great, that although humanity does owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have come to enjoy God as their blessedness and reward except by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he has been pleased to express by way of covenant.
2. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of creation, wherein ongoing and eschatological life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience, remaining within that knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness in which they were created.
Sections 3, 5, and 6 I would be inclined to leave unchanged, except for updating the language.
I’m not quite sure what to do with section 4, however, since the case for seeing the covenant as a last will and testament, with Jesus Christ as testator, is exegetically weak – though certainly the concept of a promised inheritance is important and biblical. At the least, one could remove the term “frequently.”
This revision is offered as a matter of clarifying what I take to be the original intent of the Assembly rather than substantively changing the content, which seems to me unproblematic when understood in its original context. This is where something like the RP “Testimony” is a useful device.
As I understand it, the World Reformed Fellowship, under the committee chairmanship of Andrew MacGowan, is working on some sort of ecumenically Reformed confessional document for the 21st century. I look forward to seeing that.
LikeLike
Not stating an opinion here, but my understanding of Reformed tradition is that Adam was placed in the Garden in some sort of probationary state. Thus, it is a Covenant of Works in the sense that Adam would have “merited” (I know this is a dirty word) some sort of higher state of being through obedience than he had at that point. I don’t think anyone here would deny that what you say here is true, at least about 7:1-2. I doubt this is the disagreement – since we both agree that God’s covenant is gracious, yet Adam’s adherence to the covenant was based in his perfect obedience (works).
So, would FV agree with this, or would they say that there was no higher state than the Garden possible at that point? I’m trying to understand the nature of the disagreement here.
LikeLike
I’m a lot more radical on this than Joel. I think the phrase “the distance between God and creatures” is close to presuppositionally pagan, though of course not intended to be. It presupposes a scale of being metaphysics. God is infinitely close to His creatures. There is no distance, metaphorical or otherwise (well, in the creation all is metaphor).
Moreover, God never “voluntarily condescends” to anyone, because there is no distance to overcome. God created us to understand Him perfectly, and He never needs to condescend. There is no dialectic.
The covenant is not something God had to come up with because He goofed and made the creation far away from Himself. Man was created in covenant, because men is the image of God, and God exists in covenant. It seems to me that this is just basic Vantillianism.
I know Joel wants to be conservative on the original statement and put a good spin on it, and I’m the first to insist that “scholasticism” was a necessary phase of Christian history and that what it was “getting at” must be retained. But for myself, I think this whole chapter is very confusing, and from a pastoral standpoint, I want something that is clear and does not need to be explained at length to be understood.
LikeLike
I have a long essay on this in the book “The Federal Vision.” Most of us believe in a glorified state, but one that comes about as a result of maturation over time, not as a result of earning merits. Galatians and Corinthians and the rest of the NT tell us that we are now adults in Christ. Nothing ever says that we’ve earned merits in Christ.
LikeLike
I changed “distance” to “difference” in part for those sorts of reasons.
On the other hand, while God is infinitely close – closer to us than we are to ourselves, as Augustine said – God is also in his highest heavens and his thoughts are far above our thoughts. The Scriptures are rife with such metaphors of spatial distance for the relation of God to creation, right alongside metaphors of God indwelling creation and creation having its being in God. And, well, I’m happy to let God’s own biblical language shape ours.
As for “voluntary condescension” it doesn’t have to do with distance. It has to do with the character of our present enjoyment of God and our eschatological end as total gift, even apart from sin. Yes, nature is always already graced, but that doesn’t abolish the distinction. Humanity is created by nature for a end that we cannot receive by demand but only as it is gifted to us since that end is God himself.
There’s nothing in the chapter that suggests that humanity was not created already in covenant with God (though WSC 12 might suggest that, even if WCF 4.2 + 19.2 would seem to push in the opposite direction). The voluntary condescension in question could be part of our created constitution, indicating a distinction between nature and grace rather than some sort of temporal sequence.
LikeLike
I miswrote that last post. ALL of us believe in a glorified state, and most if not all believe that it comes as a result of maturation over time, like a birthday present at an appropriate age, not a result of earning merits to cash in. A child gets to drive the car at age 17. That’s the normal expectation. He does not earn the right by accumulating merits or by doing any particular things. BUT if he has proven unworthy, he may be denied the right to drive at 17. Jesus earned nothing. He did not come to earn anything, but to persevere and become fully mature/perfect. Philippians 2 says that God GRACED Him with the Name above all names. Jesus became the first true adult in history, and we are adults in Him.
