Covenant Theology, Christocentric Theology (New Covenant Theology), and Dispensationalism...oh my

[JonC]

When I was in seminary we studied theology. This means we studied various positions equally to gain an understanding rather than silence or advocate one position over another.

The reason is we cannot truly evaluate our own position against another unless we understand the other view. We cannot even know that our position is more biblical unless we understand the other view.

I do not advocate Covenant Theology, however this does not mean that I do not want others to understand Covenant Theology. It is impossible to evaluate (to accept or reject) the framework without first understanding it.

This is revisiting a thread that was closed prior to any legitimate discussion.

There are many forms of Covenant Theology, the most prominent being within Reformed Theology and Methodist Theology. The most common among Baptists is Covenant Theology within Reformed Theology, so that is the direction I am going. But the basic principles are the same.

My goal is to discuss the three main frameworks of viewing Scripture (Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism, and Christocentric or New Covenant Theology ).

I am starting with Covenant Theology because that is the one which was closed.

 

[JonC]

OK…. What is Covenant Theology (Covenantalism)?

First, what it is not. Covenant Theology is not actually theology. It is more specific and is typically found in a broader theology (Reformed Theology). Covenant Theology is not a study of covenants, although studying covenants is important to Covenantalism.

Covenant Theology is a hermeneutical approach, or framework, that seeks to interpret Scripture according to a structure of covenants. It is that simple.

Covenant Theology defines a covenant simply as a formal arrangement between two or more parties (typically, between God and man).

What gets difficult is the fact that covenants, and even the arrangements of covenants, change depending on who you are talking to. Originally Covenant Theology was comprised of two covenants based along gospel lines (works and grace). But this is the start point from which Covenant Theology as it’s known today began.

In Reformed Theology the three main covenants are the covenant of redemption, the covenant of grace, and the covenant of works.

The covenant of works is a covenant between God and man (specifically Adam, but Adam as man’s representative). The idea is that God entered into a formal agreement with Adam that if Adam would obey then Adam would have eternal life. But if Adam disobeyed then Adam would die.

The covenant of grace extends through the Old and New Testaments, culminating in the work of Christ. In the Old Testament the covenant of grace is seen in other covenants God made with people (Noah, Abraham, Moses, and so on). Here the covenant is narrow and looks to Christ achieving what Adam could not. In the New Testament the covenant widens (it is no longer being given to individual family groups but extends out to incorporate all people groups). Christ succeeded where Adam failed, and on that basis the Promise is come.

The covenant of redemption is a covenant between the Godhead (Father, Son, and Spirit). Some Reformed theologians disagreed on this one. John Owen considers the covenant of redemption to be strictly between the Father and Son (not technically excluding the Spirit as we are dealing with Trinity). Either way, the agreement is between the Father and Son. This is an eternal covenant, or agreement, whereby the elect are saved.

 

[JonC]

Within the covenant of grace there are individual covenants typically given to smaller people groups (like to Noah).

 

[JonC]

 

[JonC]

The covenant of redemption is considered an eternal covenant which existed prior to Creation. It is between the Father and Son (according to John Owen) or the Father, Son, and Spirit (according to some contemporary Reformed teachers).

 

[JonC]

The way a Reformed Prof and friend explained it (the way he pictured the covenants) was as a waggon wheel.

The covenant of redemption is everlasting and is the base for all covenants. The covenant of grace is the wheel with other covenants (Noahiac, Abrahamic, and so on) as spokes in the wheel.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

When I was in seminary we studied theology. This means we studied various positions equally to gain an understanding rather than silence or advocate one position over another.

The reason is we cannot truly evaluate our own position against another unless we understand the other view. We cannot even know that our position is more biblical unless we understand the other view.

I do not advocate Covenant Theology, however this does not mean that I do not want others to understand Covenant Theology. It is impossible to evaluate (to accept or reject) the framework without first understanding it.

This is revisiting a thread that was closed prior to any legitimate discussion.

There are many forms of Covenant Theology, the most prominent being within Reformed Theology and Methodist Theology. The most common among Baptists is Covenant Theology within Reformed Theology, do that is the direction I am going. But the basic principles are the same.

My goal is to discuss the three main frameworks of viewing Scripture (Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism, and Christocentric Theology).

