John Frame and "The Universal Covenant"

Status
Not open for further replies.

JWY

Puritan Board Freshman
John Frame, on pg. 60-2 of his "Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief," discusses the concept of a 'Universal Covenant.' On page 62, Frame says:

"So God is the Lord, the King, over all the earth, before man comes on the scene. The created world is his servant. And of course, when you have a lord and a servant, you have a covenant. When Adam is created, he automatically comes under the jurisdiction of this covenant, for he, too, is a creature of God. Before God even speaks to him in Genesis 1:28, God has surrounded him with testimonies to his sovereignty and his requirements. So the universal covenant has a moral content, and we may assume that there are blessings for obedience to God's statutes and curses for disobedience."

In short, is Frame's presentation of a 'Universal Covenant' a theological novum? Is it a natural outworking of his emphasis on 'Lordship Theology'? Or is there more going on here?

Frame continues to make this distinction: On pg. 62 he states...

"When God through Isaiah indicts people of the whole earth because they have "transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant" (Isa. 24:5), he may be referring to the Edenic covenant, which I describe below, or to the universal covenant. I'm inclined to favor the latter, though the references in context of the curses on the earth as well as mankind could fit either covenant. The covenant-breakers here include the "host of heaven" according to verse 21, which, in contrast to the "kings of the earth," probably refers to the rebellious angels. The angels would not be included under the Edenic covenant, but they would be part of the universal covenant. Actually, however, it doesn't matter much what covenant Isaiah 24:5 specifically refers to, since the Edenic covenant and all later covenants are applications of the universal covenant to the human race."
 
Last edited:
This is not the historic Reformed position, in which God enters into a covenant of works with Adam after creating him. Frame is teaching that creation is necessarily covenantal.

How a covenant can be made with something impersonal (i.e., creation) is beyond me. You can't enter into a covenant with an inanimate object. Further, in the historic Reformed position, Adam is the head of the covenant because it was made with him, and with his seed in him. For this to be true, Adam must be an original party to the covenant. In Frame's formulation, Adam is not an original party, but is enters into an existing covenant upon his creation.
 
when you have a lord and a servant, you have a covenant.

all covevants are made with mankind; hence, no mankind involved, no covenant.

God has surrounded him with testimonies to his sovereignty and his requirements. So the universal covenant has a moral content, and we may assume that there are blessings for obedience to God's statutes and curses for disobedience."

Frame, liking to hear himself talk.......

Morality comes into play with the human creation only. Nature is neither moral or amoral.
 
John Frame, on pg. 60-2 of his "Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief," discusses the concept of a 'Universal Covenant.' On page 62, Frame says:

"So God is the Lord, the King, over all the earth, before man comes on the scene. The created world is his servant. And of course, when you have a lord and a servant, you have a covenant. When Adam is created, he automatically comes under the jurisdiction of this covenant, for he, too, is a creature of God. Before God even speaks to him in Genesis 1:28, God has surrounded him with testimonies to his sovereignty and his requirements. So the universal covenant has a moral content, and we may assume that there are blessings for obedience to God's statutes and curses for disobedience."

Can anyone provide some insight into this concept? Historical, Systematic, Biblical-Theological implications, relationship to the Reformed theological tradition, creeds and/or confessions, proponents/opponents, theological debates concerning the topic, etc?

all covevants are made with mankind; hence, no mankind involved, no covenant.



Frame, liking to hear himself talk.......

Morality comes into play with the human creation only. Nature is neither moral or amoral.
Thanks Scott. Frame does mention on pg. 18 that "In Scripture, God makes many covenants with his creatures (not only with human beings - see Gen. 9:9-10)." And in the footnotes he mentions that some "theologians have even spoken of a pactum salutis, a kind of covenant within the Trinity."
 
Last edited:
Thanks Scott. Frame does mention on pg. 18 that "In Scripture, God makes many covenants with his creatures (not only with human beings - see Gen. 9:9-10)." And in the footnotes he mentions that some "theologians have even spoken of a pactum salutis, a kind of covenant within the Trinity."

Poole writes and to which I agree:

i.e. My promise, for the beasts included in this covenant, ver. 10, are not capable of a covenant properly so called. And the word covenant is oft used for a simple promise, as we shall see hereafter.

Matthew Poole, Annotations upon the Holy Bible, vol. 1 (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1853), 24.
 
Thanks Scott. Frame does mention on pg. 18 that "In Scripture, God makes many covenants with his creatures (not only with human beings - see Gen. 9:9-10)." And in the footnotes he mentions that some "theologians have even spoken of a pactum salutis, a kind of covenant within the Trinity."
Covenants are only made between persons. The Pactum Salutis doesn't include impersonal beings.

You will find that Frame is often quite innovative--his doctrine sometimes has no historical precedent whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
Covenant are only made between persons. The Pactum Salutis doesn't include impersonal beings.

You will find that Frame is often quite innovative--his doctrine sometimes has no historical precedent whatsoever.
Thanks Tyler.
 
