• 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!

John R Rice and Jack Hyles were not dispensationalists?

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Please enlighten me. What future does Covenant Theology say waits for ethnic Israel?
I am certainly not able to speak for all those who believe in Covenant Theology, and I am not aware that there is one universally approved position.
My reading of Romans 11 leads me to the view that there may well be a revival amongst enthic Jews before the Lord's Return. I pray that there will be a revival among many ethnic groups, including the British, the Arabs and the Iranians. But IMO there will be no special arrangement for the Jews; if they are saved, they will be so in the same way as everyone else: the Holy Spirit leading them to repentance and faith in Christ.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I am certainly not able to speak for all those who believe in Covenant Theology, and I am not aware that there is one universally approved position.
My reading of Romans 11 leads me to the view that there may well be a revival amongst enthic Jews before the Lord's Return. I pray that there will be a revival among many ethnic groups, including the British, the Arabs and the Iranians. But IMO there will be no special arrangement for the Jews; if they are saved, they will be so in the same way as everyone else: the Holy Spirit leading them to repentance and faith in Christ.
Let me clarify. "Ethnic Israel" is a term used in eschatology for people who are Jewish by blood as opposed to Gentiles. Therefore, it points to a separate future for especially Jewish people. That future includes the tribulation, when it is prophesied that Israel will return to their land and become a nation again. Many believe that this began happening with the restoration in 1948. Therefore, it is specifically a dispensational term.

The belief that Jews are now like Gentiles with no prophesied future history to be fulfilled is called replacement theology, or supersessionism, and is the belief that the church has replaced the Jewish nation.

Concerning covenant theology, it is the belief that there are two, maybe three (depending on the theologian) covenants that God has made with the lost sinner and also within the trinity. (These are not the biblical covenants: Adamic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic; I have known people who thought that is what covenant theology referred to.) It believes that there is no future for Israel, regardless of the prophecies and the Davidic Covenant. I have various theological tomes which teach this: systematic theologies by Berkhof, Hodge, etc.

If you knew all this, forgive me for relating it, but I wasn't sure you did from your posts.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Let me clarify. "Ethnic Israel" is a term used in eschatology for people who are Jewish by blood as opposed to Gentiles. Therefore, it points to a separate future for especially Jewish people. That future includes the tribulation, when it is prophesied that Israel will return to their land and become a nation again. Many believe that this began happening with the restoration in 1948. Therefore, it is specifically a dispensational term.

The belief that Jews are now like Gentiles with no prophesied future history to be fulfilled is called replacement theology, or supersessionism, and is the belief that the church has replaced the Jewish nation.

Concerning covenant theology, it is the belief that there are two, maybe three (depending on the theologian) covenants that God has made with the lost sinner and also within the trinity. (These are not the biblical covenants: Adamic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic; I have known people who thought that is what covenant theology referred to.) It believes that there is no future for Israel, regardless of the prophecies and the Davidic Covenant. I have various theological tomes which teach this: systematic theologies by Berkhof, Hodge, etc.

If you knew all this, forgive me for relating it, but I wasn't sure you did from your posts.
I did know it, but I do forgive you. I understand 'ethnic Israel' to be used for those of the Jewish race wherever they may live, as opposed to 'national Israel' which is one of the nations on the Eastern shore of the Mediterranean.
I am not aware of any nation that does not have a 'prophesied future history' (Genesis 12:3 etc.). What I believe is not 'replacement theology' or 'supercessionism,' but Inclusion Theology: '... that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the Gospel' (Eph. 3:6), and that this is not an afterthought by God, but part of his eternal purpose (c.f. Isaiah 48:5-7 etc.).
I think that if you read William Hendriksen's book, called 'Israel in Prophecy' (I had the book, but when I went to look for it just now, I can't find it!), that although he does not agree with Dispensationalism, he is more hopeful for the Jews than Berkhof is.

I will close by saying that Baptist Covenant Theology differs from the Presbyterian version more than one might suppose, and recommend to all readers "The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology" by Pascal Denault. Here is a review: The Broken Wharfe Pamphlet | Pascal Denault - Why I Published the Revised Edition of The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
I did know it, but I do forgive you. I understand 'ethnic Israel' to be used for those of the Jewish race wherever they may live, as opposed to 'national Israel' which is one of the nations on the Eastern shore of the Mediterranean.
I am not aware of any nation that does not have a 'prophesied future history' (Genesis 12:3 etc.). What I believe is not 'replacement theology' or 'supercessionism,' but Inclusion Theology: '... that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the Gospel' (Eph. 3:6), and that this is not an afterthought by God, but part of his eternal purpose (c.f. Isaiah 48:5-7 etc.).
I think that if you read William Hendriksen's book, called 'Israel in Prophecy' (I had the book, but when I went to look for it just now, I can't find it!), that although he does not agree with Dispensationalism, he is more hopeful for the Jews than Berkhof is.

