Category: Covenant

The Problem with Federal Theology.

On November 21, 2023

Covenant is used in a particular way in scripture. It is used of God’s work of establishing a relationship with fallen man. The one possible reference to a Covenant with Adam is difficult to prove. And considering the use of covenant in scripture, it is difficult to say that Adam was in covenant with God, except by analogy to other covenants. So we argue that this is an implied covenant.

How is covenant used? I would begin with an analogy. Marriage is a covenant. While a mere relationship is not a covenant. So covenant involves a formalized relationship, that is, a relationship that did not exist, but through promises set out with obligations given, something new is formed that was not their before. That is not the relationship with God and Adam, where Adam’s relationship with God is established simply in being made by God and functions more as an analogy between father and son, rather than husband and wife. Later covenants are made in order to establish a relationship with God’s people (Abraham) or are made to restore God’s relationship with his people (God restores covenant with his people after the exile).

So why we can’t we simply extend the word covenant by analogy to other relationships? The problem is that the scriptures already use covenant in a certain way. We either then empty covenant of its content and context until it just means “relationship,” especially when it comes to the next step, an inter-Trinitarian covenant. In this case, succession of covenant is flattened. Or, the scriptural definition of covenant begins to leak into other administrations. The Adamic administration becomes a covenant of works by which Adam must merit eternal life. Or, a covenant between the persons of the Trinity, where the language moves more and more toward a social trinity, even a tri-theism.

two people reading bible while sitting on a sofa

CREC and the Reformed Baptist

By James

On November 4, 2023

In Church, Covenant

The Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches holds the unique distinctive of allowing for paedobaptist and credobaptist churches within the denomination. A church may hold to the Three Forms of Unity or the Westminister Standards, among other reformed standards, or it may hold to the London Baptist Confession of Faith. This means that the elders of that particular church may refrain from any requests to baptize a baby, whereas their fellow elders or ministers in another church would happily baptize that same baby.

The Logic of our Communion

How on earth does that work? Can it work? Some have told me that it can’t work, but there is a certain logic to how we, as members of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, work together in this way. The reasoning is in understanding what reformed Catholicity should be like and then applying that understanding to a mutual agreement to receive each other in the Lord. Throughout, we seek to respect the conscience as much as possible.

Whether it practically works in our world is a different matter. It remains to be seen whether a credobaptist church can have a long and multi-generational partnership with the CREC, for our communion remains overwhelmingly paedobaptist and paedocommunion. Yet, we are attractive to many from the Baptist world because of our faithfulness in the culture wars. Perhaps we are also attractive because we have many shared cultural values with the Baptist world, for many of our best ministers and leaders are from that world.

However, there is a certain sense to it. We desire to be as small-c catholic as possible, recognizing all our brothers and sisters in Christ who share the same Lord. We are willing to do what we can to accommodate those, even in leadership, who might differ from us. Within our communion, we allow a breadth of doctrine within the bounds of the various historic reformed confessions we recognize. A given church must hold to one of several reformed confessions to become a member of our communion, and its leadership must hold to that confession (generally membership in local churches has a much lower bar, for we wish to recognize all those who confess Christ). Technically, this is quite broad, even if it doesn’t always appear so. For example, our communion is associated with postmillennialism. Still, there is no formal expression of a millenarian position in the CREC.

Fundamentally, we seek to practice reformed catholicity. We believe that our reformed catholicity ought to extend to our Reformed Baptist brothers and sisters. Therefore, among the reformed confessions that a church may hold, we also have the 1689 London Baptist Confession. The culture of our communion allows anything from a Reformed Baptist on the one end to a Lutheran-inflected reformed thinking on the other end.

This broadness doesn’t take away from our calling to a depth in our knowledge and love of scripture. Only through deep study of scripture can we move toward sharing in the mind of Christ. That is why we expect our ministers to at least adhere to the fundamental reformed doctrines in our various historical confessions. This adherence gives us boundaries as we dig into the scriptures and seek to grow more and more united in the mind of Christ.

Reformed Catholicity

What do I mean by reformed catholicity? It is two things: guarding the deposit of sound words that the church has always held to and recognizing all who serve Christ as Lord.

I first mean a desire to uphold the central teachings, always taught by the church of Christ as Messiah and Son of God and his historical resurrection for the redemption of our sins. The doctrine of the Trinity defends the first, and the doctrine of the inspiration of the scriptures protects the second. All church doctrine defends either the reality of these truths or refutes false doctrines that obscure or distract from the effect of these realities for the average Christian. We all (in any denomination, federation, or communion) practice a form of theological triage in prioritizing certain doctrines as first, second, and third importance.

