God’s Glory in the Covenant
~~~~~~~~~
Thesis: God’s glory is the totality of His being, as it is disclosed in a grand display, to and through all of His creatures.
~~~~~~~~~
Term Paper
for
ST 113: The Doctrine of God
Prof. Timothy Trumper
Spring 2001
Submitted by
Tim Black

1. Introduction

This paper seeks to define the doctrine of the glory of God, and then to work out some of its implications. The only way to legitimate this paper’s treatment of the biblical doctrine of God’s glory is to place it in its proper context, first in regard to the need for this treatment in the context of Reformed scholarship and second in regard to the divinely-ordained propriety of this arrangement of the biblical material.

1. The Need for this Treatment in the Context of Reformed Scholarship

I am building on the past development of Reformed theology, and attempting to fill in what appears to be a lacuna; the glory of God as a locus in theology has not received attention comparable with the importance accorded to it in scripture and in the history of theology. A brief survey would turn up Calvin’s emphasis on the glory or majesty of God, the Westminster Standards’ highlighting the fact that “the chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever,” and the several titles (Owen, The Glory of Christ, R. B. Kuiper, The Glorious Body of Christ) and terms (Kline’s never-ceasing prefix of Glory- throughout his writings, e.g., Glory-Spirit, Glory-Presence, Glory-Tabernacle, Glory-Temple, Shekinah-Glory) which bring to the forefront the importance of God’s glory. Despite this recognition of the centrality of God’s glory, it appears that few systematic expositions of God’s glory can be found.

1. The Divinely-Ordained Propriety of this Arrangement of the Biblical Material¹

The structure and content of the doctrine presented in this paper is derived from and gives rise to the following overarching “theory of everything:” 1) God: God is glorious, and absolutely prior to everything other than Himself ( = all His creatures), in every way. God’s glory is the totality of His being, as it is disclosed in a grand display, to and through all of His creatures; as such it is woven throughout His metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.² God’s chief end is to glorify and thereby enjoy Himself forever, thus such becomes the derivative end of all His creatures. 2) Covenant in God: God is covenantal in His metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics; His glory is by means of a covenantal relation amongst the Persons of the Godhead. 3) Covenant with Man: God is glorious, reveals His glory, and enacts and implements His glory by the one and only means of a covenant-relationship with (creation and)³ man, which is derivative from and the outflow of the covenantal relationship extant within Himself. Thus we know of God and His intertrinitarian covenant only by means of the revelation found in this covenant. In general terms, the covenant is the mutual and binding relationship between God and man, through which God discloses Himself in all His glory, and by means of which God relates to the people whom He created. More specifically, that covenant is metaphysically composed of God’s glory in two components: God’s commitment(s) toward man (expressed in promise(s)) and God’s requirement(s) of reciprocal commitment(s) from man (expressed in law(s)). The covenant epistemologically expresses God’s glory in two epistemological modes: word and deed; linguistic and active; as the WCF puts it, via revelation and manifestation.⁴ Thus His words to man are the verbal proclamation to man of His covenant with man, and Scripture is this proclamation in written, summary form. As a result, the form of scripture and of the proclamation conveyed thereby cannot help but follow the structures of the covenant. Therefore the theology in scripture follows the structure of the covenant; as does the specific (though all-encompassing) doctrine of the glory of God. Thus the systematic outlines of the covenant form the lens through which systematic theology is focused, and the historical outlines of the covenant’s progressive building and development form the lens through which biblical theology is focused. This is further apparent in that the covenant ethically enacts and implements God’s glory in two ethical dynamics, actions, or activities: God’s sovereign administration, and man’s responsible reception. The clear implication is that God’s glory is given to man in the form of the covenant, and must be recognized and received as such. Let us take part, then, in exalting His glory, by turning more directly to the doctrine of God’s glory as it is proclaimed to us in scripture, following the systematic outlines of its covenantally-structured presentation.

1. The Glory of God in the Covenant

God’s glory is the totality of His being, as it is disclosed in a grand display, to and through all of His creatures. Each of these aspects is so intertwined with the others that the scripture references used to demonstrate one aspect will also simultaneously provide content in support of the reality of the other aspects.

1. Metaphysical Construction: Promise(s) and Law(s) (Commitment(s) and Requirement(s))

God’s covenant with us is constructed of two primary components: God’s commitments expressed in promises, and His requirements toward Himself and toward man expressed in laws. This structure can be seen in the glory which is the summary of God’s perfections or attributes.