I will close by saying that Baptist Covenant Theology differs from the Presbyterian version more than one might suppose, and recommend to all readers "The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology" by Pascal Denault. Here is a review: The Broken Wharfe Pamphlet | Pascal Denault - Why I Published the Revised Edition of The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology
Reformed Baptists would hold to Charles Spurgeon view I believe in eschatology, that God still has dealings for national Israel, but that will be in great tribulation time, and at the Second Coming they will be converted to Jesus as their promised messiah , that would be the historical premil view
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Reformed Baptists would hold to Charles Spurgeon view I believe in eschatology, that God still has dealings for national Israel, but that will be in great tribulation time, and at the Second Coming they will be converted to Jesus as their promised messiah , that would be the historical premil view
Spurgeon was certainly Historic Premil, but others are Amil (like me) and others Postmil.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I did know it, but I do forgive you. I understand 'ethnic Israel' to be used for those of the Jewish race wherever they may live, as opposed to 'national Israel' which is one of the nations on the Eastern shore of the Mediterranean.
Got it. Sorry! Forgiveness is nice. :)
I am not aware of any nation that does not have a 'prophesied future history' (Genesis 12:3 etc.). What I believe is not 'replacement theology' or 'supercessionism,' but Inclusion Theology: '... that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the Gospel' (Eph. 3:6), and that this is not an afterthought by God, but part of his eternal purpose (c.f. Isaiah 48:5-7 etc.).
Okay, I'll try to work through this, but at this point it sounds too general to me. To me, Gen. 12:3 is about the Abrahamic covenant, not really a prophecy of "all nations."
I think that if you read William Hendriksen's book, called 'Israel in Prophecy' (I had the book, but when I went to look for it just now, I can't find it!), that although he does not agree with Dispensationalism, he is more hopeful for the Jews than Berkhof is.
Interesting. Never heard of that book, though I have Hendriksen's commentary on the pastoral epistles from 1957, so he's old school!
I will close by saying that Baptist Covenant Theology differs from the Presbyterian version more than one might suppose, and recommend to all readers "The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology" by Pascal Denault. Here is a review: The Broken Wharfe Pamphlet | Pascal Denault - Why I Published the Revised Edition of The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology
I'll keep my mind open, but a brief look on the Internet looks like the Baptist version is just the original with the Baptist distinctives added in.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Got it. Sorry! Forgiveness is nice. :)

Okay, I'll try to work through this, but at this point it sounds too general to me. To me, Gen. 12:3 is about the Abrahamic covenant, not really a prophecy of "all nations."

Interesting. Never heard of that book, though I have Hendriksen's commentary on the pastoral epistles from 1957, so he's old school!

I'll keep my mind open, but a brief look on the Internet looks like the Baptist version is just the original with the Baptist distinctives added in.
Big disagreement on the issue of "just how new was the New Covenant"
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Big disagreement on the issue of "just how new was the New Covenant"
Exactly! Presbyterian covenant theology treats the new covenant as a 'renewed' version of the old covenant; particularly that baptism in the new covenant is simply the equivalent of circumcision and therefore applicable for children. This is crazy for all sorts of reasons, not least that the Bible tells us that the new covenant is 'not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt' (Jer. 31:32; Heb. 8:9).

While most paedobaptists spoke of the covenants being largely the same, the early Particular Baptists stressed the difference between them, and were given a huge boost when Congregationalist John Owen, in his massive commentary on Hebrews, revealed 17 differences between the two covenants.

