Featured New Covenant Theology

Hi all,

Literature on Baptist covenant theology has been picking up of late. My book "Waters of Promise:Finding Meaning in Believer Baptism" covers the basic contours of historic Baptist covenant theology with the goal of applying those insights to how we consider baptism. I argue in my book that the historical versions of Baptist covenant theology included both General and Particular Baptists, so it need not only be available to "Calvinistic" Baptists today. Nonetheless, most of the recent literature focuses on Reformed approaches to covenant theology. For example, Reformed Baptist Academic Press has several new works on the subject for those interested, some of which other posters mention above.

 

Thanks for the questions

The OT saints "gained approval" by faith, and when they physically died were carried to "Abraham's bosom" a sort of comfortable holding cell, until the New Covenant was inaugurated. Then Jesus took them to heaven.

The New Covenant was given to both Jews and Gentiles, there is no difference in Christ, Christ tore down the wall between them. Galatians 3 is "in the Bible" and it explains that Gentiles become descendents of Abraham. Therefore the New Covenant, promised to Abraham's descendents, applies to believing Gentiles and Jews.

I think this addresses the state of traditional dispensationlism, not progressive.

This view is consistent with the first 3 chapters of Romans.

 

The big problem is, of course, the Bible gives terms and conditions of the New Covenant and your theory does not fit those terms. Granted, many big thinkers throughout the last 2000 years agree with you but the Bible doesn't.

And that is the problem with covenant theology in general, it ignores the actual terms of the New Covenant and makes up a theory that because the New Testament believers in Christ are the people of God they must be the recipients of the New Covenant. No where in the passages of the Bible that discuss the New Covenant is the gentile church given the promises of the New Covenant.

 

Now my 2 Cents on the subject matter.

Dispensational theology is going by the wayside just like other bad theology from times past, such as Barth's mythology, Rauschenbusch's social gospel, etc. Arriving late in the history of the church, largely pressed forward by one man who thought he figured a lot of stuff out, and promulgated by a set of study notes that some took as "scripture" and tent revivals led by evangelists that did not have the scrutiny of theologians), the theology of dispensationalism is rather a dead issue these days in most places.

For the record, I agree that covenantal theology also has its problems. There is no "covenant of works" proclaimed to Adam, nor is there a covenant of grace proclaimed after the fall. These are theological constructs as is dispensationalism (which utterly fails to deal with Israel and the church) that seek to provide some sort of understandable gridwork overlaying the Scriptures with which to understand God's salvific actions.

New theologies like this modified covenantal (NCT) we are discussing are now emerging that do a better job of actually detailing what God has revealed in the Scriptures. Another is a new theology of election that is perhaps the most sound theology I've seen to date -- still waiting patiently for that to roll out to the public. It at least deals with all of Scripture instead of cherry-picking out this or that part to make a foundational grid.

 

The Church is the Eternal object of all The Covenant promises.To miss this is catastrophic.

 

How very christian of you to give dispensationalism the same cult status as 19th century liberalism. Kindly refresh my memory, did liberalism develop as a result of dispensationalism or did it come out of reformed covenant theology? How many liberal dispensationalist do you know? Exactly what teaching of dispensationalism comes from outside of the Bible?

You say that reformed covenant theology has it's problems, you correctly say that the Bible doesn't teach a covenant of grace, redemption or works. But I don't see you taking the reformed, who make up the vast majority of posters here, to task for their unbiblical and man made theology. Why is that?

The biggest problem with NCT is that it is a subset of covenant theology. Quite simple really. How does NCT correct the faults of reformed covenant theology and at the same time avoid being a new teaching since we all know that a real problem with dispensationalism is that it is only 200 years old.

 

Dr. Brandon C. Jones can you rush send me an evaluation copy of your book so that I can thus be converted to Reformed Baptist Covenant thinking before it's too late? Question? Does your book have any pictures?

 

As far as I am concerned new covenant theology *should* be the PRIMARY theology for all of us. The reason is very simple of course, as every one of us live in the period of the NC, and not the OC.

Of cource we dont discard the OC scriptures, God forbid. But the NC should be our priority.

 

Herald..

You posted

Not neccesarily.

It is a very common for non-calvinists, such as myself, to be strongly New Covenant oriented.

 

Avoidance

The terms of the New Covenant are clearly laid out in scripture. First to the Jews, but then to the Gentiles. In Christ there is no difference between Jew and Gentile. "All Israel" is comprised of believing Jews and Gentiles.

 

Don't some Dispensationalists believe that the four Gospels don't apply to the current age?

 

Hi Thomas,

The publisher came up with a good picture on the cover. In the book I argue that the view of baptism I defend is compatible with a variety of positions, not just Reformed Baptist thought. For a review or evaluation copy please contact the publisher directly.

 

The Bible does contain this but it also makes the distinction between males and females, Jew and Greek, free and slave, apostles and prophets and so forth, all who may be in Christ. Is it possible that your interpretation of the bounds of there being "no difference" between Jew and Gentile with respect to who are the sons of Abraham through Isaac through Jacob may not be the best explanation? Did not Paul write that to his kinsmen in the flesh, that to those sons of Abraham were given the covenants and the temple duties?

 

Hi Thomas, Paul makes it clear that the distinction between Jew and Gentile goes away once God puts us spiritually in Christ. Galatians 3 is crystal.

 

Some Dispensationalists no doubt believe mistaken doctrine. Progressive dispensationalists believe the gospels apply to us in the current age.

It seems atheists like to ridicule Calvinism to disparage Christianity, and Covenant theists like to ridicule traditional dispensationalism to disparage progressive dispensationalism.

 

Since everything is spiritual, I guess you don't believe in a physical resurrection from the grave?

 

Yes, they are called Hyper Dispy, they hold that the church started somewhere in the ministry of paul, in His epistles, and that up until than was a transistion period between law to Grace!

So no water Baptism/ just Communion for them...

Gospels just for those live in times of Christ, before Paul came as Apostle

 

Why is it that folks would rather misrepresent my views than engage in fruitful discussion? I am groaning just as much as the next born again spiritually person for my adoption, the physical resurrection of my body, Romans 8:23.

 

No misrepresentation Van, I was asking you to clear up this matter.