More on the important distinction between creation and covenant and the bearing of ontology upon this distinction: Now, it should immediately be kept in mind that the act of creation itself does not constitute God’s covenant with man...Turretin begins his discussion of the question concerning God’s covenant with man by asking: of what kind was it (IET, VIII.III)? First, he defines a covenant on human terms. In sum, a human covenant is a mutual agreement between two persons in which mutual goods and offices are exchanged for their common utility. And this theory includes at least three things; (1) that the persons involved be equal, (2) each party should have it in their power to bestow such goods and thus be perfectly independent, (3) they should not be bound to bestow those items without the covenant. From this Turretin concludes that a covenant, strictly peaking, between God and man cannot exist. And it cannot exist for the following reasons: First, there is no equality of persons, goods given, or duties rendered between God and man; second, man is not perfectly independent and thus is bound to give unto God obedience even without a covenant; and third, man cannot bring anything to the covenant and is utterly dependent upon God for providing any goods or duties. Yet, despite all this, God does in fact condescend to man and wills to enter into a covenant with him. (Jim Cassidy Francis Turretin and Barthianism: The Covenant of Works in Historical Perspective)
Posted on: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 03:39:07 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015