I am starting with Covenant Theology because that is the one which was closed.

Why was it closed?

 

[JonC]

Why was it closed?

When a member is banned open threads they started are closed.

The reason is the author of the thread established it's initial direction. He or she does not own the thread, but are essential at least at the start to establish it's focus.

 

[JonC]

That pretty much covers the basic framework of Covenant Theology. From there individual covenants (both biblical and derived) are studied.

The primary focus of Covenant Theology is the elect -
Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661) and Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669) are the primary developers of Covenant theology, so it has been around for awhile in one form or another.

The focus of Covenant Theology is establishing a people of God. In Reformed Theology the focus is "the elect" based on a Calvinistic understanding of "election".

 

[JonC]

OK….so what is Christocentric Theology?

While Covenant Theology focuses on God developing an elect people Christocentric Theology focuses on Christ (on the very Being of Christ) and views the New Covenant as the fulfillment of the Old Covenant (without being within an overarching covenant). Christocentric Theology is not as defined a framework as Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism.

The most common form of Christocentric Theology is New Covenant Theology (NCT). It is not a new Covenant Theology, but New Covenant Theology (the primary covenant is the New Covenant).

NCT

NCT is not a new way of viewing Scripture, but recently it has experienced a renewed interest – especially among Reformed Churches. NCT is reflected in the First London Baptist Confession of 1646.

Aspects of NCT can be seen in the theologies of men like Gary Long, Piper Ditzel, John Zens, John Reisinger, Douglas Moo, Tom Schreiner and DA Carson (although not all would label their view as such). And NCT is the traditional framework among Baptist churches.

If you are my age, and grew up in a Baptist church, you have probably been taught some form of NCT. All Scripture focuses on Christ, the OT covenants were progressive in nature in that they progressed towards the Promise revealed. The Old Covenant ended with its fulfillment in Christ with the New Covenant. There are no over arching covenants, but instead the covenants in the text of Scripture are already in the appropriate order.

 

[AustinC]

Everybody Wants to be Christocentric, But What Does that Even Mean?

 

[JonC]

Everybody Wants to be Christocentric, But What Does that Even Mean?

Good question. Sometimes we use terms based on our experience with the incorrect assumption they are understood. I should have defined the word before continuing to use it.

Christocentric means "centered on Christ".

For example - while Reformed, Karl Barth was very "Christocentric" (centered on Christ) in his approach to theology. Barth insisted that nothing can be known if the Father except through Christ, and any attempt to speak of the mind of the Father without this being the mind of Christ as revealed in Scripture was not "theology" but ", philosophy' because God cannot be known except as revealed in Christ.

In regards to NCT, "Christocentric" speaks of its Christ- centered approach to understanding Scripture. It does not consider "covenants" assumed to have been made between God and Adam valid as they are not in the Bible (not in "what is written').

Where Covenant Theology looks to the Father making a way to form a people of the elect (Spurgeon called this God's choice possession), Christocentric looks to Christ Himself.

The purpose of the Law (under Christocentric Theology) was as a "schoolmaster" to show us our sin and point to Christ as the only fulfillment of the Law. The purpose of the Abrahamic Covenant was to point to Christ as the Seed of Abraham. The purpose of the New Covenant is to glorify Christ as the Firstborn of many brethren.

In Christocentric Theology the important factor is not the choosing of the Father but Christ in the elect.

In Christocentric Theology the primary purpose of salvation is not to save the man but to glorify Christ in the salvation of man.

"Christocentric" simply means "Christ-centered". NCT is Christ-Centered as the primary covenant is not "the covenant of grace" which focuses on "the elect" or the "covenant of redemption" which focuses on a formal agreement between the Father and Son, but the New Covenant which IS Christ.

 

[JonC]

Attached is a chart showing how New Covenant They compares with Covenant Theology.

As you can see, there is a lot of agreement and partial agreement. But there are important differences.

For example, where Covenant Theology has the "covenant of redemption" as an eternal covenant NCT rejects that as a covenant at all (because it is not presented as a covenant in Scripture). Instead NCT holds redemption as God's eternal redemptive plan or purpose.

 

[Silverhair]

Christocentric means "centered on Christ".