Reformed Catholicity is also about recognizing all those who serve Christ as Lord. “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me.” I must offer the ministry of reconciliation to all men. That means I must receive into the church all those whom God defines as church. God defines the (social) boundaries church through his gift of baptism. Therefore, I will receive as brothers all who have been baptized into the name of the Trinity so far as they do not deny him in confession or life. I must recognize the church as God constitutes it, not as I would constitute it.

Reformed Catholicity in the local church.

How does this apply in a local CREC? I can only speak to the Presbyterian-minded CRECs. While it is not a rule in the CREC, the vast majority of churches allow families to join that do not hold to infant baptism. They are not required to baptize their children. Within Presbyterian-minded churches we allow for this because we understand the cultural significance of changing from one mindset to another. It is not a matter of showing someone a verse. We desire to respect the conscience of these families. Interestingly, it can create interesting scenarios in which some of the children in the church take communion, and some do not, but this is how we bear with one another.

In my understanding, it is within the authority of the minister and the elders to call a member to account who fails to recognize the status of their children and present them for baptism, but I believe it is better not to use this authority in this case lest we break something. If you exercise this authority, it is unlikely that the family will remain in which case the status of their children will not be recognized anyway, or you may push them into making a decision they regret, and they will resent you for it, causing division in the church. It is not always right to exercise a given power. So, we seek to follow the example of the gentleness and humility of Christ. In a different scenario, we could use this authority if a Baptist-minded member were to keep his grown son from baptism when that son desires to be baptized and also presents the evidences of a faithful Christian life. This, of course, is an extreme scenario. It also represents a scenario in which the Baptist goes against his own beliefs. However, in most cases, Baptist-minded members who participate in our churches tend to present their children for baptism at a younger age.

Baptist churches within the CREC are expected to have a similar approach albeit from a Baptist perspective.

Reformed Catholicity Across our Communion

So how does that work out in the relationship with the Presbyterian-minded and the Reformed Baptist-minded in the CREC? Presbyterians would argue that the Baptist denies that reformed catholicity, while the Baptist would see the Presbyterian as improperly washed. They both have to give something. For this it’s helpful to go through the fundamental commitments that Council 2023 adopted for the preamble to the CREC constitution.

It means that we receive each other’s ordination. God has given the church the keys of the kingdom. The pastor is entrusted with these keys for the sake of the church. These keys open up the kingdom of heaven and close it through the preaching of the word and through discipline. The ordained pastor recognizes and receives the one who belongs to the kingdom of heaven and refuses the one who does not belong to the kingdom of heaven, as evidenced by that person’s life. At its most basic, a communion, if it to be meaningful, however much they might disagree on various issues, must receive and recognize that their colleagues legitimately exercise the keys of the kingdom of heaven. They do their basic job well.

That means within the CREC, we must receive one another’s baptismal status. The Presbyterian must receive that the son in a Baptist family is not baptized and bear with the fact that he receives this family even though they hold back their children from this gift of God. He can rest knowing that he is not the one who refuses them. The Baptist must receive the Presbyterian son as baptized, even though he is not appropriately baptized. Joe Rigney, in his studies on the London Baptist Confession of Faith has discovered that there has always been a group of Baptists that received infant baptism as “valid but improper.” It is not merely a new teaching among Baptists today. So, there has historically been room within the Baptist understanding to receive an infant baptism.

Accepting the ordination of the ministers in the CREC means that we also receive the communicant status that the elders of a given church confer. If one minister opens the door, the other church cannot close the door unless the man or woman is living in rebellion against God and his church. Again, this is derived from recognizing the ordination of the other ministers and elders in the church of Christ.

While there are difficulties in working this all out in a practical way, I believe this is a good step forward in recognizing that the boundaries of the church and the church’s ministry are God’s to decide, not ours. I don’t know if this system can work. I can still spot tensions within it. However, we are trying to be objective about the church’s current situation while remaining principled in our approach to our ancient and catholic faith.

page of a holy bible in close up photography

Am I a Theonomist?

By James

On October 19, 2023

In Covenant, Hermeneutics, Reformed Theology

I take God’s law in the Old Testament and I believe that the civil magistrate ought to use that law to inform his role as God’s servant.

