The New Covenant

[agedman]

I see no contradiction in believing that the New Covenant was established by Christ (we remember this every time we partake of Communion) and understanding that resurrection is taught to have several distinctly different times as well as the events of those resurrections themselves.

In regards to the New Covenant applied to Israel, we can from prophecy and the promises of God understand that Israel will one day receive a temporal Kingdom in which Christ will rule. At that time, they will be grafted back in to the covenantal provision God has declared for them.

That does not preclude a belief that this New Covenant is not already enjoined by the Church, comprised of both Jew and Gentile.

This is truly a refreshing read!!

Take Matthew 24, for instance. We cannot reconcile that with the Return of Christ as expressed by Paul. The differences between the two cannot, in my view, be reconciled. Neither can we look back in history and see fulfillment of Christ's teaching there, and we keep in mind that Christ had not just a ministry to all of mankind, but in order to "fulfill the law," He had a ministry to fulfill concerning Israel. I do not view God's dealings with Israel to have been fulfilled yet, but they will be in the Tribulation and the Millennial Kingdom.

It has long bothered me that some preach from the sermon on the Mount as if it was applicable in all aspects to the church.

It seems that ignoring the three questions the disciples asked that started the discourse by Christ is part of the problem. Unless one keeps those questions in mind while going through what Christ said, error may occur in the view taken.

For folks reading, the three questions the disciples asked:
1. when shall these things be?
2. what shall be the sign of thy coming?
3 (what shall be the sign) of the end of the world?

Granted some would unify numbers 2 and 3, but any teacher knows that this is a two part question and the answer must include both parts to be counted correct.

Have to get going, but I would ask, is there something that you see concerning the Rapture and the New Covenant as contradictory? That one cancels out the other?

I will try to check back later,

God bless.

No, not yet.

I am a dispensational pre-mil thinker, and am (in my old age) just beginning to work through some of the "new covenant theology." So far, I find is seemingly more in agreement with what I have actually held as biblical.

Covenant theology was always a bit uncomfortable to me, and the strict dispensational thinking isn't much more comfortable.

I will mark you out as a resource should I stumble over an issue. And as you read my posts, please input at will with any part you consider might help me in my thinking or might be in error, especially as it relates to the NCT.

 

[DaChaser1]

I would have to disagree with the stament in regards to the "First" and the New Covenant on this point: when Hebrews speaks of the First Covenant, it is clear that this Covenant had its beginnings in the law (a prominent theme of contrast to the New Covenant and associated work) and we are given a clear understanding that it is Levitical Practice which is in view...not a "general Covenant" that had application concerning the time before Christ.

While I would not necessarily dismiss one's beliefs to that effect, even as it seems NCTers hold a similar position, We cannot conclude from Hebrews that any other covenant other than the Covenant of Law, specifically, the Mosaic Covenant, is in view.

When the writer seeks to contrast the Priesthood of Christ with that of others, it is a pre-law Priest which is given for an example. He is contrasted specifically with the tribe of Levi, which we would all agree has a beginning that does not extend to the foundation of the world.

God bless.

from the various postings that you jhave made regarding eschatology here, would yopu see yourself as being more aligned in the "progressive Dispy" camp?

 

[OldRegular]

I would have to disagree with the stament in regards to the "First" and the New Covenant on this point: when Hebrews speaks of the First Covenant, it is clear that this Covenant had its beginnings in the law (a prominent theme of contrast to the New Covenant and associated work) and we are given a clear understanding that it is Levitical Practice which is in view...not a "general Covenant" that had application concerning the time before Christ.

While I would not necessarily dismiss one's beliefs to that effect, even as it seems NCTers hold a similar position, We cannot conclude from Hebrews that any other covenant other than the Covenant of Law, specifically, the Mosaic Covenant, is in view.

When the writer seeks to contrast the Priesthood of Christ with that of others, it is a pre-law Priest which is given for an example. He is contrasted specifically with the tribe of Levi, which we would all agree has a beginning that does not extend to the foundation of the world.

God bless.

I certainly agree that the writer of Hebrews is contrasting the New Covenant with the Mosaic Covenant, which he called the First Covenant. I also agree that there was no general covenant prior to the iniation of the New Covenant. However, I believe that God has always dealt with man from the standpoint of Grace. It was by Grace that God shed the blood of an animal to provide covering for the sin of Adam and Eve. Noah found Grace in the eyes of the Lord, and Abraham believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

 

[DaChaser1]

I certainly agree that the writer of Hebrews is contrasting the New Covenant with the Mosaic Covenant, which he called the First Covenant. I also agree that there was no general covenant prior to the iniation of the New Covenant. However, I believe that God has always dealt with man from the standpoint of Grace. It was by Grace that God shed the blood of an animal to provide covering for the sin of Adam and Eve. Noah found Grace in the eyes of the Lord, and Abraham believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

God also though had the Old Covenant and His Law granted unto a "peculiar people/nation" Isreal! was their relationship between God and themselves, specific to them at that point in time!

