Covenant Theology Versus Dispensationalism

[glfredrick]

God is in and through everything, and elects those persons to the life and tasks, including covenants and dispensations, that God needs fulfilled in order to accomplish His divine purpose(s).

Really like this, have felt this way for a number of years. Would love to hear more on it

The basic concept is rather simple, but not simplistic. God has acted in history through individuals that He has selected, made covenants with those people, there have been eras, revelation and progressive revelation, prophets who foretold and forth-told God's word and future events, and then came Messiah -- Jesus Christ -- the fulfillment of that history and promise.

Just to make sure we're on the same page we're talking about two different types of theology here. Systematic theology deals with things like God, Trinity, Revelation, Creation, Divine providence, Christology, Soteriology, Ecclesiology, Eschatology, Israelology, Bibliology, Hermeneutics, Sacrament, Pneumatology, Christian life, Heaven, etc. It then attempts to wrestle from the text of Scripture the verses and principles that build these doctrines. This is the primary thing that we argue about on this board ad nausem. Biblical theology, on the other hand, is an attempt to build a theology based on the passages of Scripture, discovering the "center" or major points that drives the theology, with the result not a better understanding of various points of doctrine, but understanding God and God's purpose(s).

The difficulty in a biblical theology is in finding that "center." That one descriptor that holds together all the major themes of the Bible from start to finish. Dispensational theology attempts to do so by creating a framework based on historical "dispensations" or eras, where God seemed to be doing this or that, then building a case for future events based on that framework. Covenantal theology does likewise, but focuses on the covenants of God as the defining moments, but it misses the boat right out of gate because it starts with two covenants that are not covenants in any meaningful or biblical way -- the covenant of works (Adam, pre-fall) and the covenant of grace (the rest of the history of the world), as it then adds in specific biblical covenants under the main heading, covenant of grace.

Neither is correct, and both are mere frameworks applied over Scripture to try to make sense of the overall picture. Theologians have noticed this for ages, but no one has really put forward a usable picture, until now, it seems.

There as been a lot of debate about the true "center" of Scripture -- dispensation, covenant, the line of Christ, etc., but election seems to be the one thing that covers all the bases, for it handles every action of God, whether dispensation, era, person, action, etc. As God elects, things happen and history presses forward.

Of note, this is not a purely Calvinistic doctrine, though many Calvinists would gravitate in this direction, as most have rejected both dispensational and covenantal theologies for the reasons above (plus others I've not mentioned). The mere use of the word "election" does not make this a Calvinist doctrine. Election is a biblical word that all of us have to deal with somehow.

 

[glfredrick]

Here is Amazon's list for Duane Garrett. I am reasonably sure that he touches on biblical election as an overarching theology in some of these works, but I have not read each of them to make sure. I know Dr. Garrett personally and we've had conversations about his views. I've also sat under him in a classroom setting. He is very intellectually honest and will point out the issues in everyone's theology, including his own.

http://www.amazon.com/Duane-A.-Garrett/e/B001JOZW2M/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1292713139&sr=8-1

 

[Robert Snow]

I am curious... what books by Covenant Theologians have you read?

I am all for people being convinced in their own mind... but I also think that reading good books on both sides is a great discipline. What I personally find difficult is that the article cited obviously misunderstands CT that I find it difficult they have read too many primary sources on the topic or they takethings out of context. Granted people on both sides do this... but I would like to see more grace on this topic and more in context citations

Many years ago I bought a package of books from the Puritan Press. I paid for the package and received thirty or forty books with the remaining fifty or so still to be printed. I receive two or three of these books and then a letter arrived stating that the printing company had filed bankruptcy. I never received another book.

I read portions of many of these books, but like I said, this theology didn't seem to fit Scripture.

I have read "Dispensationalism Today" by Charles Ryrie and "Rightly Dividing the Truth" by Clarence Larkin and, of course, I have "Dispensational Truth" again by Larkin. I read these books many years after I had already ascertained that Dispensational Theology is correct. This was through the many sermons I heard by dozens of IFB and SBC preachers.

Now it is true I have not read books by Calvin, Edwards, etc. but I have read much about Calvinism, not to mention the things I learned about this doctrine in listening to the many preachers I mentioned.

When a bank teller is learning to detect counterfeit bills, they study the real bills, not the counterfeit ones. I believe I have studied the truth, so I do not need to spend time learning things I feel are not true.

 

[glfredrick]

Many years ago I bought a package of books from the Puritan Press. I paid for the package and received thirty or forty books with the remaining fifty or so still to be printed. I receive two or three of these books and then a letter arrived stating that the printing company had filed bankruptcy. I never received another book.