2 Pet. 1:3-4 combines all of the elements of God’s glory in a summary fashion: God’s (metaphysical) being is His glory in that God has “called us by glory and goodness,” and through the (epistemological) knowledge of Him derived from His revelation, which is in the form of “exceedingly great and precious promises,” by God’s (ethical) power by which He “has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness.”

We see that God’s glory is His being; it is not merely the display of God’s being, but further it is God’s being which is displayed. Christ is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being. (Heb. 1:3) His glory is the glory of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (Jn 1:14) His transcendence is part of His glory. “The Lord is high above all nations, His glory above the heavens.” (Ps. 113:4) His glory is His goodness, His mercy, His compassion, His graciousness, His being slow-to-anger, His being abounding in lovingkindness and truth, His truth. (Ex. 33:19; 34:6-7) His glory is His holiness, thus He says, “the tabernacle will be sanctified by My glory.” (Ex. 29:43)

God’s glory is His commitment to be what He is, and His requirement for Himself to be what He is. His glory is His truthfulness, His commitment to the truth; His requirement that He does not lie. (1 Sam. 15:29) God has promised, committed Himself, and requires Himself, to maintain His glory: “My glory I will not give to another.” (Is. 42:8)

God’s glory is also the basis of and standard for His moral requirement(s) for man in the covenant: (Rom. 3:23) “For all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God.”

1. Epistemological Expression: Word and Deed

Not only is God’s glory His being, but it is also His epistemological expression—the grand display—of His being. His glory is abundant and overflowing, thus as a fountain it seeks to be put on a grand display toward all of His creatures. Throughout scripture the predominant use of the word “glory” has to do with this display of God’s perfections.

There are two modes of God’s covenantal revelation: God reveals in His words and in His deeds. Thus we learn that “The voice of the Lord is powerful, the voice of the Lord is full of majesty.” (Ps. 29:4) Thus Psalm 19 exalts the way that all of God’s creation (His deeds and their product) declares His glory (Psalms 8 and 104 say the same), but also exalts the glorious revelation of God’s glory in His words, His laws, His promises. Scripture tells us that “The Lord has made His wonderful works to be remembered.” (Ps. 111:4)

God displays His glory by means of His work of creation and providence; His deeds. Thus Rom. 1:20 says “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made.” (NASB) One of the most prominent forms of God’s deed-manifestation of His glory in the OT especially, but also to some extent in the NT, is through physical light emitted by fire and shielded round about by a cloud, both of which as the display of God’s being are also called God’s glory. (1 Kings 8:10-11, Is. 6:4, Ex. 24:17, Lev. 9:24). Another key theme throughout scripture is the manner in which the display of God’s glory in His deeds is bound up with its implementation in man as the image and glory of God. (1 Cor. 11:7) This will be taken up in more detail in the following section.

1. Ethical Activity: Sovereign Administration and Responsible Reception

God implements His glory in His ethical activity and its effects, and derivative from His activity, in our activity and its effects. Further, His glory is communicated to us, and then returned to Him, in the ethics of the covenant.

God’s ethical activity implements His glory. God has crowned man with glory and honor (Ps. 8:5). In His works of creation and providence, God makes His name excellent in all the earth. (vv. 1, 9) “The whole earth is full of His glory.” (Is. 6:3) Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father. (Rom. 6:4) Here God’s power and activity is in view. The Father glorifies the Son, the Son glorifies the Father. (John 17:1)

God implements His glory in His people, through his ethical activity, His sovereign administration of the covenant. We are being transformed into a greater likeness of God’s glory. “But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory.” (2 Cor. 3:18) God’s might is glorious, and strengthens us so that we may have great endurance and patience. (Col. 1:11) Glory is the term used to summarize the final state to which God brings us in the administration of His covenant: “you also will appear with Him in glory.” (Col. 3:4) The goal of our salvation is that we will be glorified: “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.” (Rom. 8:29-30)

Yet while God’s sovereign administration remains primary, our responsible reception of the covenant is equally ultimate with God’s activity; both are fully real. The ethics of the covenant are not monergistic in an absolute and exclusive sense; there is a real interaction between God and man, and this interaction involves the implementation of God’s glory and its return to Him.

