-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Covenant Theology
- Thread starter Van
- Start date
Gee, yet another Calvinist running away from their doctrine. Amazing.
God made promises to Abraham and David referring to physical things to come. Now some folks believe these promises are being fulfilled today in heaven, the spiritual kingdom replacing the physical kingdom as fulfillment of God's promises. Thus the dispy folks get all high and mighty over how the Covenant folks "spiritualize" the bible rather than using the historical, grammatical method of interpretation.
God made promises to Abraham and David referring to physical things to come. Now some folks believe these promises are being fulfilled today in heaven, the spiritual kingdom replacing the physical kingdom as fulfillment of God's promises. Thus the dispy folks get all high and mighty over how the Covenant folks "spiritualize" the bible rather than using the historical, grammatical method of interpretation.
Greektim
Well-Known Member
:thumbsup:
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:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Sevenzedek
New Member
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.
Sevenzedek
New Member
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.
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.
Discussion Points
Yes, so can be get back to replacing the future millennial kingdom on earth with an existing spiritual kingdom in heaven?
The issue is not that the OT children of the promise are the natural branches and the NT children of the promise are the wild branches . However, toward demonstrating that point, this verse is equivocal, i.e the "called out assembly" could simply refer to the summoned group of OT children of God.
Maybe, maybe not. The term "called out group" is used of four different groups, (1) all Christians, (2) local assembly of Christians, (3) secular town meeting, and (4) OT assembly.
Yes, so can be get back to replacing the future millennial kingdom on earth with an existing spiritual kingdom in heaven?
Discussion
Just as New Covenant Theology and Progressive Covenantalism are new brands of Covenant Theology, Traditional Dispensationalism also sports a newer view called Progressive dispensationalism which accepts Galatians 3 as written.
And to repeat again, this issue that divides is not that the OT saints have now been made perfect in Christ, Hebrews 11:39-40, the issue is the NT saints are heirs to the promises made to the children of the promise in the OT. Dispensationalists say these promises for example a 1000 year reign, will be fulfilled on earth, not replaced with the spiritual kingdom of God.
Just as New Covenant Theology and Progressive Covenantalism are new brands of Covenant Theology, Traditional Dispensationalism also sports a newer view called Progressive dispensationalism which accepts Galatians 3 as written.
And to repeat again, this issue that divides is not that the OT saints have now been made perfect in Christ, Hebrews 11:39-40, the issue is the NT saints are heirs to the promises made to the children of the promise in the OT. Dispensationalists say these promises for example a 1000 year reign, will be fulfilled on earth, not replaced with the spiritual kingdom of God.
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?
The issue that divides is not that the OT saints have now been made perfect in Christ, Hebrews 11:39-40, the issue is the NT saints are heirs to the promises made to the children of the promise in the OT. Dispensationalists say these promises for example a 1000 year reign, will be fulfilled on earth, not replaced with the spiritual kingdom of God.
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.
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:
Hi Timf, I am not sure I have digested your post but let me at least try to make some comments concerning my reaction.
1) I believe the New Covenant is with both believers who gained approval by faith under the Old Covenant, and with believers whose faith was credited as righteousness under the New Covenant.
2) We can imagine how the future might unfold, and our views might hit close to the mark or not. However, if our understanding of God's word indicates this or that will happen, and this other thing will not happen, it is silly to consider them as possibilities.
3) Yes, I agree everything Jesus said is true, and those who claim He did not actually mean what He said, are simply substituting the truth of God for the clever stories of men.
4) Matthew 24:34 says "Truly I say to you,this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." I do not believe all the things Jesus had been talking about have taken place, even after 2000 years, so was Jesus just kidding? Nope. "Generation" has a range of meanings including a type or kind of people. So believers in Christ will not pass away before the second coming is one potential way of looking to the verse.
5) The great commission was given to born again believers, whether Jew or Gentile, for there is no difference in Christ The line, will be with you always, identifies anyone who has been born again and sealed with the Spirit of Christ.
6) Yes, we are live as Paul lived, expecting Christ's immanent return.
7) The kingdom of heaven that is at hand is our salvation where God transfers us from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of His Son.
8) Yes, the visible church is riddled with tares, just as scripture says. Therefore our outreach should not exclude those who profess faith.
9) When Christ returns, all the unfulfilled promises associated with the Messiah will be fulfilled.
10) I do not see the church as plan B, but rather part of Plan A, God's redemption of His chosen people.
1) I believe the New Covenant is with both believers who gained approval by faith under the Old Covenant, and with believers whose faith was credited as righteousness under the New Covenant.
2) We can imagine how the future might unfold, and our views might hit close to the mark or not. However, if our understanding of God's word indicates this or that will happen, and this other thing will not happen, it is silly to consider them as possibilities.
3) Yes, I agree everything Jesus said is true, and those who claim He did not actually mean what He said, are simply substituting the truth of God for the clever stories of men.
4) Matthew 24:34 says "Truly I say to you,this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." I do not believe all the things Jesus had been talking about have taken place, even after 2000 years, so was Jesus just kidding? Nope. "Generation" has a range of meanings including a type or kind of people. So believers in Christ will not pass away before the second coming is one potential way of looking to the verse.
5) The great commission was given to born again believers, whether Jew or Gentile, for there is no difference in Christ The line, will be with you always, identifies anyone who has been born again and sealed with the Spirit of Christ.
6) Yes, we are live as Paul lived, expecting Christ's immanent return.
7) The kingdom of heaven that is at hand is our salvation where God transfers us from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of His Son.
8) Yes, the visible church is riddled with tares, just as scripture says. Therefore our outreach should not exclude those who profess faith.
9) When Christ returns, all the unfulfilled promises associated with the Messiah will be fulfilled.
10) I do not see the church as plan B, but rather part of Plan A, God's redemption of His chosen people.
thomas15
Well-Known Member
...Traditional Dispensationalism also sports a newer view called Progressive dispensationalism which accepts Galatians 3 as written.
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.
Saying something is not quite true without explaining why it is not true is simply denial. Progressive dispensationalism accepts that born again believers are "descendants of Abraham" and thus children of the promise, just as Galatians 3 says. It matters not whether we says no difference between Jews and Gentiles or Gentiles and Jews, both are children of the promise and will receive all that God has promised to the descendants of Abraham.
But we do agree, the Bible is not a smorgasbord where we pick the parts we like and leave the rest.