Rewriting

In K. Scott Oliphint’s Covenantal Apologetics there is a subtle reformulation of the doctrine of WCF 7.2.  Says Oliphint (p. 40):

There is a great chasm fixed between God and his creatures, and the result of such a chasm is that we, all of humanity, could never have any fruition of God, unless he saw fit, voluntarily (graciously), to condescend to us by way of covenant.

This way of putting things quietly excludes the covenant from being a matter of indifference.  Whereas for Westminster both the fact and the means of God relating to man as his blessedness and reward are due voluntary condescension, it would seem that for Oliphint if God meant to relate to man, covenant was the only way available.

It is, in fact, a quite similar line of reasoning to that hypothesis of consequent absolute necessity adopted by John Murray vis-a-vis the atonement in Redemption Accomplished and Applied.  It is also in keeping with the dislocation of the covenant of works from providence to creation.

In this way, it is possible to profess adherence to the Westminster Confession, while simultaneously altering its meaning and emphasis.