 

[Van]

Reply to Darrell C,

I have a few friends that are PD, and while we disagree on a few points, such as pre-trib versus post-trib, and viewing Michael as being Jesus Christ, i will say that a few of them give a reasonable presentation of the basis for their belief.

Probably my favorite brothers to debate, because we do have so much common ground, in regards to salvation, the Trinity, and other issues, which makes the intricate matters all the more interesting when comparing notes.

I am aware that PD views the New Covenant as fulfilling the promises of God, but not aware that it is held that the New does not replace the Old.

Hebrews alone will show that the Old Covenant has been made obsolete, giving wat to the New ratified by the blood of Christ.

The First Covenant was not capable of bringing completion to the fatih which began in the Old, though it was in fact able to bring man to faith and show him his absolute dependance upon God.

The New, because it is better, shows that it is different from the Old, not merely the Old refurbished and renovated.

Could you be more specific, Van?

God bless.

Let me back up and say I believe the rapture will occur during the first part of the tribulation, at or before the half way point, but my understanding of PD allows for wiggle-room due to the vague revelation.

I have no opinion of Micheal being the same divine person as Jesus. I do not believe such a statement is made or suggested in scripture, and speculation is worthless.

Yes Progressive Dispensationalism does hold that the Old Covenant is replaced by the New. But the method of replacement is inclusion of the promises which cannot be nullified.

I am not sure how I could be more specific that Galatians 3.
The Old Testament promises were made to Abraham's descendants and others based on faith in God. And all those promises apply to born again believers. "If you are Christ's, then you are Abraham"s offspring, heirs according to promise."

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Here is something that you might find of interest, it was posted (quoted from theopedia) by a member as I guess a doctrinal statement of NCTers:


Here is a brief overview of Covenant Theology (from Theopedia):


Quote:
Covenant Theology (or Federal theology) is a prominent feature in Protestant theology, especially in the Presbyterian and Reformed churches, and a similar form is found in Methodism and Reformed Baptist churches. This article primarily concerns Covenant Theology as held by the Presbyterian and Reformed churches, which use the covenant concept as an organizing principle for Christian theology and view the history of redemption under the framework of three overarching theological covenants: the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace. These three are called “theological covenants” because although not explicitly presented as covenants, they are, according to covenant theologians, implicit in the Bible.

In brief, Covenant Theology teaches that God has established two great covenants with mankind and a covenant within the Godhead to deal with how the other two relate. The first covenant in logical order, usually called the Covenant of Redemption, is the agreement within the Godhead that the Father would appoint his son Jesus to give up his life for mankind and that Jesus would do so (cf. Titus 1:1–3).

The second, called the Covenant of Works, was made in the Garden of Eden between God and Adam and promised life for obedience and death for disobedience. Adam disobeyed God and broke the covenant, and so the third covenant was made between God and all of mankind, who also fell with Adam according to Romans 5:12–21.

This third covenant, the Covenant of Grace, promised eternal blessing for belief in Christ and obedience to God’s word. It is thus seen as the basis for all biblical covenants that God made individually with Noah, Abraham, and David, nationally with O.T. Israel as a people, and universally with man in the New Covenant. These individual covenants are called the “biblical covenants” because they are explicitly described as such in the Bible.

Covenant theology as a refinement of Reformed theology is evident among early Scottish theologians. For example, see The Theology and Theologians of Scotland, Chiefly of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (1872) passage: “The old theology of Scotland might be emphatically described as a covenant theology.”[1]

If I read this right this states that they do recognize a "Covenant of Works," thoguh again, that does not mean that individually adherents will express a personal belief of this covenant, as you have testified.

But isn't that usually the case...lol.

I think the extract you quoted above is actually on Covenant Theology proper rather than NCT. The nomenclature varies a little, with the names, Covenant of Redemption etc., but that's basically it. The earliest Particular baptists were all Covenant Theology people. The first P.B. book, written by John Spillsbury, A Treatise concerning the Lawfull Subject of Baptisme, was covenantal. There is an excellent book, Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ (Reformed Baptist Press) which takes a work from 17th Century Baptist Nehemiah Coxe and adds an extract from John Owen's commentary on Hebrews to show how the early Particular Baptists were in agreement with Owen on the covenants.

The book that really sold me on Covenant Theology, however is The Divine Covenants by A. W. Pink (Pietan Publications). It's available on line if you want to read it.