Thanks Scott. Frame does mention on pg. 18 that "In Scripture, God makes many covenants with his creatures (not only with human beings - see Gen. 9:9-10)." And in the footnotes he mentions that some "theologians have even spoken of a pactum salutis, a kind of covenant within the Trinity."
What is the Covenant between the Persons of the Godhead called?
 
Covenant are only made between persons. The Pactum Salutis doesn't include impersonal beings.

You will find that Frame is often quite innovative--his doctrine sometimes has no historical precedent whatsoever.
It would include only those creature made in the image of God Himself.
 
Frame, on pg. 59 addresses this covenant as "the covenant of redemption or in Latin the pactum salutis."
This is separate and different then from the Covenant of Grace? And what scriptures are used to support this understanding between the trinity members?
 
This is separate and different then from the Covenant of Grace? And what scriptures are used to support this understanding between the trinity members?
Frame passively mentions John 17:5. This is an interesting topic, but it's drifting away from my basic concern. In short, is Frame's presentation of a 'Universal Covenant' a theological novum? Is it a natural outworking of his emphasis on 'Lordship Theology'? Or is there more going on here? Thanks Dachaser.
 
This is separate and different then from the Covenant of Grace? And what scriptures are used to support this understanding between the trinity members?

Matt McMahon helps here by utilizingJohn Owen's work on the subject:

After initially setting forth the definition of the Covenant of Redemption, Owen demonstrates from Scripture those classic passages upholding this covenant. He states, “There are the Father and the Son as distinct persons agreeing together in counsel for the accomplishment of the common end, — the glory of God and the salvation of the elect. The end is expressed, Hebrews 2:9, 10, Hebrews 12:2. Now, thus it was, Zechariah 6:13, “The counsel of peace shall be between them both,” — “Inter ambos ipsos.” That is, the two persons spoken of, not the two offices there intimated, that shall meet in Christ. And who are these? The Lord Jehovah, who speaks, and the man whose name is jmæx,, “The Branch,” verse 12, who is to do all the great things there mentioned: “He shall grow up,” etc. But the counsel of peace, the design of our peace, is between them both; they have agreed and consented to the bringing about of our peace.” After substantiating Hebrews 2 and 12, he mentions the “counsel of peace” in Zechariah 6:13, demonstrating the Lord and the Branch agreeing to covenant together. Then, Owen makes an interesting point with a passage that is not commonly used. He quotes Isaiah 9:6, not in relation to the incarnation (the context normally used) but of the Covenant of Redemption, “Hence is that name of the Son of God, Isaiah 9:6, “Wonderful Counsellor.” It is in reference to the business there spoken of that he is so called. This is expressed at the beginning of the verse, “Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given.” To what end that was is known, namely, that he might be a Savior or a Redeemer, whence he is afterward called “The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace;” that is, a father to his church and people in everlasting mercy, the grand author of their peace, that procured it for them and established it unto them.” (12:630 AS)
 
Frame passively mentions John 17:5. This is an interesting topic, but it's drifting away from my basic concern. In short, is Frame's presentation of a 'Universal Covenant' a theological novum? Is it a natural outworking of his emphasis on 'Lordship Theology'? Or is there more going on here? Thanks Dachaser.
It's trendy in certain Reformed circles right now to describe anything relational as covenantal. Frame is right in the middle of this trend. Others who theologize in this way are Scott Oliphant, as well as the Federal Vision crowd. I call it hyper-covenantalism.

Frame is just applying this idea to the relationship between God and his creation.
 
There seems to be some strangeness between those who believe Covenant and Creation are collapsed together. Frame and Kline are probably on two different spectrums. Here is a portion of a booklet I promoted as it was being discussed in the OPC.
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...n-and-covenant-recast-and-collapsed-together/
Creation and Covenant Recast and Collapsed Together

Here is the portion of the booklet without the whole blog....
The [Klinean] republication view teaches that man was in covenant with God at the very moment of creation. This is an important shift from the traditional viewpoint. Ontological considerations demand that there be at least a logical distinction (rather than a chronological or historical sequence) between God’s creating man and his entering into covenant with him. The [Klinean] republication teaching now erases this confessional distinction (which is based upon the “great disproportion” between the Creator and creature), and thereby turns God’s providential work of establishing the covenant into an aspect of the work of creation. Thus, we may say that the two distinct acts have been conflated or collapsed into essentially one act in this new view. For all intents and purposes, the relationship between God and man is not first that of sovereign Creator over his finite creature, but is from the point of creation a relationship of “God-in-covenant-with-man.” For Professor Kline and those who have followed his lead in the republication position, it is improper to even consider man’s existence apart from covenant. Thus, man’s covenantal status seems to “trump” his creaturely status. Professor Kline makes this clear in Kingdom Prologue.