I think I can do no better than to list these differences, trying to put them very briefly in my own words. [I shall refer to the Sinaitic covenant as the ‘first’ covenant because that is how the writer to the Hebrews speaks of it]

1. They differ in the time of their establishment. The first was established in the third month after the coming out from Egypt of the Israelites (Exod 19:1). The second, ‘At just the right time’ (Rom 5:6, NIV); ‘In the dispensation of the fullness of time’ (Eph 1:10). ‘When the fullness of the time was come’ (Gal 4:4). ‘When the Day of Pentecost had fully come….’ (Acts 2:1).
2. They differ in the place of their establishment. The first covenant, in Sinai; the new covenant, in Jerusalem; but in this connection it is worth reading Gal 4:24-26. Sinai represents bondage; the new Jerusalem represents freedom.
3. They differ in the manner of their promulgation (Heb 12:18-26). The first came with fire and the sound of a trumpet (Exod 19:18f); the New came with a voice from heaven (Psalm 110:4; Matt 3:17).
4. They differ in their mediators. In the first covenant , it was Moses, who was faithful as a servant (Heb 3:5); in the New, it was Christ, a Son over His own house (Heb 3:6; 2Tim 2:5).
5. They differ in their subject matter. The first covenant revived the demands of the covenant of works with Moses saying, “Cursed is the one who does not confirm all the words of this law” (Deut 27:26). In the new covenant, God’s law is written on our hearts with Christ saying, “My yoke is easy and My burden is light” (Matt 11:30), and we find ourselves saying, ‘His commandments are not grievous’ (1John 5:3, A.V.).
6. They differ in the manner of their dedication. In the first covenant, it was by the sacrifice of beasts and the blood sprinkled around the altar (Lev 8, 9). The New was confirmed by the sacrifice and blood of Christ Himself (Heb 10:19-23; 12:24).
7. They differ in respect of the Priesthood. In the first covenant, the Priesthood was limited to Aaron and his posterity; in the New, Christ has an unchangeable priesthood in the power of an endless life (Heb 7:11-28).
8. They differ in the matter of their sacrifices and their access to God. The Aaronic high priest could enter in to the Holist Place only once a year having sacrificed for his own sins as well as those of the people; our Great High Priest had no sins of His own to atone for, but, ‘Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption’ (Heb 9:12).
9. They differ in the matter of their writing down. The first covenant was written on ‘tablets of stone,’ the New on ‘tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart’ (2Cor 3:3).
10. They differ as to their purposes. ‘The principal end of the first covenant was to discover sin, to condemn it and to set bounds to it’ (John Owen; cf. Gal 3:19). The purpose of the new covenant is to show forth God’s justice and mercy (Rom 3:26).
11. They differ in their effects. The first covenant was a ‘ministry of death’ and ‘of condemnation’ (2Cor 3:7, 9); the New gives liberty (2Cor 3:17-18).
12. They differ in the grant of the Holy Spirit. It appears that during the period of the first covenant, the Holy Spirit was indeed active, but there was so much a wide and greater effusion of His power at Pentecost, that John speaks sometimes as if He had not come before (John 7:39; 15:26 etc.).
13. They differ in the declaration made in them of the kingdom of God. The term ‘kingdom of heaven’ or ‘kingdom of God’ does not appear in the O.T. Israel under the first covenant had the appearance of a kingdom of the world (physical borders, an army, a physical temple). The kingdom of God has none of these things. The Lord Jesus declared, “My kingdom is not of this world’ (John 18:26). His subjects are spread throughout the earth, and have their citizenship in heaven.
14. They differ in their substance and end. The first covenant was typical, shadowy and removable. The new covenant is substantial and permanent as containing the Body, which is Christ.
15. They differ in the extent of their ministration. The first covenant was largely confined to Israel after the flesh, with darkness reigning all around. In the new covenant, we read, ‘The people walking in darkness have seen a great light’ (Isaiah 9:2).
16. They differ in efficacy. The first covenant ‘made nothing perfect’ (Heb 7:19; cf. 8:7). It gave outward commands without giving the power to perform them (cf. Acts 15:10). In the new covenant, ‘says the Lord, “I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts”’ (Heb 8:10).
17. They differ in their duration. One was to be removed; one to abide forever (Heb 10:8-9).

We see therefore that the new covenant is the outworking of all God’s plans and promises, which are seen to be ‘Yes and Amen in Christ Jesus’ (2Cor 1:20). The new covenant is in Christ’s blood (Luke 22:20) and cannot possibly fail (cf. Isaiah 42:4). It was planned and arranged in eternity, so that it is called the ‘everlasting covenant’ (Heb 13:20-21 etc.), and Christ, ‘The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world’ (Rev 13:8). It is the consummation of all the covenants of promise (eg. John 8:56; Acts 2:30), and ‘the end of the law (that is, its purpose and fulfillment) for righteousness to everyone who believes’ (Rom 10:40).
 