I usually tend to get nervous (lol) when people mention the "Moral Law" of God.

I feel that we can find balance the doctrine of scripture and understand that basically, the righteousness of God stands forefront, and all that fails to replicate that righteousness is sin.

I would have to understand what intent is behind the term "Moral Law," that is, according to each individual, before saying too much.

I think it might be better to start a new thread on the Moral Law, but let me just suggest that you consider verses like Deut 5:22; 1 Sam 15:22, and Amos 5:21-24 which show that God considers His Moral law, summarized in the Decalogue, differently to His ritual and ceremonial laws. Also, each of the Ten Commandments can be found in the O'T., before Exodus 20.

It seems to me that those that would again bring into bondage others to the First Covenant use this term to separate specific statutes and ordinances found in the Law with others, in an attempt to "prove" that the First Covenant is still in force in the lives of believers.

We can understand that we are still responsible to live according to the righteousness of God as expressed in the scripture, which precedes the First Covenant, and understand we have been given His Spirit in order that we might accomplish that, but...we have to separate, I believe, the first from the New, completely. We cannot, I believe, "blend" the two, in order to keep intact the continuity of the covenants, that is just unnecessary.

I do not contend that we should 'blend' the covenants. I believe that the Decalogue transcends the covenants and is the expression of God's eternal will for mankind. Just suppose for a moment that Adam had strangled Eve, or had built an altar to the sun or the moon in the Garden. Do you think that God would have said, "Oh, that's alright, Adam. just so long as you don't eat the fruit!" God's moral law is written on all men's hearts (Rom 2:14-15), but is smudged and defaced by the Fall. It was written on tablets of stone under the Old Covenant, and is re-written on the hearts of believers under the New Covenant (2 Cor 3:2-6; Heb 10:16. cf. Psalm 40:6-8).

I have to go now. I'll try to write again a little later.

Steve

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Paedobaptist C.T. stresses the continuity of the covenants to the point that the New Covenant becomes the 'Renewed' covenant, following Witsius and Turretine.

I have spent many an hour, perhaps days on this one issue alone. Based upon the word "new," it is proposed that the New Covenant is a refurbished Old, or First Covenant.
I reject that outright.
The First may have pictured Christ, but did not have Christ, for example.
The First brought remission, but not perfection, or, completion.

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding as to what the Mosaic ('First,' 'Old') Covenant is. Here is something I wrote on my blog:-

The Sinaitic covenant was made with a people, not with individuals. Consider Exodus 6:6-8. Very few indeed of the people addressed there made it to the Promised land, but the nation did. This national covenant did not refer to the final salvation of individuals; nor was it broken by the disobedience, or even idolatry of any individuals so long as that was not sanctioned or tolerated by the governing authority. It was a type of the covenant later made with true believers, but only ‘a shadow of the good things to come’ (Heb 10:1). So when, as a nation, they had broken the covenant irretrievably (cf. Jer 5:1ff), God declared that He would make a ‘new covenant,’ putting His laws not only into the hands of its recipients, but also in their inward parts, writing it on their hearts rather than on stone tablets, forgiving their iniquity and remembering their sin no more (Jer 31:31ff).

The Israelites then, had many advantages, outward privileges and encouragements to seek the Lord for true salvation, but like so many professing Christians today, most of them rested in their privileges and sought no more. This outward covenant was made with a nation, entitling them to outward national blessings (cf. Deut 28:1-14) on condition of outward national obedience and warning of national calamities in the event of national disobedience; whereas the new covenant is ratified personally with true believers and secures spiritual blessings (eg. 1Peter 1:1-5, 9) by producing a holiness of heart and evangelical obedience to the divine law. Psalm 119 is written by a regenerate person. It is only the one to whom the Lord will not impute iniquity who can say, “Oh! How I love Your law, etc.” To others, the law stood at best as a schoolmaster, cane in hand, and at worst as a sword of Damocles, poised to deliver destruction.

Yahveh is often described as being the Lord and God of the Israelites, even where it is clear that most of them were quite devoid of internal purity, and many of them were thoroughly wicked. How then could He be their Lord and God in distinction from the Gentiles? Only on the ground of the Sinaitic covenant. He had become their Lord by covenant and they were bound to own Him as such, unlike the Gentiles (cf. Acts 14:16). As the covenant was a national one, a child born into a Jewish family entered into that covenant at birth regardless of the true faith of its parents, and automatically partook of its blessings, responsibilities and liabilities, receiving (if male) the national covenant sign, which indeed looked back to the faith of Abraham and forward to the true Seed who should be born of the line of Abraham but yet said nothing about the piety of the circumcised child or of his parents.

