Noahic covenant universality

[timfost]

Are we to view the Noahic covenant as part of the covenant of grace? Certainly grace (unmerited favor) is demonstrated in this covenant to all of creation (Gen. 8:20-22). But the WLC says:

The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.(31)

Are we to understand the covenant of grace as having reference and benefits to all of creation, though it is particularly made with the elect, or do we understand that the Noahic covenant is not part of the covenant of grace? It is interesting that the Noahic covenant does not set forth obligations to the creation which does seem to differ from the obligations set forth in the covenant of grace.

I've quoted from Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology below as it may be relevant to the discussion:

The gospel, however, is the offer of salvation upon the conditions of the covenant of grace. In this sense, the covenant of grace is formed with all mankind... And the Westminster Confession [302] says, "Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant [namely, by the covenant of works], the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein He freely offereth unto sinners [and all sinners] life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them able and willing to believe." If this, therefore, were all that is meant by those who make the parties to the covenant of grace, God and mankind in general and all mankind equally, there would be no objection to the doctrine. For it is undoubtedly true that God offers to all and every man eternal life on condition of faith in Jesus Christ. But as it is no less true that the whole scheme of redemption has special reference to those given by the Father to the Son, and of whom our Lord says, "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out" (John vi. 37), it follows, secondly, from the nature of the covenant between the Father and the Son, that the covenant of grace has also special reference to the elect.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Recent threads:
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/86504-Covenant-of-Grace-unity
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/82678-Early-Covenants-and-Common-Grace

Rev. Winzer is more concise than I am therein, but I don't disagree with him.

 

[timfost]

Recent threads:
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/86504-Covenant-of-Grace-unity
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/82678-Early-Covenants-and-Common-Grace

Rev. Winzer is more concise than I am therein, but I don't disagree with him.

I certainly do not want to open a can of worms with this one as I know that "common grace" gets a lot of attention. Personally, I'm fine with the term as grace is defined as "unmerited favor." We see such unmerited favor in the scriptures to all of creation (Isaiah 26:10, Psalm 145, Rom. 2:4, etc.), which would suggest "common" and "special" are helpful adjectives so that we don't reduce God's grace into the salvific sphere alone. Certainly the Noahic covenant serves to preserve all of the elect through time, but I'm not certain that we should view such preservation as only promoting God's glory in one salvific purpose.

It seems to me that if all things are for the purpose of glorifying God, then we see His glory and self-revelation even in "common grace" as He is demonstrating to His creation His mercy, compassion, longsuffering, etc. flowing from His Own attributes. However, if the central theme in scripture is redemption, common grace becomes problematic because we've determined that God only or at least primarily glorifies Himself through the salvation of the elect.

In this way, at least based on preliminary research, I think the redemptive historic hermeneutic deviates from Westminster's focus on God's glory, at least when taken to an extreme. Could this affect the way we view the universality of the Noahic covenant?

 

[Nicholas Perella]

However, if the central theme in scripture is redemption, common grace becomes problematic because we've determined that God only or at least primarily glorifies Himself through the salvation of the elect.

Romans 9:17

For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”

WCF 3.3

III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.

WCF 3.7

VII. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.

God also glorifies Himself as being a just God.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I referenced the threads because they were recent discussions focused on the Noahic covenant, and the question of a broad or narrow application.

Does the cosmos have a purpose that is independent of redemption? Equal to or higher than redemption? If such a purpose is inferior to redemption, how is it then independent? And how do we know anything about such a purpose, since we are shut up to special revelation to reveal the mind of God to us?

Glorifying God, which is worship, is the reason (telos, goal) for redemption, which forms the people for this purpose. Redemption requires a stage on which to realize it: hence, the cosmos.

Almost the sum total of what we call "Reformed theology" is absorbed with the nuts and bolts of redemption. Redemption is the method by which God reveals himself--that is, his character--to us. Creation, despite its wonders, is only capable of revealing divinity and its power. It explains practically nothing about God's multifaceted nature. For that we must turn to special revelation. And even including the content of the first two chs (the only which treat of an unfallen world), all of it is written to sinners as such, in need of a Savior.

Scripture tells us that the excellent glory is out of this world. It is a place no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered it into our hearts what God has in store for us. For now in this world, we worship the God of our salvation who is the God of glory.

Perhaps some take the first Q&A of the Westminster Catechisms, and assume or derive therefrom a notion that Reformed theology in general has a "focus on God's glory," that this Idea has some kind of independent attraction to us, and that we think Christians should be looking wide and peeking under every rock for new signs of God's glory. Lutherans typically, with their unfortunate prejudice and animus against us, are fond of latching onto our eternal hope of glory, and interpreting ours as a "theology of glory" in contrast to their "theology of the cross."

If some in the Reformed camp give outsiders reason to validate their preconceptions, that's not the fault of Reformed theology. It isn't abstract "glory" that is Westminster's focus, but the glory of the cross, and the glory which is worship in the presence of God--made possible only by the blood, sacrifice, and living presence of our Mediator, the Lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world now risen from the dead; our Priest, Prophet, and King. The vast majority of our faith--as revealed in the numerous chs, paras, and sentences of the Confessions and Catechisms and Canons--is defined by this focus; it is how the worshipful End is obtained.