I read portions of many of these books, but like I said, this theology didn't seem to fit Scripture.

I have read "Dispensationalism Today" by Charles Ryrie and "Rightly Dividing the Truth" by Clarence Larkin and, of course, I have "Dispensational Truth" again by Larkin. I read these books many years after I had already ascertained that Dispensational Theology is correct. This was through the many sermons I heard by dozens of IFB and SBC preachers.

Now it is true I have not read books by Calvin, Edwards, etc. but I have read much about Calvinism, not to mention the things I learned about this doctrine in listening to the many preachers I mentioned.

When a bank teller is learning to detect counterfeit bills, they study the real bills, not the counterfeit ones. I believe I have studied the truth, so I do not need to spend time learning things I feel are not true.

Robert, just so you know, no one is trying to belittle you or even talk you out of any theological position that you hold. But you haven't really studied dispensationalism against the issues theologians have against it on a point-by-point basis. As one who was also raised in a dispensational church, I thought that stuff was correct also until I came to understand what it really said -- and did not say. I even have a great set of roll-out wall charts still in my possession, just in case i forget how complicated and convoluted dispensationalism actually is.

The first, and major flaw in my mind is that dispensationalism sees the Bible and God as being "different" in different dispensations. In fact, that is the hallmark of dispensational theology -- God works differently in different eras. This flies in the face of "God is the same yesterday, today, and forever..."

The second major flaw is the chart and graph effort to "predict" the second coming of Christ. Many down through the ages have tried to do what the Scriptures tell us we cannot do -- predict the exact timing of the return of Christ. Hal Lindsey popularized one form of this in the 1970s with "The Late, Great Planet Earth." He stated a lot of things that have not come to pass, and he has since modified his writings with further books where he modifies what he originally said. We all know the test of a prophet, and the biblical mandate for false prophets... Just like AD 500, 1000, 1500, and 2000, these "big years" have come and gone, and with them all the predictions for the return of Christ based on some thousand year scheme. We're now seeing that scheme played out in a slightly different fashion, taking into account the changed dates for the birth and crucifixion of Christ based on solid scholarship (which is rejected by many dispensationalist on issues other than the dating of the return of the Lord).

The third major flaw is how dispensationalism handles Israel and the Church. God does not have two distinct purposes for Israel and the Church. God's purposes are one -- for His glory to be known throughout the world so that all people will worship Him. Much of Paul's dealing with the Judiazers who penetrated his church plants was in the context of the unified purpose of Israel and the Church, not the opposite. In fact, Scripture plainly teaches that the Church is a "branch grafted into Israel."

A fourth major flaw is in the handling of the Law of God. The Law is not "done away with" which leads to anti-nomianism. I was taught this, and later discovered that it was wrong. The Scriptures stipulate that the Law is never "set aside" or "done away with" but rather, fulfilled in Christ. It is just as much in force today as ever, but it is not given to Gentiles, as was confirmed by the Jerusalem Council, who returned to the Noahic Covenant when instructing the Gentile churches as to practice and doctrine.

A fifth major flaw is in how the Church is handled in dispensationalism. It is not a "parenthesis" between God's two actions with Israel. It was and is a plan of God to bring about His will, prophesied in the OT, and come to fruition based in Jesus Christ. The Church (plural) is the Bride of Christ!

I highly urge you to pick up a decent theology text and sit down with your Bible in hand, and spend some time looking up these critical flaws. You are basing your hope in something that is a flawed and incorrect position when compared to the entirety of Scripture.

 

[Robert Snow]

Robert, just so you know, no one is trying to belittle you or even talk you out of any theological position that you hold. But you haven't really studied dispensationalism against the issues theologians have against it on a point-by-point basis. As one who was also raised in a dispensational church, I thought that stuff was correct also until I came to understand what it really said -- and did not say. I even have a great set of roll-out wall charts still in my possession, just in case i forget how complicated and convoluted dispensationalism actually is.

The first, and major flaw in my mind is that dispensationalism sees the Bible and God as being "different" in different dispensations. In fact, that is the hallmark of dispensational theology -- God works differently in different eras. This flies in the face of "God is the same yesterday, today, and forever..."