But now, the national relationship between Yahveh and Israel having been long dissolved (Matt 21;43), the Jew has no prerogative above the Gentile and therefore no one has the right to call Yahveh their God if they do not yield willing obedience to Him and perform spiritual worship (Rom 2:28-9; Phil 3:3). It is therefore a mixing of the covenants and a confusing of Mt. Sinai with Mt. Zion, to suppose that a child becomes a Christian in any sense by birth and is therefore entitled to the new covenant sign, baptism.

[Much of the last few paragraphs is an abridgement of the work of Abraham Booth]

Read more on http://marprelate.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/the-covenants-part-v-the-sinaitic-mosaic-covenant/

Baptistic C.T. follows John Owen in seeing a contrast between the covenants, yet with continuity.

Steve

And I think I would be found to be in agreement with that, though particulars would have to be discussed.

I believe the New Covenant satisfies all of the promises of those that came before them. Nothing is taken away, yet, we gain more knowledge as revelation progressed.

I believe the eternal state will be the end result of God's redemptive work on behalf of man, each covenant working toward that end.

You are quite correct. However, one of the errors in paedobaptist C.T. is seeing each covenant as succeding the other and as being of the same nature, so that the Abrahamic Covenant is seen by them as being 'binding' upon Christians (especialy in regard to the 'covenant sign' being placed upon infants). But why then does the writer to the Hebrews call the Mosaic Covenant, the 'First' Covenant, when he knew perfectly well that the Abrahamic came before it? Because the Abrahamic Covenant is a Covenant of Promise, and therefore of a different nature to the Mosaic Covenant. Consider these covenants:-

Gen 9:11 (Noahic). "Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood.”

Gen 12:2 (Abrahamic). “I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing……….And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

1Chron 17:11 (Davidic). “And it shall be, when your days are fulfilled, when you must go to be with your fathers, that I will set up your seed after you, who will be one of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom.”

Exod 19:5 (Sinaitic). “Now therefore if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people.”

The “I will” of the covenants of promise contrasts with the “if you will” of the Sinaitic. Note also the “He will” when the New Covenant is announced.

Matt 1:21. “…..And you shall call His name Jesus for He will save His people from their sins.”

Luke 1:32. “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father, David.”

‘For all the promises of God In Him are Yes, and in Him, Amen, to the glory of God’ (2Cor 1:20). The covenants of promise are fulfilled in Christ, and the First Covenant is renered obsolete by the New Covenant.

Steve

 

[kyredneck]

There's nothing 'new' about any of the spiritual tenets of the 'new' covenant, it's new only because the first has been made old:

In that he saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old.......Heb 13:13

God doesn't change, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever. The Spirit has always blown where He wills, God has never been a respecter of persons, and in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, has been acceptable to him.

The first covenant was ADDED (casting a shadow of the good things of the Everlasting Covenant behind it):

What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made.....Gal 3:19,

And then it was removed:

And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that have been made, that those things which are not shaken may remain. Heb 12:7

These 'new' things of the New Covenant are 'new' only because they were mysteries that had not hitherto before been revealed. The 'new' is actually not 'new', it is revealed mystery.

 

[DaChaser1]

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding as to what the Mosaic ('First,' 'Old') Covenant is. Here is something I wrote on my blog:-



Read more on http://marprelate.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/the-covenants-part-v-the-sinaitic-mosaic-covenant/


You are quite correct. However, one of the errors in paedobaptist C.T. is seeing each covenant as succeding the other and as being of the same nature, so that the Abrahamic Covenant is seen by them as being 'binding' upon Christians (especialy in regard to the 'covenant sign' being placed upon infants). But why then does the writer to the Hebrews call the Mosaic Covenant, the 'First' Covenant, when he knew perfectly well that the Abrahamic came before it? Because the Abrahamic Covenant is a Covenant of Promise, and therefore of a different nature to the Mosaic Covenant. Consider these covenants:-

Gen 9:11 (Noahic). "Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood.”

Gen 12:2 (Abrahamic). “I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing……….And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

1Chron 17:11 (Davidic). “And it shall be, when your days are fulfilled, when you must go to be with your fathers, that I will set up your seed after you, who will be one of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom.”

Exod 19:5 (Sinaitic). “Now therefore if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people.”

The “I will” of the covenants of promise contrasts with the “if you will” of the Sinaitic. Note also the “He will” when the New Covenant is announced.

Matt 1:21. “…..And you shall call His name Jesus for He will save His people from their sins.”

Luke 1:32. “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father, David.”

‘For all the promises of God In Him are Yes, and in Him, Amen, to the glory of God’ (2Cor 1:20). The covenants of promise are fulfilled in Christ, and the First Covenant is renered obsolete by the New Covenant.

Steve

Under the new Covenant relationship with god, established by Cross of Christ...