For example - while Reformed, Karl Barth was very "Christocentric" (centered on Christ) in his approach to theology. Barth insisted that nothing can be known if the Father except through Christ, and any attempt to speak of the mind of the Father without this being the mind of Christ as revealed in Scripture was not "theology" but ", philosophy' because God cannot be known except as revealed in Christ.

In regards to NCT, "Christocentric" speaks of its Christ- centered approach to understanding Scripture. It does not consider "covenants" assumed to have been made between God and Adam valid as they are not in the Bible (not in "what is written').

Where Covenant Theology looks to the Father making a way to form a people of the elect (Spurgeon called God's choice possession) by send Christ, Christocentric looks to Christ Himself.

The purpose of the Law (under Christocentric Theology) was as a "schoolmaster" to show us our sin and point to Christ as the only fulfillment of the Law. The purpose of the Abrahamic Covenant was to point to Christ as the Seed of Abraham. The purpose of the New Covenant is to exhaust Christ as the Firstborn of many brethren.

In Christocentric Theology the important factor is not the choosing of the Father but Christ in the elect.

In Christocentric Theology the primary purpose of salvation is not to save the man but to glorify Christ in the salvation of man.

"Christocentric" simply means "Christ-centered". NCT is Christ-Centered as the primary covenant is not "the covenant of grace" which focuses on "the elect" or the "covenant of redemption" which focuses on a formal agreement between the Father and Son, but instead the New Covenant which IS Christ.

I think Paul said it very well:
1Co 2:1 When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.
1Co 2:2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

 

[JonC]

Attached is a chart showing how NCT compares to Classic Dispensationalism (the next framework to discuss God willing).

Not yet moving on to summarizing Classic Dispensationalism, but here is the chart.

 

[JonC]

I think Paul said it very well:
1Co 2:1 When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.
1Co 2:2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

That's a good observation.

Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism were formulated in the academic arena. Christocentric Theology was formed in churches strictly from Scripture.

Many of the ideas expressed in Covenant Theology are absent in Christocentric Theology, however they use the same passages.

For example, Covenant Theology determined that there must have been a "formal agreement" between the Father and Son that has extended from eternity past to eternity present. This eternal covenant, therefore, is the base for all other covenants.

Christocentric Theology views God's eternal redemptive plan to save men in and through Christ.

Covenant Theology views God as entering into a formal agreement with Adam that Adam would have eternal life if he didn't sin, however if Adam did sin then Adam would die.

Christological Theology views God as commanding Adam not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge with the consequence of disobedience being death (not a covenant but a command).

Christocentric Theology IS Christ and Him crucified. This is what shapes the NCT view of Scripture. The Old Covenant looks to its fulfillment in the New Covenant, in Christ.

 

[Salty]

Interesting subject - I have not heard of that doctrine before - will have to look into it a bit more.

 

[JonC]

Dispensationalism is another framework, or system of interpreting the Bible. Dispensationalism interprets Scripture through various "dispensations' (systems of God's interaction with man throughout different times or ages).

John Darby, a Calvinist teacher among the Plymouth Brethren, is typically cited as the originator of modern Dispensationalism, but Dispensationalism has existed in some form since at least the 13th Century.

One of the earlier forerunners of modern Dispensationalism is Joachim of Fiore (1145-1202). Fiore organized the Bible into three stages of human history (Age of the Father, Age of the Sin, and Age of the Spirit).

The first theologian to develop a fully Dispensationalist system is Pierre Poiret (1646-1719).

Where Covenant Theology is focused on interpreting Scripture within the framework of God developing an electric people, and NCT is focused on interpreting the Bible through Christ Himself, Dispensationalism interprets Scripture through divisions in history where God interacts with man differently.

Dispensationalism is more complex than Covenant Theology and Covenant Theology is more complex than NCT.

 

[JonC]

This is a chart of the history of Dispensationalism (showing various versions) and a chart showing an example of the dispensations with a Dispensationalist framework.

 

[JonC]

These are the three main systems or frameworks for understanding the Bible. Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism has many versions, so it is easy to talk past one another even if the same general framework is held (for example, Covenant Theology is popular in both Calvinistic and Methodist churches; the most common forms of Dispensationalism are Classic Dispensationalism and Progressive Dispensationalism).

There are also theologians who hold a position similar to NCT but only in specific aspects or areas (like John Piper and DA Carson).