(See Calvin, The Necessity of Reforming the Church, for understanding that "glorifying God" is the worship for which purpose we were justified).​

​

Redemptive history is the warp and woof of the Bible. Covenant theology is our peculiar hermeneutic; it's how we read the Bible. Pitting RH or CT against either the Westminster Stds. or the 3FU is preposterous.

 

[timfost]

Thanks for your reply. I do not want to suggest that redemption is not a significant theme, especially in connection with the administrations of the covenant of grace. I do not wish to pit covenant theology against the Westminster Stds. or 3FU in any way. I am sorry if I was confusing in that regard.

You said:

Does the cosmos have a purpose that is independent of redemption? Equal to or higher than redemption? If such a purpose is inferior to redemption, how is it then independent? And how do we know anything about such a purpose, since we are shut up to special revelation to reveal the mind of God to us?

I would rather frame the question thus: "Does the cosmos have a purpose that is independent of God's glory?" The answer is a resounding "no." Are the cosmos only a stage for redemption? No, as Nicholas rightly quoted from Rom. 9:17, demonstrating that God also uses His creation to demonstrate His wrath and justice against transgressors of the law, amoung other things.

If we conclude that the cosmos are primarily a stage for redemption, I fear that we put greater emphasis on the love of God over His other attributes and we run the risk of separating the Godhead, becoming Christocentric rather than Theocentric (i.e. Trinitarian in emphasis).

I spoke with someone recently who believes in an old earth. He explained that having common ancestry in Adam and Eve was highly unlikely. He endorsed evolutionary principles while maintaining belief in the Bible. When I questioned him on it, he explained that the details of creation are not very important since the primary emphasis of the Bible is redemption.

All I am trying to say is that a reduction of Theology to redemption, or a primary emphasis and purpose of God in redemption, runs the risk of reducing Theology into Christology and soteriology, not taking into account the whole counsel of God. The person that I conversed with about an old earth endorsed the framework hypothesis against the testimony of scripture with the rationale that it did not fit into the central theme of scripture. I think such a position stifles faith because it relies more heavily upon natural revelation than special revelation, making man the central theme in scripture over God.

I don't want to read into what you said, so please understand that what I've explained above describes my fears about over-emphasis on redemption. It would be foolish of me to suggest that the above summarizes your theology, as I have no reason to believe that and have been very blessed with your help, especially as I've posted questions concerning covenant theology as of late.

Blessings

 

[brandonadams]

Here is Berkhof

2. The covenant with Noah. The covenant with Noah is evidently of a very general nature: God promises that He will not again destroy all flesh by the waters of a flood, and that the regular succession of seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night will continue. The forces of nature are bridled, the powers of evil are put under greater restraint, and man is protected against the violence of both man and beast. It is a covenant conferring only natural blessings, and is therefore often called the covenant of nature or of common grace. There is no objection to this terminology, provided it does not convey the impression that this covenant is dissociated altogether from the covenant of grace. Though the two differ, they are also most intimately connected.

a. Points of difference. The following points of difference should be noted: (1) While the covenant of grace pertains primarily, though not exclusively, to spiritual blessings, the covenant of nature assures man only of earthly and temporal blessings. (2) While the covenant of grace in the broadest sense of the word includes only believers and their seed, and is fully realized only in the lives of the elect, the covenant with Noah was not only universal in its inception, but was destined to remain all-inclusive. Up to the days of the covenant transaction with Abraham there was no seal of the covenant of grace, but the covenant with Noah was confirmed by the token of the rainbow, a seal quite different from those that were later on connected with the covenant of grace.

b. Points of connection. Notwithstanding the differences just mentioned, there is a most intimate connection between the two covenants. (1) The covenant of nature also originated in the grace of God. In this covenant, just as in the covenant of grace, God bestows on man not only unmerited favors, but blessings that were forfeited by sin. By nature man has no claim whatsoever on the natural blessings promised in this covenant. (2) This covenant also rests on the covenant of grace. It was established more particularly with Noah and his seed, because there were clear evidences of the realization of the covenant of grace in this family, Gen. 6:9; 7:1; 9:9,26,27. (3) It is also a necessary appendage (Witsius: “aanhangsel”) of the covenant of grace. The revelation of the covenant of grace in Gen. 3:16-19 already pointed to earthly and temporal blessings. These were absolutely necessary for the realization of the covenant of grace. In the covenant with Noah the general character of these blessings is clearly brought out, and their continuance is confirmed.


Excerpt From: Louis Berkhof. “Systematic Theology.” iBooks.

 

[Cymro]

Was not the world made for Calvary and not Calvary for the world?
As Bruce has stated in other words, the cosmos is the theatre in which
the drama of Redemption would be enacted.This mortal coil serves the wisdom of God
to display the glory of His Son, as the world was made by Him,and For Him.
"To the intent that Now unto the principalities and powers might be known
by the church the manifold (embroided curious work of art)wisdom of God,
according to the eternal purpose which He purposed in Jesus Christ our Lord."
The atonement is the supreme demonstration of the love of God,and the basis for
his intercession, without which no man can approach that intrinsic holiness.
The glory of God is seen in the face or person and work of Jesus Christ.Now
we see in part and have the light of the knowledge of that glory in Him, but
in the blessedness of heaven we shall not only see Him but intellectually
comprehend the wonder and fullness of the great plan of redemption. Such
comprehension that will volunteer a spontaneous eternal ebullition of praise,
"Worthy is the Lamb that was SLAIN."