ONLY thing still left binding would be to walk in the HS, and thru His empowering, do not fulfill lust/dictates of the fallen nature, the flesh!

IF we abide in Christ and the HS enabling, than shall walk worthy, as the law is now on our hearts!

 

[agedman]

Ok, folks,

I'm a bit confused again on this thread.

As I am reading, I think I am seeing some who are making statements about the difference between the old and new covenants, and using the term new covenant.

But, I also see the term "NTC" which is New Covenant Theology.

And at times it seems stuff is getting overlapped - kind of like my belly overlaps the keys on my laptop.

According to what I have gather so far, the NTC is an attempt (though still in the formative steps) of blending the OCT and the Dispensational views.

Perhaps I need a label indicator to tell me from what position the post is being made?

Do you all think it would help to put something in the title. Or, somebody post me a list of Who is on first base, and What is on second base, because I-Don't-know would like to step up to the plate and at least try for a strike out..????

 

[DaChaser1]

Ok, folks,

I'm a bit confused again on this thread.

As I am reading, I think I am seeing some who are making statements about the difference between the old and new covenants, and using the term new covenant.

But, I also see the term "NTC" which is New Covenant Theology.

And at times it seems stuff is getting overlapped - kind of like my belly overlaps the keys on my laptop.

According to what I have gather so far, the NTC is an attempt (though still in the formative steps) of blending the OCT and the Dispensational views.

Perhaps I need a label indicator to tell me from what position the post is being made?

Do you all think it would help to put something in the title. Or, somebody post me a list of Who is on first base, and What is on second base, because I-Don't-know would like to step up to the plate and at least try for a strike out..????

I though that we were discussing the new Covenant, not new Covenant theology of the "new reformed?"

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Apparently not.

 

[agedman]

I though that we were discussing the new Covenant, not new Covenant theology of the "new reformed?"

Apparently not.

So, I'm not the only one confused!

Lonely, no more.

 

[kyredneck]

Originally Posted by OldRegular

The temple with its blood sacrifices is gone forever.

Zactly.

I believe there may well be a revival amongst the Jews and a general incoming of them into the Church, but as for the old law system, it's gone forever:

.... Let there be no fruit from thee henceforward for ever....Mt 21:19

21 And a strong angel took up a stone as it were a great millstone and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with a mighty fall shall Babylon, the great city, be cast down, and shall be found no more at all.
22 And the voice of harpers and minstrels and flute-players and trumpeters shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft, shall be found any more at all in thee; and the voice of a mill shall be heard no more at all in thee;
23 and the light of a lamp shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the princes of the earth; for with thy sorcery were all the nations deceived.
24 And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all that have been slain upon the earth. Rev 18

 

[Darrell C]

This is truly a refreshing read!!




It has long bothered me that some preach from the sermon on the Mount as if it was applicable in all aspects to the church.

It seems that ignoring the three questions the disciples asked that started the discourse by Christ is part of the problem. Unless one keeps those questions in mind while going through what Christ said, error may occur in the view taken.

For folks reading, the three questions the disciples asked:
1. when shall these things be?
2. what shall be the sign of thy coming?
3 (what shall be the sign) of the end of the world?

Granted some would unify numbers 2 and 3, but any teacher knows that this is a two part question and the answer must include both parts to be counted correct.



No, not yet.

I am a dispensational pre-mil thinker, and am (in my old age) just beginning to work through some of the "new covenant theology." So far, I find is seemingly more in agreement with what I have actually held as biblical.

Covenant theology was always a bit uncomfortable to me, and the strict dispensational thinking isn't much more comfortable.

I will mark you out as a resource should I stumble over an issue. And as you read my posts, please input at will with any part you consider might help me in my thinking or might be in error, especially as it relates to the NCT.

Hello AgedMan, you point out what is probably one of the most significant points to consider concerning the Lord's teaching concerning the events of the Tribulation, the questions asked by His disciples which lead into His teaching, and the other aspect which couples with their questions (and I agree...there are three), which is the expectation they have in asking these questions.

I would say probably one of the things that gets us in trouble is trying to maintain adherence to a theology that has to exclude another and that would try to box us into one or the other, rather than allowing for the possibility that perhaps both groups have valid points.

We can recognize the individual covenants of scripture, as well as the different "ages" in which the revelation of knowledge increases.

We know more detail concerning Christ than they which were under the Covenant of law, that cannot be denied, and we can expect, when Christ comes, to no more. However, when Christ comes, it will not be a matter that the Gospel will be revealed in more detail where it would significantly change our understanding of how we are saved, it will be a matter of realization of further fulflillment concerning the same understanding, such as we know we will be glorified, then (when He comes), we will be glorified.