Does this make me a theonomist? To many the answer is “yes, of course.” And many around me will say that they are theonomists because they believe something similar. This includes the rather strange animal, the theonomic baptist. I do not object to that being a thing. I just find it a strange thing. But the point here is not theonomic baptists per se, but how theonomy has come to mean something like “I want to take the Old Testament Law of God seriously for our civil institutions.”

A prime example (back to the Presbyterian world) is my fellow presbyter, Douglas Wilson in this recent blogpost where he argues that theonomy is one of the things that makes his work and the work of those connected to him attractive. His point is correct. His theonomy is attractive. I’m just not sure you can call it Theonomy.

Perhaps I helplessly push against the winds of history on this point. Words come to mean very different things than the word-coiner’s intentions. This transformation of the word theonomy has been going on for a long time. Perhaps, I am a theonomist.

Perhaps I am too precise about the joists and beams in my intellectual architecture. In my understanding, RJ Rushdoony and Greg Bahnsen see a theonomist as one who holds that the civil law is to be directly applied to the civil magistrate’s role today. I do not agree. I believe in what the WCF calls a “general equity.” That has to be defined, but it is not theonomy. Therefore, the word is historically conditioned by a particular movement in time. I like my theology done decently and in good order, just like my worship, so I prefer to respect that historical moment. Therefore, I am not a theonomist.

For now I prefer to distance myself from the word theonomy, though I happily admire those who might not agree. Without a doubt I also admire Rushdoony and Bahnsen. They brought an important light on a forgotten topic. They are the reason I am much more sanguine about the benefits of Deuteronomy for the civil magistrate than the early reformed may have been. Let the civil magistrate have a Bible. Let him use his Bible to define his task. However, Rushdoony and Bahnsen are not careful in seeing what changed in the light of Jesus Christ. Further, they defined their project in a way that excludes certain ways of approaching this question. Therefore, I am not a theonomist.

Did Man Earn Salvation Before the Fall?

By James

On July 29, 2023

In Covenant

The idea that the desire to earn salvation by works before the fall was good and after the fall was evil doesn’t make any sense. Why would God put a desire in man that was good initially and then condemn him for having that desire later?

Devotional Insights #6

By James

On May 18, 2020

In Covenant, Devotional

Psalm 22:9-11. “Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts. On you I was cast from my birth, and from my mother’s womb, you have been my God. Be not far from me, for trouble is near, and there is none to help.”

Here is a beautiful expression of the covenant love of God. God’s love from generation to generation of those who seek him. God is working in David from birth so that David recognizes that he has trusted in God from his birth. How did David know that? We don’t need to guess at any extraordinary reason David may have believed in God from birth. Some almost magical working of God that we no longer experience in the regular life of covenantal generations today. David knew from the practice of circumcision that God had incorporated him into his people from birth. His mother had taught him the words of God from an early age.

Here is a mother who faithfully fulfills her calling before God in training up her child in the fear of the Lord. So even though he likely does not remember a particular moment in which he put his trust in God at this time, he sees the trajectory of his faith in God forming as he learns about God in the first years of his life. “You made me trust at my mother’s breasts.”

This early faith doesn’t mean there was no wandering or time to make the word of God his own. We shouldn’t imagine that David’s spiritual journey was radically different than that of the average Christian who is born into the faith. Follow David in the book of 1^st and 2^nd Samuel, and we see the ups and downs. Throughout his life, David had to continue to say “Yes” and “Amen” to the promises of God so that more and more they might become his beliefs, not just his parents’ beliefs.

Behind all this is the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. God is forming that initial faith as David receives the word of God from an early age. God is watching over David from the very beginning of his life because he will ensure that the elect David remains in him to the end. For David, that relationship began right from the time when he drank from his mother’s breasts. Ultimately, because God brought him into the world through a covenant family. God used that covenant bond to create faith in David from a very early age.

We pluck these words of Psalm 22 out of the midst of a lament and a plea to God. The Psalm begins with the words, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me?” Throughout the Psalm, he speaks of the trouble that he is in, “they make mouths at me; they wag their heads; He trusts in the Lord; let him deliver him; let him rescue him, for he delights in him!” “Many Bulls encompass me,” “I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint,” and “For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me.”