LikeLike
Psalm 8:4 says, “What is man that You take thought of him, And the son of man that You care for him?”
Psalm 138:6 says, “For though the LORD is exalted, Yet He regards the lowly, But the haughty He knows from afar.”
Now, these are translations of the original and have interpretation, but they seem to contrast God’s exaltation and majesty against the state of His creation. So much as to question why God was gracious enough to be mindful and regard His creatures. Maybe “voluntary condescension” is not appropriate, but I also think that “no distance to overcome” doesn’t capture the essence here, either, since I must then ask what “afar” means.
As for language of the WCF. I favor the precision of the WCF over more modern topical treatments. Not that topical treatments don’t add value, but they are not designed to be concise and precise. What’s in question here, though, is not the readability of the WCF, but what it’s saying. The question seems to be why “works” is inappropriate and why “creation” is appropriate. Maybe the best point of discussion here is how Adam was to “mature” into a higher state and how this is not “works-” or “merit-” driven? Is this the disagreement or am I way off?
LikeLike
Dear Joel,
Points taken. I was reflecting on the original, not your suggestions. Even so, I don’t like the “difference is SO great.” The difference is absolute. And it seems to me that “voluntary condescension” is the act of creation and all that it entails, and that it’s questionable to imply an additional such act involving the establishment of covenant. Rather than try to shape up the older statement, I’d rather start afresh.
Back to you.
LikeLike
So far so good. Obviously, I would also like to have a discussion about the trinitarian origin and ground of God’s covenantal dealings with us. I believe that God’s covenant with man was and is a willful overflow of his own rich relational life as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I believe that needs to be expressly stated in any revision of our confession the covenant.
I would also like to see something more on the sequence of covenants in the Bible, not only the Adamic covenant and the covenant of grace, but the march of covenants all the way through the Bible – Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Phinehas, Levi, David, etc. – and how they relate to one another. So much work has been done on this in Reformed circles that it seems criminal not to reformulate everything and bring it in line with what we have learned from biblical theology in the past 60 years or so.
LikeLike
Your last comment clarifies this significantly. I think I need to dig more into the nature of what we call “merit”. To a great extent, I think I agree with your analogy. Yet, there seems to be a positive aspect to righteousness. I’ll shy away from “merit”, but let me say that God graciously blesses those who obey Him. To say this is a deserved reward or even to say that we can rightly expect God’s favor may be the debate. Romans 13 hints at this: “For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same.” Is the praise here merited? Perhaps only as a carrot to promote obedience. We see similar things in Revelation where Christ pronounces benefits to the seven churches for those who persevere in particular ways.
On the surface I have always found myself unable to explain the differences between traditional Reformed doctrine and Federal Vision. Okay, we replace “covenant of works” with “covenant of creation” and we replace “merit” with “rewarded obedience” and there seems to be agreement, but underlying all this is seems to be a greater tension, and the conclusions seem not to be a result of such minor nitpicking over words.
LikeLike
Jim, I suspect there is a faint echo of Lateran IV in the WCF here – “for every similarity between God and the creature there is an even greater dissimilarity.” The problem is one of formulating absolute difference between the Creator and creation when the creation nonetheless reveals God as Creator and thus is also analogically like him.
One could formulate WCF 7.1 as, “The difference between God and creatures is absolute, so that…”
As for the rest, the term “condescension” was chosen, I think, in part because some had qualms about using the term “grace” here (though many did not). And there were a variety of views at the Assembly as to the precise relationship of the natural law given to Adam and the covenant of works under which he lived (a diversity reflected, I suspect, in the seeming inconsistencies on the point within the Standards).
I agree with your theology of creation as always already covenantal, but I would also be hesitant to give it confessional status. Not all agree with this, however, and the purpose of a confession is, in part, to bring together a diversity of those within a tradition by giving them a common expression.
Perhaps one could suggest the following by way of revision, then, “yet they could never have come to enjoy God as their blessedness and reward except by God’s voluntary giving of himself.”
LikeLike
Joel, I like your suggestions above. Given all the differences about this matter, do we really have to have a Confessional statement on it? Or do we need one that is so detailed?
LikeLike
Jim, regarding your last question, it depends on who you mean by “we,” right? (And I agree with your earlier observation regarding CVT’s insight that creation is coextensive with covenant.)