Thanks for the participation, I believe as we look at this we can better understand the New Covenant, if we seek to have serious discussion. Even those that hold a different view can contribute, as I have found that an opposing presentation usually offers the opposite result, revealing the weakness of the view itself. For this reason I am a firm believer in the Pre-Tribulation Rapture...lol. The more it is opposed, and the more I look at the presentations for a differing view, the more difficulties arise with other views.

Okay, again, thanks for the participation, I am really looking forward to this thread.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

from the various postings that you jhave made regarding eschatology here, would yopu see yourself as being more aligned in the "progressive Dispy" camp?

That might be said. The fellowship in which I am a member could be called dispensational, and there is much that I find in this theology that at the very least, has to be given due credit.

But I like to think that the views I hold are taught to me by God through diligent study...just as we all do...lol.

But what I have learned in talking with other believers (and non-believers) is that we make a big mistake by trying to wrap people in a one-size-fits-all wrapper.

Some that call themselves dispensational make arguments that I believe to be in error. That does not mean I am in disagreement with all they say.

I seem to have a hard time fitting in with anybody...lol. And I am okay with that. This is why I love to discuss doctrine, because an honest look at the basis of our belief leads to serious consideration of the views we hold. Which is why I dislike trying to label people, though, I have found that those involved in a legalistic view can be labeled, though it is good to be careful when trying to speak with them.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I certainly agree that the writer of Hebrews is contrasting the New Covenant with the Mosaic Covenant, which he called the First Covenant. I also agree that there was no general covenant prior to the iniation of the New Covenant. However, I believe that God has always dealt with man from the standpoint of Grace. It was by Grace that God shed the blood of an animal to provide covering for the sin of Adam and Eve. Noah found Grace in the eyes of the Lord, and Abraham believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

God also though had the Old Covenant and His Law granted unto a "peculiar people/nation" Isreal! was their relationship between God and themselves, specific to them at that point in time!

I agree with both of these in the sense that the Covenant of Law was specific to Israel (though it did not prohibit Gentiles from participation though in a limited means in some points) and Hebrews makes it clear that it is this Covenant in view.

But, as I said before, when we look at the view held by some seeing a "general covenant," I would not be so quick to brand that heretical, because I can see how they would have that view. Such as, one who see's that all covenants participates in the same result which God intends for man concerning man's redemption thereby concluding "one general covenant," I don't have a problem with that. There are several implicit doctrines that are believed which are not taught in so many words, and I look at this as one way to view redemption which comes through God.

We can see that man's salvation has always been by grace through faith, though we do not read this phrase in every account of God's intervention on behalf of man, whether it is temporal on eternal. Such as the thief on the cross. Most would agree that this man was saved by faith, for he received promise from the Lord.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Let me back up and say I believe the rapture will occur during the first part of the tribulation, at or before the half way point, but my understanding of PD allows for wiggle-room due to the vague revelation.

Hello Van, to be honest, if I am in error concerning a pre-trib rapture, which I allow is a very real pssibility due to the nature of prphecy and how it is fulfilled, I would take a mid-trib view before a post-trib.

Meaning, if I see the events of the Tribulation unfolding, I will at that point look for the rapture mid-trib...lol.

I would agree in part that we could say that revelation is vague, though PD doctrine has only led me to a more conclusive belief in the pre-trib position. The arguments presented, though some of them very well thought out and presented in an extremely reasonable manner, have been examined in detail and have not convinced me.

A pre-trib view can take the passages as they are written, whereas other views rely heavily upon lengthy discourses as to why the passages do not mean what they say. An examination of the differences between the teachings of Christ and the teachings of Paul show different events are in view, and the differences themselves lead me to a pre-trib view.

One of the arguments presented which is one of their best concerns the word wrath, and distinguishing between orge and thymos wrath, seeking to show that the Church is only to miss eternal wrath, not temporal. But the passages themselves reveal, I believe, that this is not the case exclusively.

And...I could ramble on about this forever...lol, so back to the New Covenant. If you would like to start a Rapture thread, I would be glad to participate.

I have no opinion of Micheal being the same divine person as Jesus. I do not believe such a statement is made or suggested in scripture, and speculation is worthless.

Well...lol.

You might be surprised as the presentations I have been given concerning this. There are a few doctrines that we always associate with what most of us would call cults, but...the embracing of some of these doctrines by those we would otherwise conselder very close to us has exploded in recent years.

For instance:

1-Soul Sleep.

2-Annihilation.

3-Michael is Jesus.

All three of those we would associate with a group most consider a cult, however, I have found that addressing these issues with those who believe these to be very difficult.

I deny all three of these, and believe I can give scriptural basis for their denial, but they have crept into evangelical circles lately, and are defended.