Even in his lament, his recognition that God has rejected him, he knows that God has caused him to trust him from his mother’s breasts. That gives him a profound certainty during his trouble. When we look back at our lives and we see those little moments of faith, it strengthens our confidence that God is working in our lives. Further, we see how God has ordained the shape of our lives and we rightly rejoice in the work he is doing.

David’s lament foretells Christ’s lament on the cross. Christ takes up the words of David on the cross, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” And it tells us that even as he experienced the wrath of God on the cross, he knew that the fact that he was cast on God from the day of his birth, encouraged him as he suffered for our sake. His entire life of obedience pointed toward this moment on the cross.

The Heidelberg Catechism is striking in the way it draws out the benefits we receive from the fact that Christ was born. “He is our Mediator, and with his innocence and perfect holiness covers, in the sight of God, my sin, in which I was conceived and born.” The first faith of David as a child on his mother’s breast is counted to him as righteousness on the basis of Christ’s work. It is Christ’s work that creates even the possibility of David’s relationship with God. Christ’s entire life of righteousness belongs to me.

How much more for us who are baptized into the death and resurrection of Christ. Those who grew up in covenant households can look back at a life of ups and downs, and they may despair. But if they remember that they were cast on God from birth, they will marvel at his grace. When they approach the bulls of Bashan in their life, the dogs that surround the children of God, they may look back at the words that God pronounced over them in their baptism. They may remember: my God is a God who keeps his word. He has given me his word and sealed it with water so that the suffering and death of Jesus belongs to me. That gives me strength in my distress.

Where then is the comfort for those whom God brings into Christ at a later age? That is not what Psalm 22 emphasizes, but these words are a comfort to all Christians. We understand that when God baptizes us into Christ, his death covers the sins of my whole life. That covering includes my failure to trust God in the first part of my life. More than that, even though at birth we were cast upon God, God in his infinite mercy has chosen me before my birth so that he might cast me upon himself in the appointed time. My whole life now belongs to God even though in the first part of my life, the Lord was not my God. The whole work of Christ, including his birth, belongs to me.

In all this, whatever advantages to those in the covenant, we must remember the sovereignty of God. “Will the molded say to it’s molder, “Why have you made me like this? (Romans 9:20)” Not all those who call me Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven. What God ultimately wants is a true child-like faith, which will depend on him even in the hard times. David’s child-like faith, while at his mother’s breast, is prototypical for all faith that begins in complete dependence upon God.

Whenever God brings me into his kingdom, I may look at the way he has manifested himself in my life and my faith. I may continue to find comfort that, yes, God is near, even when there is no-one else to help. So that “I will tell of God’s name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation, I will praise you;” (Ps. 22:22).

Christ fulfills the law: Christ changes spiritual geography

By James

On November 29, 2017

In Applied Hermeneutics, Covenant, eschatology, Reformed Theology

n.b. I recently preached a sermon on Belgic Confession 25. This Article deals with how Christ fulfilled the law. This doctrine is not well understood today and so I thought it was fitting to publish the sermon. I’ve divided it up into blog-sized sections for easier reading:

The basic institution in the Old Testament was the tabernacle or temple. This was the center of Israelite culture and religion. It was even their political center. David ruled from Jerusalem. This was the city where the ark was and later where the temple would be set up. The tabernacle was the place where God could dwell with his people. God set up the system of the law around the tabernacle in order to protect the people from his presence. God is a holy God. Out of his grace and love for mankind, God desired to dwell with his people. But his people needed to be protected from him, his power, and ultimately his holiness. So God gave his people the law so that they would protect themselves from his holiness.

The people of Israel were able to approach God through various washings, through sacrifices, and through keeping themselves clean when approaching the temple, or the tabernacle, of God. God even instituted levels of holiness in Israelite society. There was a division of labor. Everybody in society wasn’t able to keep the law equally rigorously so God gave Israelites a High Priest. He was required to keep the greatest level of Holiness; then Priests, then Levites and finally the rest of the people. The Holiest men were able to come the closest to God for the sake of the rest of the people. These are the ceremonies and symbols of the law, which the Belgic Confession is speaking of. These ceremonies allowed men to approach the God of heaven and earth. The coming of Christ brought an end to all of these.

Why? There is a host of aspects of Christ’s work that we could look at in order to see how he fulfilled every element of the temple, the sacrificial offerings and the various offices that God set up in and around the temple. I want to focus on two aspects. Christ’s fulfillment of the tabernacle itself and his fulfillment of the sacrificial system.

