Was Adam Created In Covenant?

[Christusregnat]

Howdy,

I am in dialogue with a good friend of mine about whether or not Adam was created in covenant with God, or whether the covenant of nature/works was added after man's first creation.

I maintain that the covenant of works was a matter of God's will and providence, not of man's nature, and that this is the teaching both of Scripture and the Westminster Confession and Catechism.

He maintains that the covenant of works was natural, since he considers God to be a covenantal Trinity, and man being in God's image must therefore be a covenantal image.

If anyone can assist with the points under dispute regarding the Scripture and the Standards, that would be appreciated. Any of the Westminster divines' writings on this topic would be appreciated as well.

 

[py3ak]

Depending on how much force is given to the term "covenantal Trinity" it might be engaging relatively small potatoes to argue over the original status of man - though I think the narrative of Genesis 1,2 with the introduction of "the Lord God" (as opposed to "God", simply) in 2:4 is quite decisive for the covenant of works being a matter of providence rather than creation - because if he believes that God is one merely in a covenantal sense, he is already outside the boundaries of the creeds.

If he confesses an ontological oneness, perhaps the real point of dispute could be resolved into God's freedom: is God free to enter covenants or not, and is he free to establish their terms? If God is not free with respect to making or, so to speak, negotiating covenants then it is no longer voluntary condescension to make the covenant of works, nor grace to make the covenant of grace. At that point, so much of Scripture has been evacuated of content, so much of the Westminster Standards discarded, that one is really forced to begin the whole theological enterprise anew. That doesn't usually work out well.

 

[Christusregnat]

Thanks Reuben,

Part of the difficulty is that he defines "covenant" as merely "union and communion," which I believe to be an unhelpful definition, not finding precedent in Scripture or Creeds.

I think he would say that being in covenant is natural to man, rather than something added to nature. He cited one of the Dissenting Brethren in favor of this opinion.

 

[Christusregnat]

Any more thoughts?

 

[Peairtach]

The Holy Trinity doesn't need a covenant to be the Holy Trinity i.e. God doesn't need a covenant to be God, speaking reverently "to hold Himself together".

If you go to Robert Dabney's Systematic Theology on the CoW, he discusses the various possibilities there were whereby God could have established Man in impeccable holiness, thus showing that

(a) The CoW although dependent on a condition fulfilled by Man, wasn't necessary but contingent and in that sense a gracious, "additional", gift of God.

(b) The form the CoW took was the wisest, best and most gracious solution to the question of Man's peccability.

 

[CharlieJ]

Adam, the two don't seem mutually contradictory to me. One can affirm both that man is by nature a covenantal being and that the covenant of works brought something distinct to the relationship. In favor of man being a covenantal being might be the fact that man has by nature the moral law of God written on the heart. Also, Jeremiah 33:20 refers to "my covenant with the night, so that day and night will not come at their appointed time," which seems to go all the way back to Genesis 1, showing that things can be created in covenant. Perhaps, then, we might regard the covenant of life as established in the Bible as something "additional," in the sense that it offered something above and beyond mere human life.

 

[py3ak]

Thanks Reuben,

Part of the difficulty is that he defines "covenant" as merely "union and communion," which I believe to be an unhelpful definition, not finding precedent in Scripture or Creeds.

I think he would say that being in covenant is natural to man, rather than something added to nature. He cited one of the Dissenting Brethren in favor of this opinion.

If that's the definition, then it seems covenant is used more as a sonorous label with cachet than as a term with actual meaning. Drawing an analogy to marriage, that would turn simple cohabitation into a covenant. And unless it is guarded, that still seems to leave the way open to there merely being a union between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, instead of an actual unity in the Godhead.

We've touched on this issue before on the board. These threads might suggest some lines of argument or helpful observations.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/did-god-make-primordial-covenant-adam-61961/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/1689-covenant-45472/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/mono-vs-bi-covenantal-view-38084/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/divine-human-relationships-33808/

It's not "natural" for man to be alone - and yet that was his original condition. Being capable of covenant-relationships is logically distinct from an actual covenant-relationship being established.

 

[Christusregnat]

In favor of man being a covenantal being might be the fact that man has by nature the moral law of God written on the heart. Also, Jeremiah 33:20 refers to "my covenant with the night, so that day and night will not come at their appointed time," which seems to go all the way back to Genesis 1, showing that things can be created in covenant.

Thanks Charlie!

Regarding the law written on the heart, that merely establishes man as a reasonable creature; not necessarily one in a covenant relationship. For example, the angels have no covenant of works, and no covenant of grace, but they were created as reasonable creatures, even more excellent than man.

Regarding the covenant with day and night, that was not established until Genesis 9 (after the flood), if I understand the passage correctly. Turretin has this to say on Jeremiah 33:

"Covenant is sometimes taken more broadly for a simple promise of God without the stipulation of any obedience on the part of the creature-such as is the covenant made with men and living things of the earth, not to destroy them anymore by a flood (which was also sealed by the rainbow, Gen. 9:9-11); and that mentioned in Jer. 31:35 and 33:25 which disposes and preserves the changes of day and night and the ordinances of heaven and earth (called moreover one-sided because it consists in the disposition of promise of one party only). Yet strictly and properly, covenant denotes the agreement of God with man by which God promises his goods (and especially eternal life to him), and by man, in turn, duty and worship are engaged (certain external signs being employed for the sake of confirmation). This is called two-sided and mutual because it consists of a mutual obligation of the contracting parties: a promise on the part of God and stipulation of the condition on the part of man." Institutes, I:574.

 

[J. Dean]

I would say that the covenant was always "there" due to the nature of God; it was simply verbalized upon Adam's placement by God in Eden.

 

[py3ak]

I would say that the covenant was always "there" due to the nature of God; it was simply verbalized upon Adam's placement by God in Eden.

What does it mean to say that the covenant was always there due to the nature of God?

 

[J. Dean]

I would say that the covenant was always "there" due to the nature of God; it was simply verbalized upon Adam's placement by God in Eden.

What does it mean to say that the covenant was always there due to the nature of God?

That it had already been set up, based on God's foreordination, and awaited Adam's arrival. Does that make sense?

 

[py3ak]

That sounds like you're distinguishing between the decree and its execution. Mentioning the nature of God is possibly not the best way to set that out clearly.