Ascetic X

Well-Known Member
Yes, and only internet theologians say Covenant Theology does not include a future for ethnic Israel. National Israel is covenantally dead. Their resurrection is past; their believers were gathered into Christ and their unbelievers were destroyed with their Temple. However the Gospel is open to individual Jews, and they continue to reject it. The future? We'll have to see.
Romans 11:1-4

1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,

3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.

4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
 

J.D.

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Some may call me an internet theologian, but I have a BA and an MA in biblical studies, and teach theology (several courses) in a real college and real seminary. In fact, today I am giving a test in Bible Doctrines 2. Care to take it? The textbook is Charles Ryrie's Basic Theology. ;)
Yes, I am rusty but I would like to take it to test my memory
I'm not sure what you are saying here. You say you do not agree with those who say that there is no future for ethnic Israel
Clarification: I do not agree with those who say that there IS a future for ethnic Israel. I mean covenantaly and prophetically. The modern nation of Israel may or may not have a future as a geopolitical nation-state, depending on God's will in the matter, but in no way does modern Israel have a place in God's prophetic time table, nor are they in any way whatsoever holding a "special place" in God's Covenant (the New Covenant) today.


Please enlighten me. What future does Covenant Theology say waits for ethnic Israel?
A national turning to Christ. Not all CT, but some. Douglas Wilson (Post Mil Partial Preterist) for one holds this view. His disciple Pete Hegseth holds the same view. Most Historic Pre Mils hold it. John Gill held it.
 

J.D.

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Romans 11:1-4

1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,

3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.

4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
Christ was the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham. Paul was one of the remnant who received the promises by faith in Christ.
 

timf

Active Member
Covenantalism can be somewhat confusing in that both unilateral declarations and bilateral agreements are both called covenants. From a dispensational perspective two bilateral covenants would be Sinai and at the end of the tribulation when the faithful remnant of Israel revives the new covenant and the earthly kingdom is established.

Exo 24:8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
 

37818

Well-Known Member
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yes, I am rusty but I would like to take it to test my memory
Okay.
Clarification: I do not agree with those who say that there IS a future for ethnic Israel. I mean covenantaly and prophetically. The modern nation of Israel may or may not have a future as a geopolitical nation-state, depending on God's will in the matter, but in no way does modern Israel have a place in God's prophetic time table, nor are they in any way whatsoever holding a "special place" in God's Covenant (the New Covenant) today.
This is the typical position, to my knowledge, but a little better. I don't have much time (visitor coming, a class to prepare for, tons of grading to do). But I believe Romans 9-11 clearly disproves your position.

Rom 9:
1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
A national turning to Christ. Not all CT, but some. Douglas Wilson (Post Mil Partial Preterist) for one holds this view. His disciple Pete Hegseth holds the same view. Most Historic Pre Mils hold it. John Gill held it.
My grandfather, while historic pre-mil, did see a place for Israel in God's future because he interpreted literally.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Covenantalism can be somewhat confusing in that both unilateral declarations and bilateral agreements are both called covenants. From a dispensational perspective two bilateral covenants would be Sinai and at the end of the tribulation when the faithful remnant of Israel revives the new covenant and the earthly kingdom is established.

Exo 24:8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Do you take the view that the new covenant has not arrived yet? Certainly it was in the future when Jeremiah spoke of it, but it appears to be already present in Heb.10:11ff.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Yes, I am rusty but I would like to take it to test my memory

Clarification: I do not agree with those who say that there IS a future for ethnic Israel. I mean covenantaly and prophetically. The modern nation of Israel may or may not have a future as a geopolitical nation-state, depending on God's will in the matter, but in no way does modern Israel have a place in God's prophetic time table, nor are they in any way whatsoever holding a "special place" in God's Covenant (the New Covenant) today.



A national turning to Christ. Not all CT, but some. Douglas Wilson (Post Mil Partial Preterist) for one holds this view. His disciple Pete Hegseth holds the same view. Most Historic Pre Mils hold it. John Gill held it.
So did Charles Spurgeon
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
And Paul declared that God has not cast away His people.
he never cast away his faithful remnant within national Israel, but the nation has no covenant relationship with Yahweh any longer, but jews who receive Jesus as the savior and Lord now part of the spiritual Israel, the VChurch
 
Top