Number three is held by at least some PDs, and they give very good presentations for why they believe it. But, we are in agreement that Jesus is Jesus, and Michael is Michael.

Yes Progressive Dispensationalism does hold that the Old Covenant is replaced by the New. But the method of replacement is inclusion of the promises which cannot be nullified.

And I agree with that, as it is expressed here. We can see the New Covenant fulfilling the promises made to Abraham, for example.

I am not sure how I could be more specific that Galatians 3.
The Old Testament promises were made to Abraham's descendants and others based on faith in God. And all those promises apply to born again believers. "If you are Christ's, then you are Abraham"s offspring, heirs according to promise."

Agreed. Yet, I believe that there is a temporal application, such as the promised Kingdom, which has it's prominence in National Israel, and is yet to be fulfilled.

Galatians 3 would need to be discussed in detail, as to how it applies to the New Covenant, and I look forward to that. This one chapter alone could probably extend to intensive discussion, and that is just one chapter.

And, I look forward to discussing this topic, so far, the disccusion has been great.

God bless.

 

[DaChaser1]

That might be said. The fellowship in which I am a member could be called dispensational, and there is much that I find in this theology that at the very least, has to be given due credit.

But I like to think that the views I hold are taught to me by God through diligent study...just as we all do...lol.

But what I have learned in talking with other believers (and non-believers) is that we make a big mistake by trying to wrap people in a one-size-fits-all wrapper.

Some that call themselves dispensational make arguments that I believe to be in error. That does not mean I am in disagreement with all they say.

I seem to have a hard time fitting in with anybody...lol. And I am okay with that. This is why I love to discuss doctrine, because an honest look at the basis of our belief leads to serious consideration of the views we hold. Which is why I dislike trying to label people, though, I have found that those involved in a legalistic view can be labeled, though it is good to be careful when trying to speak with them.

God bless.

I started out first saved as being 'old school Dispy" as was studying through the new Scofield and Ryrie study bibles...

think that lean now more progressive branch of Dispy, As sometimes seemed that old school had law for isreal, Grace to Church, and 2 seperate covenants established to have each saved by God!

Think God always saved by his Garce , through the messiah Cross, accessed by faith alone, and that there are BOTH Jews /Gentiles saved by grace in the Church today, but hold to Dispy as still see God having a future for national isreal, at time of the tribulation and Second Coming!

 

[Darrell C]

I think the extract you quoted above is actually on Covenant Theology proper rather than NCT. The nomenclature varies a little, with the names, Covenant of Redemption etc., but that's basically it. The earliest Particular baptists were all Covenant Theology people. The first P.B. book, written by John Spillsbury, A Treatise concerning the Lawfull Subject of Baptisme, was covenantal. There is an excellent book, Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ (Reformed Baptist Press) which takes a work from 17th Century Baptist Nehemiah Coxe and adds an extract from John Owen's commentary on Hebrews to show how the early Particular Baptists were in agreement with Owen on the covenants.

Hello Steve, I appreciate very much the contribution you are making in this thread. I always long for discussion of this nature, which takes a serious look at the issue at hand, so, thanks much.

As far as the quote provided, this was given in another thread as representing the doctrinal belief of NCTers, so, being one that spends very little time studying or analyzing beyond the specific beliefs of indivuals, as well as my own personal study in scripture, I cannot say how much this represents the beliefs of NCTers, their doctrinal statement as a whole, or the individual beliefs of those associated with NCT.

You are going a little outside of my historical knowledge as well, lol, I am afraid that I spend little time looking at the beliefs of those who have gone before us.

What I amost interested in is where those that are members of the body today stand on these issues, and the basis of their belief. While I do not dismiss the contributions of Church "fathers," I am one that believes that we must be able for ourselves to present scriptural basis for what we believe, and it is on this that we can rely upon God to lead us to an understanding which He gives us.

For the most part, I am unfamiliar with some of the ones referenced, though, like the post that quoted John Owen, always glad to look at quotes, and it gladdens my heart to see that I am not a nut, but that even long ago there were those that had beliefs similar to my own, so, I think that in that sense, the quotes are beneficial.

The book that really sold me on Covenant Theology, however is The Divine Covenants by A. W. Pink (Pietan Publications). It's available on line if you want to read it.

I just may do that, though for quite some time I have tried to limit the amount of extrabiblical resources, and I would like to explain why: in the time that I have spent discussing doctrine, I have found that a resource other than direct biblical presentation can lead to a circular argument.

I have heard of A.W. Pink, I believe, but have not read anything by him, so, it may be I may try to find this. If you could provide a link I would be grateful.