“Man’s creation as image of God meant, as we have seen, that the creating of the world was a covenant-making process. There was no original non-covenantal order of mere nature on which the covenant was superimposed. Covenantal commitments were given by the Creator in the very act of endowing the mancreature with the mantle of the divine likeness. …The situation never existed in which man’s future was contemplated or presented in terms of a static continuation of the original state of blessedness (Kingdom Prologue [2000], p. 92).”
I totally disagree with Kline here. I am not sure what context Frame is speaking in since I don't have the book but it sounds strange to me. Does he quote anyone significant as a reference for his understanding?

More on the Kline stuff here....
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/?s=Kline+Creation
 
It's trendy in certain Reformed circles right now to describe anything relational as covenantal. Frame is right in the middle of this trend. Others who theologize in this way are Scott Oliphant, as well as the Federal Vision crowd. I call it hyper-covenantalism.

Frame is just applying this idea to the relationship between God and his creation.
Thanks Tyler.
 
There seems to be some strangeness between those who believe Covenant and Creation are collapsed together. Frame and Kline are probably on two different spectrums. Here is a portion of a booklet I promoted as it was being discussed in the OPC.
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...n-and-covenant-recast-and-collapsed-together/
Creation and Covenant Recast and Collapsed Together

Here is the portion of the booklet without the whole blog....

I totally disagree with Kline here. I am not sure what context Frame is speaking in since I don't have the book but it sounds strange to me. Does he quote anyone significant as a reference for his understanding?

More on the Kline stuff here....
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/?s=Kline+Creation
I thought that God could only be in a Covenant relationship with sentient creatures made in His very own image?
 
There seems to be some strangeness between those who believe Covenant and Creation are collapsed together. Frame and Kline are probably on two different spectrums. Here is a portion of a booklet I promoted as it was being discussed in the OPC.
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...n-and-covenant-recast-and-collapsed-together/
Creation and Covenant Recast and Collapsed Together

Here is the portion of the booklet without the whole blog....

I totally disagree with Kline here. I am not sure what context Frame is speaking in since I don't have the book but it sounds strange to me. Does he quote anyone significant as a reference for his understanding?

More on the Kline stuff here....
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/?s=Kline+Creation
Thank you sir! That is very helpful. Frame's first statement under the subheading "The Universal Covenant" on pg. 60 says:

"That universal perspective persists when we move from eternity into time, where we consider God's covenant with the created world."

then, on pg 61 he states:

"Anything God creates is necessarily under his lordship: under his control, subject to his authority, confronted by his presence. So his covenant lordship does not begin with the creation of man."

This subsection ('The Universal Covenant') directly follows a subsection titled the 'Eternal Covenant of Redemption', and right before a subsection titled 'The Edenic Covenant.'
 
I am not sure he is equating the Covenant of Redemption with the Universal but you make it sound like that. If So, I would like to know how this is Universal and how he defines Universal? Is he equating the Covenant of Redemption with the Universal covenant?

And is there any mention of this passage with the context? This is bringing me a lot of strange questions.
(Rom 8:18) For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
(Rom 8:19) For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
(Rom 8:20) For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
(Rom 8:21) Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
(Rom 8:22) For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
(Rom 8:23) And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
 
Last edited:
See section III. on this page for Witsius on this.
Matthew,
First off it would be beneficial if you posted the section.
III. But ברית is variously taken in Scripture: sometimes improperly, and sometimes properly. Improperly, it denotes the following things:—1st. An immutable ordinance made about a thing: in this sense God mentions “his covenant of the day, and his covenant of the night,” Jer. 33:20. That is, that fixed ordinance made about the uninterrupted vicissitude of day and night, which, chap. 31:36, is called חק, that is, statute, limited or fixed, which nothing is to be added to, or taken from. In this sense is included the notion of a testament, or of a last irrevocable will. Thus God said, Numb. 18:19 “I have given thee and thy sons, and thy daughters with thee להק עילם ברית מלח עילם חיא, by a statute for ever: it is a covenant of salt for ever.” This observation is of use, more fully to explain the nature of the covenant of grace, which the apostle proposes under the similitude of a testament, the execution of which depends upon the death of the testator, Heb. 9:15, 16, 17. To which notion both the Hebrew ברית, and the Greek διαθὴκη, may lead us. 2dly. A sure and stable promise, though not mutual. Exod. 34:10: “הנה אנכי ברת ברית behold, I make a covenant; before all thy people I will do marvels.” Isa. 59:21: “This is my covenant with them, my spirit shall not depart from them.” 3dly. It signifies also a precept; and to cut or make a covenant, is to give a precept. Jer. 34:13, 14: “I made a covenant with your fathers, saying, At the end of seven years let ye go every man his brother.” Hence it appears in what sense the decalogue is called God’s covenant. But properly, it signifies a mutual agreement between parties with respect to something. Such a covenant passed between Abraham, Mamre, Escol, and Aner, who are called, בעלי ברית אברם “confederates with Abraham,” Gen. 14:13. Such also was that between Isaac and Abimelech, Gen. 26:28, 29; between Jonathan and David, 1 Sam. 18:2. And of this kind is likewise that which we are now to treat of between God and man.

This is still confusing when we speak of what Frame is reportedly saying in my opinion. I have never heard of a Universal Covenant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top