In regard to its implementation in our responsible reception: Zion—God’s people—will shine with God’s glory, because the glory of the Lord has risen upon it. (Is. 60:1) Similarly, there will be no need for the sun in the New Jerusalem, because the glory of God will illuminate it; the Lamb will be its light. (Rev. 21:23) The glory of the God who is the paradigmatic gold, silver, and precious stone of Rev. 4 is implemented as the glory of His people who are the gold, silver, and precious stones of the New Jerusalem in Rev. 21. The nations will bring in the glorious created things which are theirs into the New Jerusalem, in order to give them to God; to return praise to Him. (Rev. 21:24-26)

In regard to its implementation in our return of His glory to Him, we see that we must “Give to the Lord the glory due His name.” (1 Chron. 16:29) As we receive the metaphysical components of the covenant, we are “filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy” by faith in God’s promises. (1 Pet. 1:8) As we obey God’s law, we glorify Him, and even the unbelievers will “see [our] good works and glorify God on the day He visits us.” (1 Pet. 2:12, NIV) Likewise, as we receive the epistemological expressions of the covenant, we glorify God in our words and deeds as they are found in our epistemology and ethics: “Whoever speaks, let him speak, as it were, the utterances of God; whoever serves, let him do so as by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.” (1 Pet. 4:11, NASB) We must tell of who God is, in His actions. As such His glory becomes the content of the words which we speak; it is the glorious gospel. We are instructed to “declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all peoples.” (Ps. 96:3) Here both God’s deeds and the manner in which they communicate His attributes is in view. More such interrelations could be explained, if I had the time to do so.

1. There’s Glory for You: Caveats and Implications

Thus we have summarized the teaching of scripture regarding the threefold covenantal glory of God. This teaching contains innumerable implications which would be valuable to elucidate here, but there are also some important qualifications which I must make regarding the faithfulness with which I have represented the biblical doctrine.

1. Caveats: The Parallel Tracks of Discovery and Stipulation; And Speaking of Everything and Nothing All at Once

The outline utilized here of the structure of the covenant is an attempt to provide the best definition of the covenant possible, and I have a sense that it has done so. However, it is apparent to me that there are many unresolved questions about this definition, some of which indicate that the definition may well need refinement and revision. Despite its potential weaknesses, however, in my own experience it has demonstrated itself to be an excellent summary of the teaching of scripture regarding the covenant, and evidences promise of great benefit as an organizing structure and heuristic tool in exegesis and theology. This is the reason for its use here.

I am not attempting to describe a “canon within the canon,” but rather I am attempting to describe the unique and all-pervasive nature of the canon, in regard to its general structure, with specific regard to how that general structure is basic to the theology expressed therein, and with particular regard to the doctrine of God’s glory expressed in that theology. Here we face the difficulty of treating the broadest and most universal of issues with a concern for its particularity and uniqueness on that most universal level; to put the difficulty differently, here we are attempting to say both that the glory of God is to be identified as the sum of all of God’s attributes, revelation, and actions; His metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics; even perhaps the sum of all doctrine (and doctrines), yet while being so generally defined it nevertheless has its own particular character unique from other doctrines. Universal content remains unique despite its universality. It is a perspectival doctrine, but of the highest order. If this paper is correct, then it is about everything. If it is incorrect, it is about nothing. In the humility proper before God and His word, my great hope is that by God’s grace the definition I have stipulated is in fact in accord with the biblical presentation. In the certainty which is proper correlative to true humility before God and His word, I have stated the doctrine without much discussion of other manners in which the material can be organized; that would be a good project to tackle in the future.

1. Implications for Our Theology Proper

The implications of this understanding of the threefold covenantal glory of God indicate that within its formulation some of the important problems in theology proper are resolved.

1. Phenomenology

One important question in theology proper is whether and how the manner and means of our knowledge of God and of His being formulates or restricts the fidelity and content of our knowledge of God. In modern thought it is commonly held that the means of revelation prevent us from knowing the God who is revealed; we must protect against this danger, but there is a correlative danger in believing that the means of revelation allow us to know all of the God who is revealed. We ought to avoid both of these errors.

