Do relationships between God and man necessarily have to be covenantal? Is it possible for God to have relationships with human beings without the relationship being in the form of a covenant?

__________________
Nate Wood
Student, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Clifton Baptist Church
Louisville, KY

Can you think of an example?

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

How about the relationship between God and Cain? That does not seem to have been a covenant but there were some presuppositions underlying God's conversation with Cain over the murder of Abel.

__________________
Mary Vanderkooi
Kale Heywott Church (KHC)
Soddo, Ethiopia

My gut would be to say no -- God has a unilateral relationship with us -- he sets the terms and we either meet the conditions of those terms (only possible through Christ) or we are in rebellion against him. We find great assurance in this because there is no "shadow of changing" with God; He (and His way of relating to us) is never changing today or tomorrow. That doesn't eclipse that He created us to be unique individuals and can treat us as such. Much like a parent might have a different way of relating to a quiet child than one who is more outgoing.

__________________
JWithnell
Member Bethel OPC
Virginia
http://learningyesican.blogspot.com/

I think the Confession answers that rather well.
(WCF VII.1)

That God is our Creator and we are His creatures is a relationship established by the fact of our creation, which (pace James Jordan and all his sources) is not intrinsically covenantal. But in order for God to be our God in the way of blessedness and reward (Genesis 15:1), something more was required, a voluntary condescension on the part of God, which He chose to express by way of covenant.

__________________
Ruben
Moderator
F.P.C.I.
Indiana

Vanities and disguises have covered us, and thereby we are naked; licenciousness hath inflam'd us, and thereby we are frozen; voluptuousness hath fed us, and thereby we are sterved, the fancies and traditions of men have taught and instructed us, and thereby we are ignorant.
John Donne

Board Rules - Signature Requirements - Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando
Teología en Mexico
The Howling Wilderness

I am asking with the covenant with Adam in mind. It seems that sin makes it necessary for God to deal with mankind in a covenantal fashion, but I am trying to determine whether a covenant with Adam is actually necessary. What do we lose or gain by saying there is a covenant made with Adam before the Fall?

How are you defining covenant relationship as opposed to just a relationship?

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

Rather co-incidentally, Ruben posted this today.

It argues that we lose the framework in which to understand many verses and the whole 'law' aspect of Scripture, as well as the law-keeping of Christ.

__________________
Heidi
Indianapolis, Indiana

Patience must dwell with Love, for Love and Sorrow
Have pitched their tent together here:
Love all alone will build a house tomorrow,
And sorrow not be near. -Christina Rossetti

I think that this question is important, I disagree with those that seek to import the necessity of human co-operation in a covenetal relationship.

__________________
Mike
London City Presbyterian Church
London
England

"Surely, we wish to be orthodox, but we must first learn what real orthodoxy is. Surely, we wish to be progressive, but we must first have a basis to progress from."

What do we gain? We gain an understanding of how Adam could have had any fruition of God as his blessedness and reward.
What do we lose by saying God made a covenant with Adam? Nothing: the blessing of the Lord makes rich and He adds no sorrow with it. We lose nothing by affirming the teaching of Scripture.
What do we lose by not accepting the covenant of works? We then mentally give Adam a natural claim on God, which given the Creator-creature distinction could not exist: we make God a debtor to His creation contrary to Romans 11:35.

I am thinking through this issue, so I am not quite sure how I would define the distinction. That is sort of why I am asking. Obviously, God had a relationship with Abraham and Israel and David before there was any kind of covenant. So would that mean that they had some "claim on God"? God still established the relationship with Abraham and Israel and David, so it was based on God's initiation and grace.

From what I have seen, it seems that some equate a relationship with God as a covenant with God. In other words, if one is in a relationship with God, then he is necessarily in a covenant with God. If that is so, how can God have a relationship with Abraham, etc. and then proceed to establish a covenant with him after He has already established a covenant? Would it be more correct to say that the covenant formalizes or ratifies the preexisting, elective relationship between the two?

Wouldn't we lose an understanding of the basic truth of Scripture? As Ruben posted concerning the Confession, we lose any fruition of God as our blessedness and reward. We lose the simple truth of Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15 concerning the parallel between Adam and Christ. We lose the truth of Christ as our Second Adam and Covenant Head fulfilling all our righteousness by obeying the law in our stead.

I would say we lose quite a lot if we say the Bible doesn't teach a covenant made with Adam before the Fall.

__________________
Ryan Barnhart - Pastor of OGBC
Husband to a beautiful wife, Father to two beautiful girls
Student at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary - B.D.

"I confess to you, that if I can but live and die serving the Lord Jesus, it will make no difference to me whether I am eaten by Cannibals or by worms. And in the Great Day my Resurrection body will rise as fair as yours in the likeness of our risen Redeemer." - John Paton