Covenant Theology

Please explain why you think they are mutually exclusive.

 

How about New Covenant theology and Baptist?

Are you speaking of covenant in general? Or a specific such as covenant of works or covenant of grace or covenant of redemption?

 

I think the question is in regard moreso to the Noahaic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Palestinian, Davidic, New...

 

Baby baptism is not necessary to covenant theology.

Historically, many, many baptists have been covenant theologians. Covenant theology has a high view of scripture, and also follows the historical grammmatical literal hermaneutic, just not in exactly the same places that dispensationalism chooses to.

The rest of the things in your post have nothing much to do with being a Baptist or not.

BTW, I am not a covenant theologian, but I have many Baptist friends who are.

 

There is a lot which goes under the umbrella of Covenant Theology which is not typical Covenant theolgy.
My recollection is The Covenant of works given to Adam versus the Covenant of grace though the gift of God is "old-school" Covenant Theology.
Everything else in Scripture is categorized as under one or the other.

Actually, I would prefer to call myself a Coventalist rather than a dispensationalist.
But I don't want to be confused with the traditional Covenant Theologian.
That is, I prefer to interpret Scripture through a view of the various Covenants rather than the "dispensations" (Noahic Covenant, Abrahamic Covenant, Mosaic, Davidic, etc).

The final culminating Covenant being the New and Everlasting Covenant.

HankD

[ September 17, 2002, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

It is certainly impossible to be a fundamental Baptist and a covenant theologian. One can hardly apply the literal, grammatical, and historical system of interpretation to the Scriptures and come to the conclusion that the church is Israel, baptism is equivalent of circumcision the millennium is not a literal 1000 years but the whole church era, etc., etc,

 

replacement theology is evil.

 

Can you explain what, specifically?

 

I don't know much about either one of these, could someone explain these?

 

I am a committed dispensationalist. I believe that covenant theology (in its various forms) has a multitude of problems that have arisen from overlooking the plain meaning of the text in favor of presuppositions brought to the text. I believe covenant theology is simply wrong.

Having said that, I believe we need to stop short of calling it evil. It is possible to be a fundamental Baptist and a covenant theologian just as it is possible to be a fundamental baptist and an arminian. However, both are inconsistent, not with being a Baptist, but rather with the text of Scripture. Baptist distinctives do not include issues about eschatology. We need to be careful.

Katie, In the baptist theology or the general baptist forum up above, there was a recent thread where this was discussed. In that I outlined a few issues that are essential to the respective sides. Do a search if you have time and find that one. I don't have time right now to do it again

 

Would you agree that the moral law, embodied in written form in the Ten Commandments, has always been in effect and continues in effect today?

Ken
A Southern Baptist and a Covenantalist

[ September 21, 2002, 08:47 AM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

I was asked why I felt it was evil. I feel it is evil because it claims that every time the word Israel is mentioned in the NT it means the Church. This is replacement theology. We are to bless Israel.

HCL

 

I don't think that's exactly right. But even if it was, that would simply be "wrong", not "evil".

 

Dr. Steve, I would suggest that you don't understand historic fundamentalism. Early fundamentalism was not distinctively baptist. It was baptist, presbyterian, and methodist predominantly because of the common devotion to fundamental doctrine and the common enemy of theological modernism. The personal visible return of Christ is a fundamental. The particulars of it are not. Let's be careful not to overstate the position.

 

Also, the definition and description of "Covenant Theology" varies greatly even among so-called covenant theologians.
I personally would agree that the typical/traditional Adam Covenant vs Grace Covenant (and all its ramifications) is a difficult interpretation to defend without some kind of dispensational aspect being brought in somewhere.

For instance traditional Covenant theologians were fond of talking about Sabbath worship but were in reality referring to the Lord's Day.

HankD

[ September 22, 2002, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

We are under the New Covenant, which supercedes all the other convenants as they were made to Israel and we are the Church. Yes, moral law continues on because morality has no national basis, but is based in the character of God. Even if you want to call us "spiritual" Israel, Paul clearly teaches that we are not under the Law or its traditions as they were but a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.

The reformers did not leave enough of Catholicism behind and Catholicism is the Judaizers in Acts triumphant. Covenant theology borders on if not crosses over into that same error.