Covenant Theology

[Van]

Covenant Theology is a view that interprets the Bible through the eyes of speculative rationalism. In eternity, before creation, the Godhead committed to a purpose and plan they call the “Covenant of Redemption.” Evidence from scripture can be found in that the Lamb of God was “foreknown” before the foundation of the world, 1 Peter 1:19-20.

I must digress here to explain that “foreknowledge” refers to knowledge obtained or formulated in the past, and is be utilized or implemented in the present. Thus God knew the Lamb of God before creation as part of the “Covenant of Redemption” which is being implemented in the present, i.e. has appeared in these last times. Thus this view appears to have at least a basis in scripture. And this is bolstered by Ephesians 1:3-4 where God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. This again points to a plan of redemption before creation, the Covenant of Redemption. Thus the plan of redemption was formulated before creation, and the person of the Godhead –the Word – was chosen as the Redeemer – the Lamb of God, and those to be redeemed were known (either individually or corporately) before creation. Therefore when you see the plan of redemption being described, it includes the blessings of the redemption plan being applied in the present to those people God planed for in the past and therefore foreknew.

With this overarching view of history in mind, then the Bible describes the unfolding of this Covenant of Redemption. So far so good! But what does the Bible say is the reason for this “Covenant of Redemption.” To bring glory to God! When we repent we bring glory to God. Therefore our repentance must be autonomous, because if it were compelled, then it would not bring glory to God.

In summary the Covenant of Redemption seems valid, but the Calvinistic characterization of the plan seems mistaken. As fundamentalists, we characterize the redemption plan according to a more literal understanding of the text. Therefore we reject most of Covenant Theology and embrace the more literal dispensational view, whether traditional or progressive. But we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[TCGreek]

"Covenant Theology is a view that interprets the Bible through the eyes of speculative rationalism."

Then you don't understand Covenant Theology.

 

[asterisktom]

"Covenant Theology is a view that interprets the Bible through the eyes of speculative rationalism."

Then you don't understand Covenant Theology.

I agree.

Also it doesn't seem right to use one term to describe a wide variance among Christians, all who do believe in covenants - just not to the same extent. For instance, there are some who believe in a Covenant of Works extending back to Adam (contrary to proper Scriptural evidence) and others who don't (like NCT believers, Riesinger, Zaspel, etc.).

The term unhelpfully coopts the whole group under one umbrella.

 

[Bronconagurski]

"Covenant Theology is a view that interprets the Bible through the eyes of speculative rationalism."

Then you don't understand Covenant Theology.

How would you define it, TCG? Since I am a dispy, I would be interested to hear.

 

[Iconoclast]

"Covenant Theology is a view that interprets the Bible through the eyes of speculative rationalism."

Then you don't understand Covenant Theology.

Correct, absolutely correct....:applause::applause::applause::thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

I agree.

Also it doesn't seem right to use one term to describe a wide variance among Christians, all who do believe in covenants - just not to the same extent. For instance, there are some who believe in a Covenant of Works extending back to Adam (contrary to proper Scriptural evidence) and others who don't (like NCT believers, Riesinger, Zaspel, etc.).

The term unhelpfully coopts the whole group under one umbrella.

Also correct..we have two winners:applause::thumbs:

 

[thomas15]

How would you define it, TCG? Since I am a dispy, I would be interested to hear.

Good luck getting a covenant theology hobbiest to answer your question. I have been asking for a biblical defense of the covenants of works, redemption and grace for over a year in the theology forum and have received little.

 

[Iconoclast]

Good luck getting a covenant theology hobbiest to answer your question. I have been asking for a biblical defense of the covenants of works, redemption and grace for over a year in the theology forum and have received little.

Thomas
You have been answered many times, but do not like or want the answer.
Do not blame us that you are the only christian in america that does not see biblical covenants....unless the text says[Attention Thomas 15...this verse is speaking about a covenant}:type::wavey:

 

[Van]

"Covenant Theology is a view that interprets the Bible through the eyes of speculative rationalism."

Then you don't understand Covenant Theology.

Over and over folk, Calvinists post attacks on the character and qualifications of others, or in other words post logical fallacies, to obscure the truth. They add nothing to the discussion.

I was actually defending the Covenant of Redemption, but not one single Calvinist could read well enough to discern the obvious. They post "deep" insights like not all folks that claim to be adherents of Covenant Theology believe the same thing. Well duh, thanks for your devotion to the obvious.

Thomas, the opening post presents a defense of the Covenant of Redemption. And yes, I know different authors use different names for the overarching Covenant established before the foundation of the world. Therefore most efforts at discussion get sidetracked with folks asserting distinctions without an actual difference.

Now if you have followup questions, I will try to answer them. And I see no need to claim to be an expert, but I do claim my views will be supported from scripture for you to check as a "noble Berean."

 

[Van]

Progressive dispensationalists believe the promises to the Old Testament Saints that have not yet been fulfilled, i.e. like the thousand year reign of Jesus on the Throne of David, will also be applied to the New Covenant Saints. So this is sometimes called Covenant Theology Lite.