Another question we must face when discussing God's glory is whether it is part of God, or part of Creation. We must maintain the absolute difference between God and creation which Van Til calls the "Creator-creature distinction." God is not His creation. Yet at the same time, there appears to be a real identity between God's glory in Himself--His glory which He reveals, and God's glory in His revelation--His glory which is His revelation itself. The first sort of glory is part of God, the second is part of His revelation. Biblical passages readily come to mind that present both kinds of God's glory: His (ontological, metaphysical) glory (the sum-total of His attributes) is revealed, meaning His glory is His being which is revealed (Ex. 34:6-7). Yet His glory is also the revelation of His being (1 Kings 8:10-11, Is. 6:4, Ex. 24:17, Lev. 9:24). His revelation is one thing which exists on both sides of the boundary between God and His creation, and somehow crosses that boundary and remains the same on both sides of it without destroying the absolute difference between God and His creation. God remains distinct from His creation; He is not His creation, and creation is not God. Yet His revelation is His knowledge, which He has in Himself, and which He gives to us, such that it is expressed in creation and is part of creation. It becomes part of our thinking, and of our minds, of the message of our words, and it becomes manifest in our deeds. As such we see that God's ethical glory also similarly crosses the boundary between God and creation. But how can this be possible if we are to maintain the Creator-creature distinction? The answer is first that our minds, our understanding cannot pierce to the depths of how this works, for God's thoughts and ways are higher than ours. But we may yet come to some more careful and clear understandings of the issue, avoid some common pitfalls and see the nature and organization of the issues according to the way God reveals them in scripture. These answers lie along the lines of Van Til's doctrine of the "analogy" between God and man, or God and creation: Man's being, thoughts, and activity are "analogical" to God's, meaning that they are not identical with God's (they are not God's being, thoughts, and ways) in a comprehensive fashion (they are not "univocal" with God's), yet they are also not without any real identity of some sort with God's in that they are derivative from God's (being, thought, and activity) as a copy is from an original (they are not "equivocal" with God's being, thought, and activity.) There is identity and difference, unity and diversity. We "think God's thoughts after Him;" we truly "think God's thoughts," but we do so "after Him." Van Til's emphasis is on the diversity (on the Creator-creature distinction) between God and man, but in principle he is equally opposed to saying that God and man are utterly unrelated, with no point of identity, connection, or unity through which creation (of being), revelation/communication (of thought), or ethical activity (or relational interaction) between God and man can occur. This latter false option which Van Til opposes is what he calls "equivocity."⁵ So with God's glory, we want to say that insofar as God's revelation is part of God before He reveals it to us, it is identical with God, not only with His knowledge, but because His knowledge is Him, and He is His knowledge, His revelation before He reveals it--His knowledge--is His being. Here we must reject equivocity between God and man. Yet we also want to say that His knowledge--insofar as it is revealed to us and thereby somehow becomes part of creation--becomes distinct from God and is no longer Him, in His revelation. As such God's revelation is not God. Here we must reject univocity between God and man. The mystery of how this works is great. It is very deep, beyond our capacity to fully comprehend. But it is only by following this line that we may remain faithful to the biblical presentation of God's glory. And that not only in regard to God's knowledge, but also His activity. We are required to bring all of who we are--in our being, thought, and activity--into accord with God's being, thought, and activity. This is what God does when He reveals and implements His glory; He produces an analogy of His ontological/metaphysical glory--the glory which is His being--by making a copy of it which is derived from that glory of His being as the original from which the copy is copied. God makes something (created revelation and activity) that is truly His glory, yet is so by virtue of the fact that it remains distinct from yet in accord with His glory which is the sum-total of His ontological perfections. This relation of being "in accord with" God is at the center of Van Til's doctrine of analogy, and goes far to explain the structure of the biblical presentation of God's glory. Or does God's glory rather provide the explanation for Van Til's doctrine of analogy? : ) One way to treat the specifics of this issue is to view it in relation to modern discussions of phenomenology, the study of the phenomena we can observe in order to discover the being which they reveal. Are the modern phenomenologists in accord with the biblical presentation of God's glory? Let's take a look.⁶

1. The Proper Ground and Root of Phenomenology Is the Glorious God of the Covenant; The Result Is That We Know God Truly but Not Exhaustively

