Featured Covenant Theology

Why would anyone believe that the Church would replace national Israel? This is simply a figment of dispensational imagination! The Church is a continuation of Spiritual Israel. No replacement necessary!

 

:thumbsup:

 

Not allo calvinists see things from the view of Covenant theology though! I agree with the Doctrines of Grace as per salvation, but still hold to good ole Dispy Eschatology at the present time!

 

Well youse guys (we dont use Ya'll up her in Nothland) better check with "Ask Jeeves" I mean Van before you venture in to heretic Island! :smilewinkgrin:

Who node what God node....the Van Man node! :tongue3:

 

Perhaps after you tell us where the throne of David has been hid all these years.

 

SO! Just tell us shuckin and jivin folks where David's throne has been for the last 2500+ or so years.

While you are at it tell us where God hid dispensationalism doctrine for 1800+ years until Darby found it; or was it Margaret MacDonald?

 

The Old Testament church in Acts 7:38...

This is he, that was in the CHURCH in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

...is the same church in Acts 8:1...

1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the CHURCH which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.

...and Acts 8:3...

3 As for Saul, he made havock of the CHURCH, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.

I don't think Covenant Theology replaces all Israel with the church. I think Covenant Theology contends that all Israel IS the church. There has always been ONE church. Likewise, the church IS all Israel. Given the texts just quoted, the idea I am presenting is not far from truth, but very close.

 

I should have added these to my last post:

WLC
Q. 64. What is the invisible church?
A. The invisible church is the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ the head.p

LBC
Chapter 26
1. The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.a

The reformed people I have consulted hold that the "whole number of the elect" includes those who were in the church before the New Covenant.

I see the New Covenant not as a completely "new" covenant, but an old one renewed, according to Jeremiah 31:31—i.e. the Abrahamic Covenant. This would make the New Covenant members partakers of the promise made by God to Abraham. If the seed of the woman (who is Christ) did finally crush the serpent's head, and if the gospel (of Christ) was preached to the people of Noah's day, and Jesus Christ really does sit upon David's throne, there really is a unifying principle of a covenant of grace in the scriptures.

I have never heard of the different brands of Dispensationalism mentioned heretofore.

 

Thanks for your contributions!

As a progressive dispy, who also holds to Cal Sotierology, just a few questions!

Do you see the Church coming into actual existence on Pentacost in Acts?

Do you see paul referring to BOTH an isreal and a Church in romans?

Do you see all NT references tojerusalem, and to all OT prophesies concerning messiah ruling in jerusalem upon the earth as symbolic of a spiritual/heavenly rule instead?

 

Van,

I was intrigued by your original post. In particular the reference to repentance being critical to the covenant position. At some point I would like to discuss this.

I have to admit that I have not digested all of the 194 other posts.

However, in regard to the sometimes difficult problem about what to do with Israel doctrinally, I suggest consideration of the following. This is what I call the doctrine of potentiality.

Doctrine of Potentiality

There is a way of looking at the Bible that helps put things in a more helpful perspective. I usually start by describing an event from before my wife and I were married. I took my wife canoing. She had never been in a canoe before and was rather apprehensive as to how well she would do. I told her that as long as I was in the back of the canoe, it didn't matter what she did, we would still get to where we were going. She could paddle or not paddle. She could paddle wrong or right. She could paddle on the left side or the right. She was free to do whatever she wanted, because in the final analysis it is the one in the back who has control.

One way to see an application of potentiality is to consider salvation. When God gave us free will, it was really free. We have the potential to do good. God wants everyone to be saved. This is a real offer and the potential to accept this offer is present for everyone. God has chosen some to draw to Jesus. We may not understand the basis for this selection, but we know that if God did not give us this grace, not one of us would be interested in Jesus. However, the potential for salvation is open to anyone who would accept it.

When we take a look at the offer of the Kingdom made to the nation of Israel it helps to consider what potentially could have happened. From the time of the birth of Jesus until the destruction of the temple seventy years later, there was a legitimate offer to the nation of Israel to receive the Kingdom.

There are various potential scenarios that could have happened.

1. The nation could have rejoiced at the news the shepherds brought and received her Messiah at His birth. This probably would not have attracted Roman attention until Jesus started his teaching ministry at which point the Roman army could have entered Israel and put Jesus to death after which he would have arisen and have been reigning from Jerusalem ever since.

2. The nation of Israel could have received her King at the beginning of His ministry and rejoiced at His resurrection and assumption of His throne.

3. The nation of Israel could have received her King at His resurrection.

4. The nation of Israel could have been provoked to jealousy by gentiles receiving the gifts of the Holy Spirit and been driven to receive her King. This seems to be what Paul hoped for and expected.

When reading the Gospels it is important to keep in mind that everything Jesus said was true regardless of what the nation of Israel did or did not do. Jesus did not wink and tell his disciples, "I know you guys are going to blow it, so here is the real plan".

Consider when Jesus said that the generation that witnessed what He described would not perish before these things happened (Matt 24:34) He was telling the truth regardless if Israel received her King right then or in 2,000 years.

This perspective helps us understand some of the things in the Bible a little better.

1. The church in Jerusalem was not a utopian commune, but an ostracized and besieged group of believers hoping and praying that a recalcitrant Israel would receive her King. Years later when their pooled resources were depleted, they survived on the gifts from the mostly gentile churches.

2. The "great commission" was given to the disciples in expectation that they would lead the missionary effort of the nation of Israel unto the whole world.

3. Paul's expectation of the immanent return of Jesus.

4. The repeated declaration that the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand.

5. The seeming indifference of Jesus to the gentiles (Matt 15:26, John 12:23)

6. The so-called "church" system is not the ideal plan of God. Just as there were true believers in the secularized system the Jewish leaders had created, there are true believers in the various church systems and denominations today.

7. The ideal plan of God will be realized when Jesus returns, the remnant of Israel receives her King, and Jew and gentile are joined in Christ.

This view does not require a replacement of Israel by the Church. I do not even see a covenant with what we call the church. There is a new covenant that Jesus announces to his disciples at the last supper, however, I see that more as the promised new covenant for Israel described more fully in Hebrews.

I cannot see any reason to think that the remnant of Israel will not be restored.

I see what is called the Christian church today as a plan B resulting from the failure of Israel to receive her King. I look forward to the day when Israel will receive her King.

 

Hello Tim,
Welcome to the BB.

This "view"....completely misses the truth of Eph2:11-20....just totally denies its truth. Take another look at it.:wavey::wavey:

 

Really not quite true. But it's interesting how the covenant camp takes Gal ch 3. They think that in Christ there is neither Jew or Greek to mean that the church is the sole posessor of the covenant promised to Abraham. That train of thought, taken to it's logical conclusion would give 21st century men who decide to become women biblical cover.