The second major flaw is the chart and graph effort to "predict" the second coming of Christ. Many down through the ages have tried to do what the Scriptures tell us we cannot do -- predict the exact timing of the return of Christ. Hal Lindsey popularized one form of this in the 1970s with "The Late, Great Planet Earth." He stated a lot of things that have not come to pass, and he has since modified his writings with further books where he modifies what he originally said. We all know the test of a prophet, and the biblical mandate for false prophets... Just like AD 500, 1000, 1500, and 2000, these "big years" have come and gone, and with them all the predictions for the return of Christ based on some thousand year scheme. We're now seeing that scheme played out in a slightly different fashion, taking into account the changed dates for the birth and crucifixion of Christ based on solid scholarship (which is rejected by many dispensationalist on issues other than the dating of the return of the Lord).

The third major flaw is how dispensationalism handles Israel and the Church. God does not have two distinct purposes for Israel and the Church. God's purposes are one -- for His glory to be known throughout the world so that all people will worship Him. Much of Paul's dealing with the Judiazers who penetrated his church plants was in the context of the unified purpose of Israel and the Church, not the opposite. In fact, Scripture plainly teaches that the Church is a "branch grafted into Israel."

A fourth major flaw is in the handling of the Law of God. The Law is not "done away with" which leads to anti-nomianism. I was taught this, and later discovered that it was wrong. The Scriptures stipulate that the Law is never "set aside" or "done away with" but rather, fulfilled in Christ. It is just as much in force today as ever, but it is not given to Gentiles, as was confirmed by the Jerusalem Council, who returned to the Noahic Covenant when instructing the Gentile churches as to practice and doctrine.

A fifth major flaw is in how the Church is handled in dispensationalism. It is not a "parenthesis" between God's two actions with Israel. It was and is a plan of God to bring about His will, prophesied in the OT, and come to fruition based in Jesus Christ. The Church (plural) is the Bride of Christ!

I highly urge you to pick up a decent theology text and sit down with your Bible in hand, and spend some time looking up these critical flaws. You are basing your hope in something that is a flawed and incorrect position when compared to the entirety of Scripture.

Thank you for your concern. I will continue to study the bible, but I doubt I ever change my opinion of Calvinism. Just like I will not study the other religious leaders to make sure Jesus Christ is Lord, my mind is made up. I guess I am just too hard-headed. But, if in my study I see things like you say, I will change.

 

[Iconoclast]

http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_books.htm#understanding

http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/html/gbhd/gbhd.html

http://www.founders.org/journal/fj08/article1.html

 

[Jarthur001]

Thank you for your concern. I will continue to study the bible, but I doubt I ever change my opinion of Calvinism. Just like I will not study the other religious leaders to make sure Jesus Christ is Lord, my mind is made up. I guess I am just too hard-headed. But, if in my study I see things like you say, I will change.

Hello Robert,

I agree with others, no one has asked you, on this thread anyway, .......no one has asked you to believe Calvinism. Just know what you believe is true. In fact we are mixing studies here. Calvinism falls under systematic theology. Dispensationalism is Biblical theology.

There are Dispensational people that believe in TULIP, and there are Dispensational people that do not. The same is true to Covenant theology. I know Methodist that hold to Covenant theology but hate TULIP.

The Old Dispensationalism, or what many call Hyper- Dispensationalism, is where most of the error was. One would have to believe this when the "the new scofield bible" came out with notes that had been changed where others had seen eorror. Still, there were more changes made with Charles Ryrie's books. Now with Progressive Dispensationalism even more changes to the system.

So Dispensational leaders are trying to fix things and they have come along way. But to see changes by the leaders, only shows they too know of the errors.

Having said that...Progressive Dispensationalism is so close, its not worth my time debating. Hyper-Dispensationalism on the other hand, .........well where do you want to start? I would say, the only people that believe in Hyper- Dispensationalism are those who have not studied, but just read people like Hal Lindsey and believed him.

In the end, if you look up what they say, you may still be Dispensational, but it is my bet you will not be Hyper. To many holes in the system.

 

[Iconoclast]

In the article it tries to say that these teachings are errors;

Without trying to explain all the details of covenant theology I will simply say that it has many problems:

It begins by assuming two (or three) covenants that are never mentioned in Scripture.
It tries to unify scripture by saying that Biblical distinctions are merely different phases of the same Covenant of Grace. For example, Berkoff insists that the Mosaic Covenant is essentially the same as the Abrahamic Covenant. Yet, the apostle Paul asserts the distinctiveness of these two covenants in Galatians 3:18. Even a cursory reading of these two covenants reveals that the Abrahamic Covenant was unconditional whereas the Mosaic Covenant had many conditions attached.
It denies the distinctiveness of the gospel of grace and the gospel of the kingdom.
It denies the distinction between Israel and the Church.
It uses a double standard with regard to interpretation of Scripture. Covenant theologians use the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, except for passages concerning future events.