I want to argue that because God’s glory, and thus His being, is constituted by His commitments and requirements, is revealed through His epistemological words and deeds, and is implemented through His sovereign administration and our responsible reception, that our understanding of God’s glory, and His being, must accord at all points with God’s metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics as they function in the covenant, and as they form the original from which our metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics are derived. That is to say, because God’s metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics are primary relative to ours, and because ours are derived from His, we may know God truly; He is the guarantee of the fidelity and content of our knowledge. That is also to say, however, that because our metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics are that of a creature derived from God, we may not know God exhaustively; His thoughts and ways are higher than ours, exhaustively comprehending all things. Our understanding of God is perspectivally-qualified in that we can know Him only in the manner in which He presents Himself to us in the covenant, and from the perspective of a human living in that covenant; our knowledge must come by the means which God has ordained, which are the phenomena of the covenant. Following the God-centered pattern of the covenant will train our doctrine of God to be faithful to His initiative, to His primacy, in all respects, exalting His glory above all else, and will protect from the danger which has become a reality throughout the history of theology of constructing our own theology proper apart from faithfulness to God’s covenantal presentation of Himself.

1. The Proper Epistemological Method of Phenomenology Is God’s Covenantal Method of Revelation or “Self-Disclosure”⁷

Because God has chosen to reveal Himself through the particular means of the communicative words and deeds of the covenant, all of our knowledge of Him is gained through a study of and through those means. That is to say, we must study God’s word and deeds in order to study Him. This is the case with our study of God’s glory. Our knowledge of God’s glory can be gained only through a study of His word and His deeds. Thus our study is of necessity phenomenological in approach; we must study the phenomena which proclaim and manifest God’s glory. We will nevertheless be studying God’s being; our study of the phenomena does not preclude but rather includes a study of the God of which they are phenomena. Since the advent of Immanuel Kant’s philosophy, and particularly since that of Husserl, the phenomenologists, and the existentialists, the study of metaphysics (and ontology) has been replaced by the study of phenomena, because in the modern context it is believed that Kant’s world of phenomena does not communicate to us the truth about the noumenal world, the world which Kant considered to contain (the respective beings of) God, the soul, and “things-in-themselves.” In view of the fact that God treats His revelation as a revelation of Himself, we must seek to directly contradict the skepticism about metaphysics found in this Kantian line of thought by maintaining that God’s essential glory is revealed through the phenomena; the phenomena are not an empty display of nothing metaphysical behind their display. ( = No equivocity!) We will, however, parallel this line of thought by maintaining that our knowledge of God (and His creation) is limited to the sum of information which is revealed through the phenomena. ( = No univocity!) Thus our study of God’s being may only speak of what scripture speaks, and may only recognize what is manifest in God’s deeds. Further, if we recognize that God’s words always and only describe His deeds and their effects (including those deeds by which He maintains His essential being as it is, and including the concomitant effects of His being and attributes), and that His deeds always and only manifest to us what His word says, then our method of study will not go beyond what is written in scripture and correlatively manifest in the world around us. The end result of this approach is that we will remain faithful to God’s manner of disclosing Himself; we will seek to know “the things that have been revealed [which] are for us and for our children” and will not speculate about “the secret things [which] belong to God.” (Deut. 29:29) This study of God’s glory lends itself particularly well to the task of properly respecting God’s manner of self-disclosure, for the “glory” which we know of God is by definition both essential to God and manifested to us; it is both metaphysical and phenomenological in nature. That is to say, the structure of God's glory, and of the doctrine of God's glory, teaches us the proper method of theology, and especially of theology proper, which is the study of God Himself. The doctrine teaches that God's essential glory is revealed, thus our method must be to study God's revelation. Because by definition it reveals the fullness of God’s being insofar as we are capable of knowing it, we may properly limit our predication of God’s being to that which is revealed, and specifically, to that which is revealed as His glory. The implications of this for the use of extrabiblical philosophical terminology regarding the being of God should be fleshed out, but remain beyond the scope of this paper.⁸