But a major division exists within the dispensational crowd, as to how a person becomes part of the people covered by a specific covenant. For example God promised to "the descendents of Abraham" and many believe this is a promise to those whose blood line can be traced back to Abraham. This is the traditional dispensationalist view. Progressives reject this, and say the "descendents" are those who believe, based on Galatians 3:7 and the whole chapter.

So while Covenant Theology says the church replaced true Israel, and therefore the promises such as the millennial reign of Jesus, are being fulfilled spiritually in the current "heavenly" kingdom, progressive dispensationalists would say the promises will be fulfilled literally but applied to both Old and New Testament believers.

In summary, all three groups believe God's covenant promises will be fulfilled, but differ greatly on how one comes into the covenant and how the covenant will be fulfilled. The progressives accept that your blood line has nothing to do with being a member of the Covenant of Redemption, because you must be born anew.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Over and over folk, Calvinists post attacks on the character and qualifications of others, or in other words post logical fallacies, to obscure the truth. They add nothing to the discussion.

I was actually defending the Covenant of Redemption, but not one single Calvinist could read well enough to discern the obvious. They post "deep" insights like not all folks that claim to be adherents of Covenant Theology believe the same thing. Well duh, thanks for your devotion to the obvious.

Thomas, the opening post presents a defense of the Covenant of Redemption. And yes, I know different authors use different names for the overarching Covenant established before the foundation of the world. Therefore most efforts at discussion get sidetracked with folks asserting distinctions without an actual difference.

Now if you have followup questions, I will try to answer them. And I see no need to claim to be an expert, but I do claim my views will be supported from scripture for you to check as a "noble Berean."

My only question for you is, "How in the name of Betsy do you confuse 'Covenant Theology' and Calvinism?"

But then again- knowing who I am speaking to, I understand.

 

[TCGreek]

How would you define it, TCG? Since I am a dispy, I would be interested to hear.

Covenant theology is so named because those who hold to it see the structure of the Bible revelation as covenantal in nature. This is chiefly owing to divine condescension - as such the ancient Near Eastern covenants and so on between nations.

 

[thomas15]

....[Attention Thomas 15...this verse is speaking about a covenant}:type::wavey:

But of course!

 

[thomas15]

Covenant theology is so named because those who hold to it see the structure of the Bible revelation as covenantal in nature. This is chiefly owing to divine condescension - as such the ancient Near Eastern covenants and so on between nations.

Or to put it in laymen's terms, since the Bible makes mention of a few covenants, covenant theology (as taught by those who consider the WCF to be authoritative) is the correct method of scripture interpretation.

 

[Van]

"Covenant Theology uses the covenant concept as an organizing principle for Christian theology and views the history of redemption under the framework of three overarching theological covenants: the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace. These three are called "theological covenants" because although not explicitly presented as covenants, they are, according to covenant theologians, implicit in the Bible."

Covenant Theology teaches that God has established one theological covenant within the Godhead and then has used two theological covenants with mankind to implement the overarching purpose and plan of the first covenant.

The first covenant, usually called the Covenant of Redemption, is the agreement within the Godhead that the Father would appoint his Son Jesus to give up his life for mankind and that Jesus would do so (cf. Titus 1:1-3).​

The above statement from the internet has been edited and paraphrased to improve clarity.

An interesting question arises from Paul's use of "before times eternal" in Titus 1:2 and 2 Timothy 1:9. If Paul did not intend to refer to the times before the ages, i.e. eternity before creation, why did he not say "from the beginning?" At best one could claim Paul was referring to the time before both the New Covenant and the Old Mosaic Covenant, i.e. back to the promises to Abraham, but is that valid?

 

[Yeshua1]

Good luck getting a covenant theology hobbiest to answer your question. I have been asking for a biblical defense of the covenants of works, redemption and grace for over a year in the theology forum and have received little.

probably because they are NOT actually expressed in the Bible, but INFERRED to be as such, due to the theological basis of how the Covenants should/would/do work between God and man!

 

[Yeshua1]

Covenant theology is so named because those who hold to it see the structure of the Bible revelation as covenantal in nature. This is chiefly owing to divine condescension - as such the ancient Near Eastern covenants and so on between nations.

Do you see that between new Covenant theology and progressive Dispy, that both camps seem to be trying to mediate a middle position here though?

 

[Yeshua1]

Or to put it in laymen's terms, since the Bible makes mention of a few covenants, covenant theology (as taught by those who consider the WCF to be authoritative) is the correct method of scripture interpretation.

You have to factor in also the 'Analog" of faith that allows one to 'rightly divide the truth" of the word of God!

 

[Van]

Does anyone disagree that God before creation had chosen a Redeemer, and therefore both anticipated the Fall necessitating the Redeemer, and those the Redeemer would redeem? Could these revelations be considered the theological covenant of redemption?

 

[thomas15]

Does anyone disagree that God before creation had chosen a Redeemer, and therefore both anticipated the Fall necessitating the Redeemer, and those the Redeemer would redeem? Could these revelations be considered the theological covenant of redemption?

I don't think "chosen" is a good word to use since the redeemer is the second person of the triune Godhead and is fully God.

The problem with the doctrine of the covenant of redemption is that the Bible does not mention it.