New Covenant Theology

[Brandon C. Jones]

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.

 

[Van]

Thanks for the questions

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

 

[thomas15]

.....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.

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.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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.

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

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

 

[thomas15]

....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.

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.

 

[thomas15]

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.

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?

 

[Alive in Christ]

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.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Herald..

You posted

NCT is a Calvinist theology.

Not neccesarily.

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

 

[Van]

Avoidance

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.

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.

 

[FollowTheWay]

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.

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

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

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?

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.

 

[thomas15]

..... In Christ there is no difference between Jew and Gentile.

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?

 

[Van]

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.

 

[Van]

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.

 

[thomas15]

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.

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

 

[Yeshua1]

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

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

 

[Van]

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

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.

 

[thomas15]

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.