I think it might be better to start a new thread on the Moral Law,

Probably, though I would say I am in agreement with what you have said concerning it.

but let me just suggest that you consider verses like Deut 5:22; 1 Sam 15:22, and Amos 5:21-24 which show that God considers His Moral law, summarized in the Decalogue, differently to His ritual and ceremonial laws. Also, each of the Ten Commandments can be found in the O'T., before Exodus 20.

And I would agree with this. However, when we discuss scripture with our legalistic brothers, we can see where covenants, rather than general truths concerning God's expectation based upon His righteousness, get blended.

One argument presented by some surrounds the use of kainos, new. They try to mold the New Covenant into a refurbished First Covenant, in an attempt to blend the two, rather than seeing one ending, another beginning (in the life of the Church). Some deny the New Covenant as meant (much less enjoined by) for the Church, but for Israel only. These are just a few issues discussed in the debate, but notable ones, I think.

When Christ taught Israel, in His role of Prophet, He expounded the Law to them, showing the meaning of the Law in it's complete intent, such as prohibition of adultery to be a matter of the heart, rather than the physical completion of this sin.

All in all...agreed.

I do not contend that we should 'blend' the covenants.

I hope you did not think I was suggesting you had, that was not my intention. The reference was more to those that view the New Covenant as a refurbished Mosaic Covenant in which adherence to law is not just a necessity, but a priority for the accomplishment of salvation.

I believe that the Decalogue transcends the covenants and is the expression of God's eternal will for mankind.

I would agree, though I would clarify that the righteous nature of God is the heart of all scripture, second only to man's fallen condition.

And I think that the impression given that one group believes entirely toward one side and the other group to the other is just a result of defending one position or the other. Many that come across as legalistic, because they think that what you have stated above is not understood by those that belive in sole fide, would, if they were honest, admit that they themselves cannot live in perfect accordance to God's righteousness, thereby disqualifying themselves even as they seek to "teach others," and this usually by rude behavior...lol.

Just suppose for a moment that Adam had strangled Eve, or had built an altar to the sun or the moon in the Garden. Do you think that God would have said, "Oh, that's alright, Adam. just so long as you don't eat the fruit!" God's moral law is written on all men's hearts (Rom 2:14-15), but is smudged and defaced by the Fall. It was written on tablets of stone under the Old Covenant, and is re-written on the hearts of believers under the New Covenant (2 Cor 3:2-6; Heb 10:16. cf. Psalm 40:6-8).

For the most part agreed, though, I think if I am reading your posts correct, we may hold different views concerning the law of God written upon man's heart. I believe that all men have this knowledge, yet, one thing is lacking in him that is not present until salvation, that being the indwelling of God, so that now, not only is this general knowledge made clear to him, he has the added benefit of having the ability to do the things which fall in line with the nature of God.

While we see the work of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament throughout the covenants, we focus on the distinctions of the promises within the New Covenant, and see that God is indeed doing a new work in the lives of men.

If that work were as it were under the previous ministry... neither would there be a need for a new covenant, nor would it be called new.

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding as to what the Mosaic ('First,' 'Old') Covenant is. Here is something I wrote on my blog:-

Enjoyed the read. There are a few things I would probably take issue with, but, for the most part, I think we are near in our understanding, and, I look forward to looking at where we might differ, because I do not claim to be expert in knowledge on this subject, and am glad to have the input of one that is obviously well studied on this issue.

Read more on http://marprelate.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/the-covenants-part-v-the-sinaitic-mosaic-covenant/


You are quite correct. However, one of the errors in paedobaptist C.T. is seeing each covenant as succeding the other and as being of the same nature, so that the Abrahamic Covenant is seen by them as being 'binding' upon Christians (especialy in regard to the 'covenant sign' being placed upon infants).

Again, I am unfamiliar with the teachings of "paedobaptist CT," and while it is very interesting I am sure, I am more interested in how you understand the New Covenant at this point.

I believe that sometimes we are directed to a better understanding of doctrine through the errors of others, and can see how their understanding has influenced your current beliefs. But, it your belief and the basis for that belief, primarily the scriptural basis, that interests me.

Concerning the statmenet above, I would not take the view that they succeed one another in the sense that they incorporate specifics, but that they do not anull each other...that I believe.

For instance, if we try to make the promised land speak of only Canaan, or, if we deny that this promise has fulfillment in three way: 1-Canaan; 2-Millennial Kingdom; 3-the eternal state...we limit the fulfillment of God's promise and how we might view this one covenant in regards to all others.

Take the "rest" which is promised: where do we see this fulfilled? Would we deny fulfillment in Canaan? In the MK? In Christ?

I would consider all to be true, yet, we can see it fulfilled in a number of ways, each in no way nullifying the other.

And sorry, got too longwinded here, will have to continue...