When dealing with passages regarding the future of Israel or the kingdom of God they revert to Augustine's allegorical or spiritualizing method of interpretation.
It places the believer under the law.

It begins by assuming two (or three) covenants that are never mentioned in Scripture

The covenants are taught clearly in scripture,just as the doctrine of the trinity is , although the word trinity does not appear.......to say that the covenants are not "mentioned" is absurdly unbiblical.
14The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant.

It denies the distinctiveness of the gospel of grace and the gospel of the kingdom

This is another false distinction.....dispensational theology fails at what it believes is it's strength....what they call rightly dividing the word of truth......this usually leads to falsely and unbiblically dividing what God has not divided. This is why the dispensational theory fails pathetically.

It denies the distinction between Israel and the Church

This is a perfect example.....eph2 says God has made of the two one new man In Christ......the middle wall of partition is broken down, not maintained.
11Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

14For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

15Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

16And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

17And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

18For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

22In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

When dealing with passages regarding the future of Israel or the kingdom of God they revert to Augustine's allegorical or spiritualizing method of interpretation.

Symbols ,types, metaphors, and parables need to be interpreted by the word of God.....no one is a strict literalist if they want to understand the bible rightly.
All christians believe in a literal interpretation of the bible....covenant theologians understand the symbols biblically....dispys do not.

It places the believer under the law.

we are saved by the grace of God 100%. But saved persons are not lawless.
The ten commandments are given before the law of Moses,and still are in effect after the mosaic law is complete in Christ.
The law [ten commandments ] are placed in our hearts in the New Covenant.Hebrews 8, Heb 10. We are to love God commandments 1-4
We are to love our neighbor 5-10.....
We do not keep the law to in any way help earn salvation.
We do it to serve God and man.
There is a sin debt paid for.....a service debt due.

 

[glfredrick]

Thank you for your concern. I will continue to study the bible, but I doubt I ever change my opinion of Calvinism. Just like I will not study the other religious leaders to make sure Jesus Christ is Lord, my mind is made up. I guess I am just too hard-headed. But, if in my study I see things like you say, I will change.

It is in the study of the Word that one arrives at life and heart changing ideas.

The trick is to not bring a "lens" through which everything is pre-ordained when reading the Word. That means that one does not pre-ordain that the Calvinist picture is THE answer nor the Arminian picture is THE answer. THE answer is what it says in the Word, no matter which of those two (or something else entirely) one finds.

This gets at the heart of the immutability of God. We attempt to change God by what it is that we believe about God, but God will not be changed by puny human efforts nor by human beliefs. It is we who adjust our beliefs to what it is that God says is true! No matter how much we chip away, file, saw, sand, explain, hold, believe, God is God and has spoken.

As goes the free will position, I am very much enamored of that position. I'd love to think that I somehow have that much control over what happens, but at the end of the day, when I exercised my will, all it got me was to a place where I cursed God and died. It was not until God revealed Himself to me -- I caught a glimpse of His love and glory -- and that won my heart!

In my own story, the reason I exercised my will against God was the pain I felt when we lost our 2nd child. We called out to God and He seemingly was not there. The pastor came to visit and he offered no hope (really... I've played out that tape in my mind a million times!). I exercised my will and told God to shove His Bible, His church, and His preachers right up His... Well... I said I cursed God and died.

God showed me His great love, in that He used the loss of my child to draw me to Himself. Imagine, after 7 years of hating God, then deciding that there was no God -- and working hard to prove it (with some success) -- and imagine, that by spinning the dial of a truck radio that God would place right in front of me a radio program where Dr. Dobson was speaking to parents about the pain of loosing a child. How, after 7 years, did God just let me spin a radio dial and "happen" upon a station that just "happened" to be playing a broadcast, where the subject was EXACTLY my pain? Oh, Lord, I wept that day while listening to that broadcast.

Oh, that was not my salvation. God had other work to do before that. He had to undo all my false beliefs and present the true means of salvation to me -- Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. He did. I never did enter a church until 2 years after I came to know Him.

I spent that 2 years with Him in His Word -- learning the true message that He gave us apart from the crud I was taught in the church of my youth (if you are "better" than the man next to you, and "do" the right stuff, God will accept you). I learned that God comes to us and brings salvation. He preceded us in EVERYTHING, including sending Christ when the fullness of time had come. That first Christmas for me was eye-opening as I finally understood why the angels were singing and the shepherds worshiping! God came to be with us -- humble -- and in power to save!

