Wilkins’s Exam, part 1
December 21, 2006 at 9:14 am (Federal Vision, Heresy)
By and large, most of my issues with Wilkins’s exam come in the later parts of it. Therefore, I will only briefly address the earlier parts. Here goes.
The first question asked has to do with Wilkins’s exceptions to the WS. He notes the fact that, though he believes in paedo-communion, he does not practice it, in accordance with the BCO. However, he makes a terminological error when he calls paedo-communion “covenant communion,” as if those of us who do not believe in paedo-communion do not acknowledge the covenant; as if we do not believe Jesus’ words “This is the new covenant in my blood.” Much better if he called it paedo-communion.
Under section I.1.1., he mentions his “quibble” with the term “covenant of works.” This is a completely ambiguous statement. It’s about as clear as mud whether he actually has an exception to the covenant of works or not. He says he agrees with the description of the covenant of works. However, he also believes that the term is open to “wide misunderstandings regarding the whole matter of works and merit.” This could have done with a great deal more clarification regarding his view of the matter. Are we to take his word for it regarding an exception? In a parenthetical notes later on down the page, he defines his word “quibble” as “to have a petty or very minor objection.” Plainly, he regards his “quibble” to be very minor. However, the covenant of works is not minor at all, as any ST treatment of the subject will reveal. Does he agree with it or not? My hunch is that he does not really agree with it. But more clarification is needed.
Under I.2., he talks a bit more about covenant in general. He mentions that he is uncomfortable with the language of WCF 7.1. Wilkins says that the implication of that language is that the covenant is something added to the Creator-creature relationship. He says, “The implication is that God, after He created man, realized that there was a great distance between Himself and His creation and needed to do something additional to bridge the gap…This implies that the covenant bridges some metaphysical gap, as if man’s problem is his ‘creatureliness.’ It seems to imply that being a creature *of itself* necessitates a relational distance between God and man. In contrast to this the Scriptures indicate that God enters into covenant with man by virtue of His role as Creator.” There are serious problems with this formulation. First of all, the covenant is added to the relationship. God was not required in any way to enter into covenant with Adam. Wilkins’s problem here is probably related to the fact that he defines a covenant as a relationship, when in fact it is a contract. The language of the confession does not imply any “realization” whatsoever on the part of God, as if He didn’t know something before that He knows now. However, the covenant does bridge the gap between God and man. The covenant is a binding contract, binding the two parties together. God voluntarily condescended to bind Himself to Adam. God did not have to promise eternal life upon Adam’s perfect and complete obedience. But He did. The statement “It seems to imply that being a creature *of itself* necessitates a relationship distance between God and man” is quite a problem. Is there not a Creator-creature distinction that puts an infinite distance between God and man, which nevertheless is bridged by the covenant? Otherwise, the covenant is nothing remarkable. These are extremely problematic formulations. They seem to deny the Creator-creature distinction. Obviously, there is also a sense in which we are like God by virtue of being made in His image. However, this likeness does not distort or lessen the distance between God and man. “The distance between God and man is so great…” WCF 7.1.
greenbaggins
glwjohnson
jeffhutchinson
davejes1979
reformedmusings
its.reed
Andrew Webb
Chris said,
December 21, 2006 at 10:16 am
Lane,
You write: “Wilkins’s problem here is probably related to the fact that he defines a covenant as a relationship, when in fact it is a contract. The language of the confession does not imply any “realization” whatsoever on the part of God, as if He didn’t know something before that He knows now. However, the covenant does bridge the gap between God and man. The covenant is a binding contract, binding the two parties together.”
This contract definition is yours but there is a relational view of covenant allowed in the reformed tradition. See, The Binding of God by Peter Lillback.
In other words, seeing it as relational and therefore salvific is totally in line with Reformed history and thought regardless if you agree with it. Wilkin’s view is orthodox within the tradition on this point.
David McCrory said,
December 21, 2006 at 10:19 am
Sin created the “gap” between God and man. There was perfect comunnion between the two in the garden prior to the Fall. The Scriptures never suggest there is an inherent metaphysical seperation between God and man other than a Creator/Creature distinction. The Covenant of Works was established during the “probation” of Adam as our federal head in order to confirm him or reject him in righteousness.
Todd said,
December 21, 2006 at 10:22 am
Missouri Presbytery ad hoc Committee on Federal Vision Theology:
“As a result, we affirm as well the variety of interpretation of the Westminster Standards when it comes to the nature of the covenant. On the issue of the “covenant of works,” for example, we believe that those who read the Standards as emphasizing an adamic meritocracy and those who read them as emphasizing the gracious foundation of all God’s covenant dealings with humanity can both claim confessional integrity and historical precedent in the Westminster tradition. Neither of these views does violence to the Standards given their lack of precision regarding Adam’s covenant relationship to God. This variety of interpretation of both Scripture and the Standards make offering any definition of “covenant” hazardous. And yet, we would affirm that a definition includes understanding the word “covenant” to mean biblically: a covenant is a
committed relationship typified by mutual loyalty and obligation.”
pduggie said,
December 21, 2006 at 10:37 am
Sure, go wasn’t required to make any creature in the Image of God. But once having done so, could he have made a creature in his Image that he did not relate to in fellowship and communion?
Can man posses God’s own Image without being bound to that God?
The agreement w.r.t. the tree is surely a special act of providence after creation. But that covenant of life is distinguished in the Standards….
Ok, wait. I think this has to go on Murray’s list of bonehead mistakes in the Standards. Comapre WLC 17 & 20. There man is CREATED “having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it, and dominion over the creatures;”
but in 20 “putting the creatures under his dominion,” is an act of providence.
And isn’t writing the law on the heart covenant language?