I am left unconvinced that this chapter needs to be overhauled. I might say things a little differently here and there as well, but it still looks rather sturdy to me.
LikeLike
The question of creation being covenantal aside, can someone explain the supposed confusion in the historical two-covenant system of the Standards and point out where it is deficient pastorally? It may not be accepted as the biblical teaching by some, but what is confusing and not helpful pastorally in the understanding that Adam was under the law as a covenant of works, representing all his posterity as covenant-head, with the promise before him (and them in him) of eternal life (a kind of life that he did not possess since he could die) if he obeyed God’s law perfectly? And then once Adam failed in that charge, another Adam, even Jesus, coming according to the terms of the Covenant of Grace and fulfilling the terms of the Covenant of Works (both positively and negatively) in the place of His people, thus meriting for them, according to the terms that God had established in the Covenant of Works with Adam, eternal life. The children in my congregation find this very clear and comforting.
LikeLike
MarkPele, I hate to write, “go read my essay,” but I guess the fact is that this is a discussion of the so-called “FV” and there is a book with that title and perhaps it’s not odd of me to expect those discussing the matter to have at least skimmed it. To be very quick about it: From all I can see in the Bible, God gives people kingdoms and then says He will bless them if they obey by continuing to give them that kingdom, but that if they disobey He will exile them from it. Deuteronomy 28 is a good place to go. God gives them free a situation wherein they will be victorious, no cattle will abort, etc. Lev. 18:5 is another example — those who obey will continue to live. There is no promise of earning a new more glorious covenant, but there is a threat of losing the blessings of the present one.
The coming of a NEW situation is never the reward for obedience, that I can tell. It’s never put that way. The new situation comes as a result of death and resurrection in a new more glorious condition. This is seen in Genesis 2 and has nothing to do with sin: Adam goes into tardema (death-sleep), is ripped in half, is reunited as one flesh, and glorified since the woman is the glory of the man. Adam did nothing to merit this. God did it because it became apparent that something was needed. It was not merit but need that caused the new situation to come about. (Indeed, there is darkness between each day in Genesis 1, which is probably the most important theological aspect of the chapter. God always does things by death and resurrection.)
Each new kingdom in the Bible comes about as a result of the outgrowing of the previous one and through death and resurrection. This has nothing to do with earning merits or earning anything. It’s a matter of outgrowing one’s old shoes.
But unless I extend this reply to 50 or so pages, that’s going to have to do it.
LikeLike
John, sure. “We” is ME and all who agree with ME. 😉 I think the chapter is very inadequate, but I really can’t see how something like that issue can be discussed felicitiously in a forum like this. As it is, I’m of a more Continental mindset, seeing covenant as a whole-life arrangement reflective of the Triune life, and not as some kind of contract. Not that these are totally exclusive metaphors, but that I’m not at all happy with how the WCF approaches things, and I think it’s had an unhealthy effect. Maybe I should say that the WCF approach is capitalistic (boo! boo! boo!) and I’m more medieval (yea! yea! yea!)!! That might get more traction.
LikeLike
Amen, Dave. The Biblical and historical two covenant understanding of law and grace is very helpful and very pastoral. Confusion in the one will lead to confusion in the other. To misunderstand the Law/Gospel contrast will have an impact on our understanding of both covenants and on our application of pastoral care to the flock.
As Dave already pointed out, Adam was given the stipulations of the CoW and upon faithful obedience throughout his probation, he would have received his reward.
While I don’t agree with the requirement to limit our words to those of Scripture in describing our beliefs, I would like to point out that there are in fact places in the Scriptures where we find the language of merit with regard to our salvation.
The Scriptures tell us about the “wages” of sin. Wages are merited, are they not? In Adam, we receive the wages that our first father Adam earned–sin and death. Similarly, in Christ, the Last Adam, we receive the wages He earned through His obedience–righteousness and eternal life (Rom. 5:18-19). Furthermore, the Scriptures speak about those in Christ as having been purchased by Him. He paid the price that it cost to save us. The cost was determined between the Godhead even before the creation of the world. Jesus was willing to pay the cost and pay it He did. For this reason, we are not our own, but have been bought with a price; the precious price of Christ’s life and death. Christ’s obedience merited the price of His bride (and the bride price also related to this idea of merit as it relates to acquiring something costly).
LikeLike