 

[Robert Snow]

It is in the study of the Word that one arrives at life and heart changing ideas.

The trick is to not bring a "lens" through which everything is pre-ordained when reading the Word. That means that one does not pre-ordain that the Calvinist picture is THE answer nor the Arminian picture is THE answer. THE answer is what it says in the Word, no matter which of those two (or something else entirely) one finds.

This gets at the heart of the immutability of God. We attempt to change God by what it is that we believe about God, but God will not be changed by puny human efforts nor by human beliefs. It is we who adjust our beliefs to what it is that God says is true! No matter how much we chip away, file, saw, sand, explain, hold, believe, God is God and has spoken.

As goes the free will position, I am very much enamored of that position. I'd love to think that I somehow have that much control over what happens, but at the end of the day, when I exercised my will, all it got me was to a place where I cursed God and died. It was not until God revealed Himself to me -- I caught a glimpse of His love and glory -- and that won my heart!

In my own story, the reason I exercised my will against God was the pain I felt when we lost our 2nd child. We called out to God and He seemingly was not there. The pastor came to visit and he offered no hope (really... I've played out that tape in my mind a million times!). I exercised my will and told God to shove His Bible, His church, and His preachers right up His... Well... I said I cursed God and died.

God showed me His great love, in that He used the loss of my child to draw me to Himself. Imagine, after 7 years of hating God, then deciding that there was no God -- and working hard to prove it (with some success) -- and imagine, that by spinning the dial of a truck radio that God would place right in front of me a radio program where Dr. Dobson was speaking to parents about the pain of loosing a child. How, after 7 years, did God just let me spin a radio dial and "happen" upon a station that just "happened" to be playing a broadcast, where the subject was EXACTLY my pain? Oh, Lord, I wept that day while listening to that broadcast.

Oh, that was not my salvation. God had other work to do before that. He had to undo all my false beliefs and present the true means of salvation to me -- Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. He did. I never did enter a church until 2 years after I came to know Him.

I spent that 2 years with Him in His Word -- learning the true message that He gave us apart from the crud I was taught in the church of my youth (if you are "better" than the man next to you, and "do" the right stuff, God will accept you). I learned that God comes to us and brings salvation. He preceded us in EVERYTHING, including sending Christ when the fullness of time had come. That first Christmas for me was eye-opening as I finally understood why the angels were singing and the shepherds worshiping! God came to be with us -- humble -- and in power to save!

Say what you want, but you chose to obey the Gospel. God doesn't own any robots, Christians as those who CHOOSE to love God.

 

[The Archangel]

Say what you want, but you chose to obey the Gospel. God doesn't own any robots, Christians [are] those who CHOOSE to love God.

Robert,

None of us would disagree with the statement: "Christians are those who choose to love God." This is one area of agreement between us.

The question is, however, "How does an individual come to choose God?"

Is the model--we act and God responds? Or is it--God acts and we respond?

I think the biblical model is clear--God acts and we respond.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I dont think there is any solid "Calvinist" if you want to use that terminology, who would disagree with that "choice" statement either...it's how you come to that choice where we differ.

 

[thomas15]

.... In the case of Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8... I felt this clearly applied to the church because the Bible said it applied to the Church. I couldnt see how the Dipys got around that verse

Not sure I want to respond due to the fact that some may not appreciate my methods, but here goes:

Hypothetical...to make a point:

Is your Bible one of those talking Bibles? And when it was talking, did it say something like this "friends, remember when I spoke to Jeremiah way back and told him that i was going to make an new everlasting covenant with the son's of the tribes of Ireael? Well forget it, what I ment to say was that in the future, I will break my promises to the Isrealites (because of their sin) even after I restore them to the land but I will make a new covenant with the Gentile Church, this in spite of their sin which is by the way just as much as the Israelites ever had and they didn't have the Holy Spirit indwelling each true member. I will not repeat the error of a preamble such as "to the Son's of the believers in my Christ I will make a covenant whereas I give to them land and blessing previously promised to the son's of Ireael, which I used to love in spite of their sin, but no longer love because of their sin"".

In other words, the covenants say lots about land and little about salvation for eternity. The Gospel says little about land but lots about salvation. Both are promises, this is true. But the recipients are different, the rewards are different and the requirements for receipt are different. But you "feel" by your own admission that the two are the same so that settles the arguement.