So is man’s dominion over the creatures part of his status as creature, or an additional thing added after his creation. Why can’t the WLC make the distinction clear?
Let’s get those divines re-examined….
greenbaggins said,
December 22, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Chris, you missed my point. My problem with Wilkins was not so much that he assumed the relational character of the covenant so much as it was what he did with it. He goes from there to critiquing the Confession on the basis of his understanding of that covenant. The plain implication of the WCF is that there is this metaphysical distance by virtue of creation between God and man. This is ABC Van Tillian here (to use an anachronistic category). It is not just sin that creates a gap. There is a gap also between God and man by virtue of creation. God is God, and we are not. Anyone who denies this has some serious issues to deal with. This statement really has nothing to do with communion between God and man. Of course there was communion between God and man. But that communion does not negate the metaphysical distance between God and man. It does not erase the Creator-creature distinction. Wilkins’s formulations threaten that distinction, in my mind.
John said,
December 22, 2006 at 1:27 pm
(1) The reason Wilkins speaks of paedocommunion as “covenant communion” is because the issue isn’t just whether children can partake of the Lord’s Supper. The issue is whether all members of the covenant are allowed to partake.
There are churches which wouldn’t admit adult people who are senile to the Table. Or grown-ups who are mentally handicapped. Or anyone who can’t profess his or her faith in some mature way. The issue here is not just children, which is what “paedo-” means. Therefore “paedocommunion” is not the most accurate term.
“Covenant communion,” as Wilkins is using the term, simply means admitting people to communion on the basis of their membership in the covenant as opposed to admitting them on the basis of something other than covenant membership, namely, a profession of faith.
(2) When Wilkins says that he has a quibble with the “covenant of works” in the Westminster standards, it’s important to note that he is talking about the Westminster standards, not “ST” as you say. The two aren’t identical.
Therefore, he says that he agrees with how the Westminster Confession describes the covenant of works but dislikes the term. Why? Because the term implies that Adam had to earn something. The TERM implies that, but notice that the WCF itself doesn’t say that in its description of the covenant of works. Hence Wilkins agrees with the description but quibbles with the term. So, for that matter, did John Murray.
(3) When it comes to saying that the covenant is built into creation, not something added after the creation of man, Wilkins is hardly alone. That’s a point that Meredith Kline has often made, and I seem to recall reading about it in Kline’s disciple, Mark Karlberg.
Wilkins is right to reject the idea that there was a “gap” between God and man as a result of creation, a gap that had to be overcome by covenant. There was, of course, a difference between God and man: one is the Creator and the other is a creature. But that difference didn’t need to be bridged because it wasn’t a problem. The only gap that is a problem is brought about by sin. The gap isn’t ontological; it’s ethical. (Isn’t that straight Van Til?)
You assert that the covenant IS added to the relationship. That’s an assertion: Wilkins says it isn’t, and you say “Is too.” Your wording here is interesting, though, because it implies that the relationship already existed and that the covenant was then added. That’s a bit like saying a marriage already existed before the wedding, isn’t it, especially if you define covenant not as the relationship but as the contract?
At any rate, I’m going to ask for proof that a relationship between God and man existed first and then later on God added the covenant.
No one, of course, has said that God was obligated to live in covenant with Adam. Or that God had to make certain promises. I’m not sure why you state an objection to these ideas, since no one has proposed them as true.
Again, none of this ought to be particularly problematical even to those who disagree with Wilkins. He’s hardly the first to have said these things. He’s in line with Murray and Kline here.
John said,
December 22, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Let me clarify something: When I stated that the gap isn’t ontological but ethical (and then said that was straight Van Til), I didn’t mean to imply that there isn’t a Creator-creature distinction (which, of course, Van Til emphasized). There is.
But I don’t believe that distinction implies a gap which God must somehow bridge. The Creator-creature distinction isn’t a problem which must be solved (i.e., by establishing a covenant). The gap that needs bridging is the gap caused by sin. And perhaps I’m wrong, but it strikes me that that idea is also something Van Til emphasized.
greenbaggins said,
December 22, 2006 at 2:41 pm
The reason I object to his using that term is that it implies that anyone who does not admit all “covenant members’ (a very slippery term in and of itself) is somehow dowplaying the covenant. I simply do not believe that that is even remotely a logical inference. The WCF itself has covenant prominently displayed, and yet explicitly differentiates by age those who would partake and those who should not.
The WCF and ST are not identical, since ST is much more overarching. But that was not what I was claiming. I was claiming that any ST treatment of the CoW, including the WCF, would show its importance. Adam would have had to obey perfectly *in order to* inherit eternal life, according to 7.2. Merit according to pact (not absolute merit) is there in idea form in 7.2.
I am challenging Wilkins’s assertions regarding the WCF. He has a problem with it that he shouldn’t be having. Do you have any quotations from Kline or Karlberg regarding the place of the covenant regarding creation?
Regarding the covenant, God created Adam, and immediately entered into covenant with him. The text says that God made man, put him in the garden, and gave him the command regarding the tree. It seems to me that it is pretty much simultaneous. But simultaneity does not imply that the covenant was intrinsic to creation.
John said,
December 22, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Apparently I wasn’t writing my own index in the backs of books back when I read Karlberg, so it’ll take me a bit longer to find references to covenant and creation in him.
But here’s Meredith Kline:
“Right here it is, of course, patent that the covenant relationship of God and man had its origin in the very act of creating man. It is not the case, as some theological reconstructions would have it, that the covenant was superimposed on a temporally or logically prior noncovenantal human state. The covenantal character of the original kingdom order as a whole and of man’s status in particular ws given along with existence itself” (Kingdom Prologue, p. 12).
I’m not sure if all editions of KP are the same, but this quotation is a couple pages into section A, just before Chapter 1.