John 1: 14 gives us a hint as to how Christ fulfills the tabernacle system. We are told there that the word became flesh and dwelt among us. The Word, God, came down and took on flesh. He was in a human body. Remember what we said the tabernacle was for? It was a place for God to dwell with his people so that, we could approach him. John gives us a further hint through the Greek word he uses for dwell. The word literally means tabernacled. God dwelt among us in the flesh.

But Jesus did more. He fulfilled the sacrificial system. The ancient Israelites and to repeat the commanded sacrifices again and again so that men could draw near to God. Jesus, by his death, offered a sacrifice that covers all sin; all sin. That means that all the laws of uncleanness no longer apply. We don’t need repeated sacrifices, we don’t need repeated washings. We all need one sacrifice: Christ’s, and we only need one washing: his baptism. This is why God tore the veil of seperation on the night of Christ’s death. Any man could approach God through Christ. There was no need for the institutions of the temple. As the Belgic Confession says, they are abolished.

Ultimately, what happens is that the spiritual geography of the Old Testament is changed. We have a New Testament spiritual geography. The tabernacle is no longer a building, but the flesh of Christ. Because Christ has gone to sit at the right hand of his father, our tabernacle is in heaven. There is more. Christ unites us to himself so that we also change. In Christ, we are a temple of the Holy Spirit.

That is why God destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. After Christ died and sat down at the right hand of God, the temple was no longer necessary. When the Jews, who had rejected Christ, continued to use the rituals and ceremonies of the Old Testament the temple became an abomination. According to Hebrews, Christ’s fulfillment of the Mosaic system means that we may freely and confidently draw near to the throne of Christ. Christ’s truly powerful sacrifice covers corrupt flesh with his blood. Those who defended the temple were now defending a false way to God. In a sense, it was a false Christ, claiming to continue the work that Christ had already accomplished. God’s dwelling was now in Christ and those who were, and are today, united to Him.

And yet the substance of these remain for us in Jesus Christ according to the Belgic Confession. The book of Hebrews gives us a way to understand this. We still have a sacrifice. We still have a tabernacle. Because of Christ’s work their nature changed.

But the Belgic Confession doesn’t stop there, the author adds these words, “We still use these testimonies taken from the law and the prophets.” They have two uses for us. They confirm the gospel to us. We can see a little bit of what that means in seeing how Christ fulfilled the tabernacle and the sacrificial system. The second use is that they help us “order our life in all honesty, according to God’s will and to his glory.”

How does the tabernacle system help us to order our lives? Surely this must refer to the Ten Commandments or maybe some of the civil laws might be helpful for the ordering of the church? Paul’s words to Timothy would suggest differently. He tells us that all scripture is inspired and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, and for training in righteousness.

How does the tabernacle system train us in righteousness? There is a lot to say, but I will mention a couple things. The tabernacle system teaches us about how holy God is and how sinful we are. Most importantly it teaches us that we may only approach God through the means he provides, namely Christ and his Spirit.

Further, it teaches us that we are to approach God with humility and with the desire to seek righteousness in Him. It teaches us that this is something that is lifelong. It teaches us about God’s desire for purity when we approach him. We can also argue from the law that in Christ we are sacrifices before God. That is what Paul suggests in Romans 12: 1. He tells us to present our bodies as a living sacrifice to God. We do so with the same purity and humility that God called his people to in the Old Testament.

Did God make a Covenant with Adam?

By James

On November 18, 2017

In Covenant, Genesis, Hermeneutics, Uncategorized

In attempting to answer this question, I use the definition of the covenant I wrote of in the past. A covenant is a formalization of a personal relationship. This leads me to answer both “yes” and “no.” It depends on how you approach the Adamic administration. If you look at the creation of Adam in terms of paternity and sonship, the tendency is to say “no.” If you look at the creation of Adam in terms of Creator and creature, the tendency is to say “yes.”

This question would be very easy to answer if the Adamic administration was referred to as a covenant in scripture. It is not. There is the possibility that Hosea 6:7 refers to a covenant with Adam. It may also refer to a more general covenant with mankind, such as the Noahic covenant. It is more responsible to prove that the Adamic administration fits the concept of the word covenant before we argue for one interpretation or the other in Hosea 6:7.

I want to argue first that the Adamic administration is revealed as a father-son relationship. Though this relationship is covenant-like, it is not necessarily a covenant. For this, I use the arguments of Jason Van Vliet in his graduate work.