But for this camper, the actual words in the Holy Bible have a different meaning to me, more in line with what the dispies say because they look at the actual words of the Bible and take them at face value.

 

[kyredneck]

Not sure I want to respond due to the fact that some may not appreciate my methods..........

Yea, your method Stinks with a capitol S.

I'm certain that you will display for all to see here on the BB, the spiteful unChristlike attitude that you consistently display over on the FFF.

 

[Ruiz]

Not sure I want to respond due to the fact that some may not appreciate my methods, but here goes:

Hypothetical...to make a point:

Is your Bible one of those talking Bibles? And when it was talking, did it say something like this "friends, remember when I spoke to Jeremiah way back and told him that i was going to make an new everlasting covenant with the son's of the tribes of Ireael? Well forget it, what I ment to say was that in the future, I will break my promises to the Isrealites (because of their sin) even after I restore them to the land but I will make a new covenant with the Gentile Church, this in spite of their sin which is by the way just as much as the Israelites ever had and they didn't have the Holy Spirit indwelling each true member. I will not repeat the error of a preamble such as "to the Son's of the believers in my Christ I will make a covenant whereas I give to them land and blessing previously promised to the son's of Ireael, which I used to love in spite of their sin, but no longer love because of their sin"".

In other words, the covenants say lots about land and little about salvation for eternity. The Gospel says little about land but lots about salvation. Both are promises, this is true. But the recipients are different, the rewards are different and the requirements for receipt are different. But you "feel" by your own admission that the two are the same so that settles the arguement.

But for this camper, the actual words in the Holy Bible have a different meaning to me, more in line with what the dispies say because they look at the actual words of the Bible and take them at face value.

Thomas,

Thanks for your explanation, but Hebrews 8 is clear that this covenant made is fulfilled in Christ (Hebrews 8:13) and is the New Covenant that the church enjoys. I think the clear reading of this text shows that Jeremiah 31 is the New Covenant that we enjoy... the we is referred to as "Israel". Unfortunately, you are applying your presupposition in order to translate this text. You seem to say:

1. The promises to Israel in the Old Testament is to National Israel.
2. Hebrews 8 uses Jeremiah 31, "which is addressed to the House of Israel", as the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:8).
3. Since the promises to Isreal in the Old Testament is to National Isreal then this could not be referring to the New Covenant Church.
4. Therefore, those who believe this is to the New Covenant Church believe God is lying.

I think the presupposition is the question. So, when I looked at the text when I was exploring the issue, I wanted this clear text to speak to form whether or not Israel could mean the church. My thought process is thus (and was when I first approached this topic).

1. Jeremiah 31 is a promise of a "New Covenant" with "Israel." (I think we all agree)
2. Hebrews 8 (v. 13 but also the entire context of the section) says that this "New Covenant" is the New Covenant that was purchased and achieved by Grace through Faith in Jesus Christ's redemptive work on the cross. (that, no one has disputed the exegesis)
3. Therefore, Isreal, in this context, is not to those who are physical descendents of Abraham, only those who believe and follow Jesus Christ (Context of Jeremiah 31).
4. The "New Covenant" is referring to the Covenant God has with Christians, this covenant with Christians is often corporately referred to as "the church" (Ephesians 5:25).
5. Therefore, The New Covenant is The New Covenant made with the Church of God.
6. Therefore, in this context the name "Israel" refers to the Church.

Other verses can help on this to include Romans when it says that the children of Abraham are not those who physically are descended but spiritually and when it says, "not all Israel is Israel" in II Corinthians 1.

 

[thomas15]

Yea, your method Stinks with a capitol S.

I'm certain that you will display for all to see here on the BB, the spiteful unChristlike attitude that you consistently display over on the FFF.

What are you talking about? Have I offended you Sir?

 

[thomas15]

Thomas,

Thanks for your explanation

Your welcome and it's my pleasure.

 

[J.D.]

Yes, I agree with it completely. I know to you scholarly type nothing but Spurgeon will do, but I will take Dispensationalists like Ryrie any day over the errors taught by the reformists.

1. Are you implying that dispensationalists are not scholarly?

2. Are you aware that Covenant Theology is much simpler than Dispensational Theology?

 

[glfredrick]

1. Are you implying that dispensationalists are not scholarly?

2. Are you aware that Covenant Theology is much simpler than Dispensational Theology?

Just wondering if people understand that there are other alternatives to covenanatl or dispensational theologies that are more biblical than either?

 

[Robert Snow]

What are you talking about? Have I offended you Sir?

Don't worry about it. He often get offended by the truth.