Featured New Covenant Theology

New Covenant Theology (NCT) is not the new covenant. I am not sure what your comment was directed at.

 

Interesting articles. In one I found the statement:

Traditional Covenant Theology sees the New Covenant as merely an updating of the Old Covenant and sees it as fulfilled in the church. New Covenant Theology sees the New Covenant as something new and not just a redoing of the Mosaic Covenant, but still thinks the New Covenant is being fulfilled in the church.

If "traditional covenant theology" is what I was taught growing up in the Baptist church I disagree with this statement. I have never heard the new covenant described as merely an updating of the first covenant. I've always thought of the second covenant as something new. Perhaps that's why I was told here that New Covenant Theology is not merely the new covenant.

 

Oh, I see further definition which says that New Covenant Theology claims that all Old Covenant laws have been cancelled in favor of the Law of Christ or New Covenant law of the New Testament. I don't support that view.

 

The New Covenant was promised before the Old Covenant (Gen. 3:15) and after the Old Covenant was inaugurated (Jer. 31:31). The New Covenant was realized at Pentecost. Classical (traditional) Covenant Theology views one Covenant of Grace with different administrations. Baptist Covenant Theology sees one Covenant of Grace, promised in the Genesis, but not realized until Christ. Old Testament saints were saved through the future work of Christ.

 

I dont know Herald....anything that eliminates the 4th commandment out of the equation will lead me to view it with a very discerning eye....so then rather than embrace it, I view it with suspicion. You would have to have a very compelling argument for this being legitimate.

 

This is the promise of the New Covenant before the Law was given by Moses.

After the Law was given by Moses, the New Covenant was again promised; this time more eloquently by Jeremiah.

It was not until Pentecost that the promised New Covenant of Genesis and Jeremiah was inaugurated.

I am not sure why you bring up the Sabbath (4th commandment). The Sabbath, or Lord's Day, is a pre-Law ordinance. It was actually a creation ordinance that is perpetually binding on God's people.

Here is the creation aspect of the Sabbath:

Here is the pre-Law aspect of the Sabbath:

The Law was not given until Exodus 20 (and explained in further detail throughout the rest of Exodus and Leviticus). We observe the Sabbath today as the Lord's day; not as the Jews observe it.

 

Thank you but I will be sitting with some serious Dutch Reformed very soon & I will examine their exegesis. Im sure they will probably tell me Im dealing with a faulty hermeneutic then further tell me to go back to understanding the Old Covenant before I tackled the New Covenant. We will see if my predictions are valid.....will let you know

 

I still am stymied why you brought up the 4th commandment.

 

Didnt you read Iconos post 25?

BTW, are you CT or Dipsy?

 

I will have to go back and read Icon's post.

I am a Baptist Covenant Theologian; not a paedobaptist CT. There is a difference.

 

Really what are the differences. When I attempted to study it as a Presbyterian, I saw many areas I didnt like so I didnt pick it up. I did not know there was a Baptist edition.

 

Paedobaptist covenant theology sees one Covenant of Grace in two administrations. Baptist covenant theology sees one covenant of grace promised in the Old Testament, but not realized until Pentecost. This is a material difference since paedobaptists base their argument of the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant on the Covenant of Grace.

 

Thanks.. any books on it you can recommend?

 

Go back to post #41. I recommend three good books on Baptist Covenant Theology.

 

This is a good statement of what I understand to be the traditional interpretations of old and new covenant theology. This is what I personally believe.

 

I understand that now. It's very confusing to talk about New Covenant Theology versus the New Covenent.

 

New Covenant Theology is revision of Covenant Theology, and to avoid confusion with the Biblical "New Covenant" might better be referred to as "Modified Covenant Theology." In a similar fashion, "Progressive Dispensationalism" is a revision of "Traditional Dispensationalism."

In my opinion, only Progressive Dispensationalism meshes with all scripture.

 

Dispensationalism is a theological term used to describe a method of interpreting the Bible. Progressive Dispensation is one version of many that differs from Traditional Dispensationalism. Dispensationalists believe Christ will govern upon David’s throne here on earth for one thousand years, or in other words they take those passages literally. Therefore Dispensationalists like to excoriate the “Reformed, Replacement Theology, Amillennialists” as not interpreting the Bible literally and therefore we stand on higher ground. And so it goes in theological debate.

