Originally Posted by shelly

Steve,
Thank you for the article link. I read it and see that the point seems to be that the continuity of OT and NT is best served by covenant theology.
What I don't see in this article is a great difference in the way some things are explained with CT in mind compared to Dispy such as: first Adam/last Adam, sin and righteousness imputed to us. Maybe that's why it's so difficult for me to see the clear differences between CT and DT.

I was taught some covenant things in a dispy way that was sometimes truth(I think) but more often twisted the truth in some way. This covenant or that one was for those in the OT or Israel not for us. I never could figure out how "they" decided which covenant was for us and which one was for Israel; didn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it.

So can a church or a pastor can call covenant theology irrelevant, not believe in dispensational theology and yet still believe and preach and practice the doctrines of grace? I have seen this lived out, but perhaps they really do believe in CT if they knew what it was. Sounds lame doesn't it?

I leave out all end times things and figure it'll all come out in the wash. But I still believe in the doctrines of grace and I see the continuity between OT and NT(sorta). I would have no problem baptizing future children. I get the baptism thing. Is this all that covenant theology is? baptizing babies and understanding that the elect are spiritual Israel(but don't get ethnic Israel mixed up with spiritual Israel-good luck with that)