1. The Understanding of Life

In addition to the limitations or formulation which phenomenology places on our understanding of God’s glory, so also is the case in regard to our practical, ethical, active and dynamic reception and return of God’s glory in its implementation. The principle here is that we understand God’s glory in its implementation in our lives, to the extent that it is implemented in our lives. Thus while what may be known about God—the glory of God—His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, which have been clearly seen since the creation of the world from the things that are made, is known by all men, including unbelievers, that knowledge is suppressed if men do not glorify God as God. (Rom. 1:18ff) That is to say, the manner in which we actively receive God’s being in His covenantal revelation delimits or formulates the way in which we understand and know God’s being. If we do not praise God, we do not know Him aright. On the final judgment day even the rebellious knees of unbelievers will bow, and their false tongues will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Is. 45:20-25, Philippians 2:10-11) Our doctrine of God is then indissolubly bound up with what may be called the “understanding of life,” the ethical implementation of God’s glory in our responsible reception of it and our response of returning it to God in praise and worship. Theology is doxological, in the fullest of senses; the metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics—the sum total—of both God and man is involved in the proper functioning of theology, for theology is covenantal in nature. Thus there is a real sense in which theology is communicated from glory to glory; if the glory has departed from our reception of God’s covenantal dealings with us, it has of necessity also departed from our understanding of His words and deeds, and thereby from our understanding of God Himself in His commitments and requirements. If His glory is not in us, then we have lost it in Him, if we lose it in Him, it is lost in us.

1. Conclusion

The doctrine of the glory of God highlights, then, the necessity of clinging to God in all His glory, through the gospel of Christ, to be free from our sinful suppression of the truth. We are bound up with Him in the covenant relationship in such a way that we must glorify and enjoy Him forever.⁹ We may glorify Him as God only insofar as our words and deeds are brought into accord with His words and deeds,¹⁰ and only insofar as our reception and response in the covenant is performed in a manner that accords responsibly with His administration and interaction with us.¹¹ For from Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever!

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

Bavinck, Herman. The Doctrine of God. Trans. Wiliam Hendriksen. (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1951).

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996).

Edwards, Jonathan. The End for Which God Created The World. In Piper, John, God’s Passion for His Glory: Living the Vision of Jonathan Edwards. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1998). Edwards’ concepts in his Section Six (pp. 229-241) are remarkably similar to the ones I present in this paper. I must mention that I skimmed over this section of Edwards’ book prior to writing this paper, and was influenced by some of his thoughts therein, but did not study that section carefully. As such I must say that my conception of the covenant remains original (it was developed prior to reading Edwards), but some of my ideas regarding God’s glory in regard to its covenantal structure are slightly influenced by Edwards’ formulations. I formulated the conception of the covenant utilized in this paper in my senior project at Covenant College, written in 1998, titled The Biblical Hermeneutics of Geerhardus Vos: An Analysis and Critique (135 pp.).

Gaffin, Richard B. Jr. “Glory,” pp. 507-511. In New Dictionary of Biblical Theology: Exploring the Unity & Diversity of Scripture. Ed. T Desmond Alexander, Brian S. Rosner, D. A. Carson, Graeme Goldsworthy. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000).

Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Vol. 1. (Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1999).

Jones, David Clyde. Biblical Christian Ethics. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994). Chapter 2 discusses “The Goal of the Christian Life” as the glory of God. Read prior to writing the paper, but not consulted for this paper, reviewed later.

Krabbendam, Henry. Christian Doctrine Syllabus. (Privately published, 1995) 224 pp. It was in taking this course and reading this syllabus that I saw Van Til’s understanding of the equal ultimacy of the universals and particulars demonstrated to be in evidence throughout orthodox Christian doctrine, and that I saw a careful covenantal systematic theology, and it was this from which I gleaned the pair-structure of the distinctions promise-law, word-deed, and sovereignty-responsibility. (Krabbendam also has a short book titled Sovereignty and Responsibility: A Reexamination of the Pelagian Controversy and its Implications in Historical and Global Perspective. (Privately published: 1997) 70 pp., which carefully presents the relation between sovereignty and responsibility.) Krabbendam also ingrained in me Van Til’s constant distinction between metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. The doctrine of the covenant presented in this paper ties together many threads of Van Til’s and Dr. Krabbendam’s thought in a way neither of them has done before.

Piper, John. Future Grace. Let the Nations Be Glad. [fill in details later]

Ramm, Bernard. Them He Glorified: A Systematic Study of the Doctrine of Glorification. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963). Not consulted for this paper, but I hope to read it later.

Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith: In One Volume. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1998).

Vos, Geehardus. “The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology,” in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos. Ed. Richard B. Gaffin. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., 1980) pp. 234-267.

Note: I have read other authors on the topics involved in this paper, notably John Murray and Meredith Kline, both of whom deserve further study. However, the above texts had a more direct role in the formation of this paper. I do not intend to purport that this paper does not interact with the ideas and writings of many others not mentioned in this bibliography.