Sadly the first thing to grasp is that the main difference between Covenant Theology (errant Amillennialists) and we, the virtuous Dispensationalists, has little to do with the idea that God governs man in differing ways. Both schools of thought agree God deals with man in different ways. No the chief difference is in our views of an End Times dispensation. Basically both schools agree on: 1) Dispensation of Innocence or how God dealt with man before the fall; 2) Dispensation of Conscious or how God deals with man without the Law; 3) Dispensation of the Law or how God deals with man with the Law; 4) Dispensation of Grace or how God deals with man in Christ Jesus before the Second Coming; 5) the Millennial Kingdom or how God deals with all Israel on earth after the Second Coming; and 6) the Eternal Kingdom or how God deals with his children in eternity. Now the chief difference is that the Amillennialists believe the fifth age is going on right now in heaven so the Second Coming will inaugurate the sixth dispensation. Hence, Amillennialists are against the idea of a thousand year reign of Christ on earth. Rather, they hold to the idea that the Church replaced Israel (Replacement Theology) and the promises to Israel have been transferred to the Church and are being fulfilled in heaven during the dispensation of grace.

Let me say here that the above represents my understanding of the issue and I am quite sure I have missed the mark in the details, but I believe the above properly represents the general idea. But now to the heart of the post, what is the difference between a traditional dispensationalist and a progressive dispensationalist?

“Traditional dispensationalists typically see the 'church age' as an interruption or parenthetical period in God's dealing with Israel. The church is seen as unrelated to Israel and the new covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34.” (Tim Warner)

Progressive dispensationalists see the Church Age as a progression where God deals with the faithful in a new covenant enabled by the blood of Christ, and this Dispensation of Grace is available to those with the Law (Jews) and those without the Law (Gentiles who have heard the gospel in light of the Old Testament). Some but not all Old Testament promises apply to the church now, and are not being held in abeyance pending the Second Coming. Thus I can read Galatians 3 and it matches my theology perfectly. Same for Romans 9-11.

Another area where I fundamentally disagree with many is that I believe God is using multiple dispensations at the same time. Therefore today, three dispensations are in effect, God is dealing with those without the Law, who have not heard the gospel presented in light of an understanding of the Old Testament (Dispensation of Conscience); God is dealing with those who have the Law which includes Jews and non Jews who have heard the gospel in light of the Old Testament but have not accepted the gospel and have not been born again (Dispensation of the Law); and three, God is dealing with born again believers, the Dispensation of Grace.

 

OK.... which of the 3 would you suggest for a neophyte?

& if Im reading your suggestions, does that mean I can tell these Dutch Reformed that I have no need to learn theirs or would it be of benefit for me to learn both then make a selection?

What bothers me is that Ive already studied Westminster as a Presbyterian....then 1689 as a Baptist, so now I suppose I will have to study their Confessions as well. How many of these things do I have to study? LOL

 

One of the reasons why I shy away from progressive dispensationalism is try as I might, I cannot develop an appreciation for the Law/Gospel connection. How is an individual saved by grace in all dispensations and yet the law which never saves and had an effective historical time span of about 1200 years (Moses to Christ) replace the gospel? It is true that the "New Covenant" replaces the "Old Covenant" but the old covenant from a Biblical perspective refers to the Moasic covenant which was broken by the Jews centuries before the New Covenant is even mentioned. The New Covenant likewise is given to the Jews not the gentile church so I think that any system of theology that applies the New Covenant to the church is assuming doctrine not found in the Bible.

Of course traditional covenant theology as we know if also suffers from a lack of a Biblical explanation in that the Bible doesn't teach a covenant of works, grace and or redemption. Just because the NT talks about the New Covenant doesn't prove that the church owns the New Covenant. So I view NCT as an attempt to find a home for reformed christians who want to back off traditional covenant theology with it's lack of Biblical support but insulates them from dispensationalism because in academic circles dispensationalism just isn't very cool. It is interesting how covenant theology hobbiest of any flavor allow for a historical development of their doctrine and differences of opinion within their overall camp but will not tolerate even the most minute disagreement among dispensationalist without insisting that dispies are a motley crew of confused academic wanabees.

Too bad you have to go ahead and ruin an otherwise very good post. Reminds me of most accidents on the ski slopes (i'm a volunteer EMT) around here, if the skier got off the slopes one run short of the crash that resulted in a long bone fracture they would avoid a six month recovery and numerous PT sessions. You got to know when to fold up I guess.