He draws from a number of places in scripture to prove that the image of God is revealed in Adam’s sonship to God. Luke is most explicit. In the genealogy that Luke gives for Christ at the end of Luke three, Luke refers to Adam as a son of God, just as Seth was the son of Adam.

Where did Luke get this from? It is likely that Luke got this from his understanding of the image of God in Genesis 1. God makes Adam in his image. When the genealogy of Adam is given in Genesis 5, we are told that Seth is made in the image and likeness of Adam. The image of God seems to be about a father-son relationship.

Is a father-son relationship a covenant? I’ve already suggested that it is hard to call it a covenant. I believe that an adoption can be properly termed a covenant. Adoption is a legal process, which allows two individuals to act as Father and son. This is what happens in the covenant made after sin. By Christ, God worked it so that we may have the relationship of son and father that Adam had lost. There is no formalization to the relationship of a natural-born son to his natural father, however. If it is a covenant, it is one that springs from the way things are and does not need a legal creation. We could employ the distinction between nature and culture here. The father-son relationship springs from nature. Covenants are cultural, they build on natural bonds.

Compare it to marriage. In marriage, there is a creation of a new type of relationship, which the two type of individuals did not have before. In the case of a son or daughter, there is not a moment of the son’s existence, where he does not relate as a son to his father. One is natural. One is cultural. The father-son relationship is covenant-like. Marriage is a covenant.

Father-son relationships are covenant-like in that the relationship can be broken. The father or the son may forget their natural duties toward one another and betray one another’s trust. The father is called to rule well and the son to obedience and submission, at least in his growing years. Again, there is growth in that relationship, but there are also duties according to what we might call the created order. Thinking about Adam and God in this sense would suggest that covenant is not the best way to describe their relationship.

However, we must understand that this is an analogy. This is obviously true. God is God. Adam is a man. Adam is in the image of God. The children of Adam may even be referred to as gods, as they are in Psalm 82, but that means that they share the character of God, not the substance of God. This means that there is another legitimate way to think about the covenantal character of the creation of Adam.

When we begin with Creator God rather than Father God, a dramatic distance opens between God and Adam. God is eternal, infallible and unfailingly holy. Adam is none of those things. God grants Adam the image of God. God is intentionally creating a relationship between himself and Adam, which is formalized by sharing his image with Adam. From this perspective there is a covenant between God and Adam.

It is natural, or informal, in the sense that it springs from God’s imprint of his image upon Adam. But it is also formal in the sense that God chose that this should be the nature of his relationship with Adam. It is formal in the sense that God ordained that Adam should be in his image. When men have children they do not choose to have children in their image.

It is ultimately because God is not bound by his own created order, that we can understand his relationship with Adam as a covenant.

How should we speak of the Adamic administration then? Is it a covenant or is it not? It depends. Those theologians who wish to speak in Biblical terms as much as possible will be suspicious of calling it a covenant. I would count myself as one of those. However, it is important to recognize that there is a legitimacy in calling it a covenant as well, according to our philosophical understanding of what is happening in scripture. Such a way of speaking is not anti-scriptural. My preference is that covenant would not be the primary category for speaking of God’s relationship with Adam. Instead, we should think of that administration in terms of a father and a son. That is how God chose to teach us about his creation of Adam.

n.b. I’m not sure if the nature and culture distinction I mentioned works that well. The problem is Marriage is not merely cultural, it has a grounding in nature. If culture builds on and is rooted in nature, however, that is not a huge problem. The problem is with the popular understanding of culture today. We see culture as added to nature, not grounded in nature.

What is a covenant?

By James

On October 27, 2017

In Covenant

Theologians make a lot of the covenant. Ministers always talk about the covenant. But there doesn’t seem to be a clear definition of what a covenant is. God makes a covenant with his people. Marriage is always a covenant and friendship is sometimes a covenant, though not always (In the Bible, Jonathan makes a covenant with his friend, David). Is God’s relationship with Adam properly termed a covenant? Is a man’s relationship with his son properly termed a covenant?

I want to suggest a definition: A covenant is the formalization of a personal relationship. The covenant may begin the relationship, but the relationship may also have existed before the covenant. A covenant formalizes that personal relationship. If that personal relationship continues there are blessings and if that personal relationship ends there are curses.

I hope to write more on this in the future by both defending this definition and applying this definition to some of the arguments that exist in the Presbyterian and Reformed world.