Covenant vs Dispensational Theology

panta dokimazete · #1 (**permalink**) 07-06-2008, 10:55 AM

Found this on PJ Miller's blog - reads well and seems very clear - take a look and give your "read":

first of 4 parts here

toddpedlar · #2 (**permalink**) 07-06-2008, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Found this on PJ Miller's blog - reads well and seems very clear - take a look and give your "read":

first of 4 parts here

Not sure there's much to say, except that Mr Miller seems to be typical of those who are not satisfied with Covenant Theology, and, recognizing that Dispensational Theology is a serious error, are trying to find a "third way". His train analogy seems to be another attempt to make plain the teaching of New Covenant Theology...

Christusregnat · #3 (**permalink**) 07-06-2008, 06:44 PM

JD,

This appears to be the crux of the article:

"In my mind, it fails to do justice to passages–such as Jeremiah 31:31-34 — which depict the New Covenant in quite different terms than those existing under the Old. It certainly seems the Biblical writers are describing far more than a mere change of administration of the same system–it sure sounds like the replacing of the old system with a completely new system.

"Neither, in my opinion, does do justice to the scriptural emphasis concerning the great change brought about with the appearance of Christ. Neither am I (as one who is admittedly a Baptist in his thinking) comfortable with the dependence of Covenant Theology on “logical inferences”–leading to practices like infant baptism, for which I can find no scriptural support at all!"

Here's what the Jeremiah passage says (as you undoubtedly know):

31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

It is odd that Jeremiah says nothing about a different people of God (a "new train"), but mentions the same old crew: the houses of Jacob and Judah. Further, it's edifying to realize that there is no change of admission requirements (all of the brothers and neighbors are included), but the RESPONSE in their hearts is different. In fact, the covenant people are all saved, from the infant in swaddling bands to the aged saint of ninety.

It is also interesting to note the backhanded insult to baptists: that they are averse (?) to logical inference. Confessionally, this is true, as will be evident on a comparison of the London Baptist Confession vs. Westminster:

WCF Chapter 1: "6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added etc."

LBC Chapter 1: "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture, to which nothing is to be added at any time, either by new revelation of the Spirit, or by the traditions of men."

The ambiguity is too obscure to escape notice. For him to admit that he doesn't like the use of logic is at least honest.

As for his via media, it appears to me to be an attempt to grasp what is desireable to him in both schools, while not having to use logic to realize that he's holding to an indefensible position. If this is "New Covenant Theology" then I'll stick with Whole Bible Theology. Just my two bits.

Cheers,

Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Found this on PJ Miller's blog - reads well and seems very clear - take a look and give your "read":

first of 4 parts here

panta dokimazete · #4 (**permalink**) 07-06-2008, 09:27 PM

Yeah - I actually started this today and thought he was going to substantiate CT instead of making up a whole new thing, then he went back to the whole "2 track" analogy and lost me...thanks, I like to get other folk's perspective as I read these things.

Christusregnat · #5 (**permalink**) 07-06-2008, 09:29 PM

JD,

Some assumptions die hard, and it sounds like he doesn't want to get rid of some bad ideas, so he's melding good with bad....

Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Yeah - I actually started this today and thought he was going to substantiate CT instead of making up a whole new thing, then he went back to the whole "2 track" analogy and lost me...thanks, I like to get other folk's perspective as I read these things.

panta dokimazete · #6 (**permalink**) 07-06-2008, 09:37 PM

hmmm - now that I am digging in a little, I guess my ignorance is being revealed - I did not know that there was a historical New Covenant Theology position. Mostly Baptist in origin:

Quote:

Baptist history, especially the Reformed variety, is rooted in the basic tenets of New Covenant Theology. Much of its primary teaching is reflected in the influential First London Baptist Confession of Faith, especially in its 1646 edition (which is held by many New Covenant Theology churches today). The 1646 First London baptists did not support Protestant/Presbyterian churches because they believed in Gospel preaching apart from the law, and denied the eternal generation of the Son. However, in the historical whirlwind of later periods, Particular Baptists felt a need to show support for their Reformed brethren in the Congregationalist and Presbyterian churches -- and so adopted the Second London Confession in 1689, a virtual restatement of the famous Westminster Confession with slight modifications, especially, of course, in the area of baptism. This move left an indelible mark of covenant theology in the Particular Baptists from that point forward.

Since 1980 there has been a great resurgence of Reformed theology in Baptist circles. As a result, many within this camp have sought to develop a more clarified system of the covenants that relate back to older thought. Leaders of this movement include such theologians as John Reisinger, Jon Zens, Fred Zaspel, Tom Wells, Gary Long, and Geoff Volker.

Proponents maintain that the primary thrust of New Covenant Theology is the recognition of a promise-fulfillment understanding of Scripture. They suggest that whereas “Dispensationalism cannot get Israel and the church together in any sense whatsoever, and Covenant Theology cannot get them apart” (Reisinger, 19), New Covenant Theology finds the realization of all that the Old Covenant typified in the New Testament church (Covenant Theology, in contrast, merely levels the playing field and identifies them for all intents and purposes). The Mosaic economy is viewed as a temporal, conditional covenant that has been forever replaced by the glory of the New Covenant (2 Corinthians 3).

From here

any Baptists have perspective on this?

NaphtaliPress · #7 (**permalink**) 07-06-2008, 09:40 PM

This is actually being discussed in this recent thread:
1644 lbcf

panta dokimazete · #8 (**permalink**) 07-06-2008, 09:40 PM

Piper's thoughts:

Quote:

John Piper's position
John Piper has some things in common with each of these views, but does not classify himself within any of these three camps. He is probably the furthest away from dispensationalism, although he does agree with dispensationalism that there will be a millennium.

Many of his theological heroes have been covenant theologians (for example, many of the Puritans), and he does see some merit in the concept of a pre-fall covenant of works, but he has not taken a position on their specific conception of the covenant of grace.

In regards to his views on the Mosaic Law, he seems closer to new covenant theology than covenant theology, although once again it would not work to say that he precisely falls within that category.

from here

Gomarus · #9 (**permalink**) 07-07-2008, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

hmmm - now that I am digging in a little, I guess my ignorance is being revealed - I did not know that there was a historical New Covenant Theology position. Mostly Baptist in origin . . .

NCT adherents prefer the 1644/46 Baptist Confession because it does not specifically imply Covenant Theology as does the 1689 LBCF or WCF. However, this does not mean that the framers of the 1646 Baptist Confession were specifically NCT (in today's sense) in their thinking.

Joshua · #10 (**permalink**) 07-07-2008, 10:12 AM

Even today, there are some who call themselves NCT, but not NCT as defined by Zaspel and Wells (authors of the main proponent book for NCT). For example, the elders at my church would say that believe in New Covenant Theology, and while they're not Sabbatarian, they still have a high view of the Decalogue. They would disagree emphatically with the idea that Jesus somehow brought a *new* or *higher* or *better* law when He came to earth.

Christusregnat · #11 (**permalink**) 07-07-2008, 11:31 AM

Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets, I have not come to destroy, but to replace.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshua

Even today, there are some who call themselves NCT, but not NCT as defined by Zaspel and Wells (authors of the main proponent book for NCT). For example, the elders at my church would say that believe in New Covenant Theology, and while they're not Sabbatarian, they still have a high view of the Decalogue. They would disagree emphatically with the idea that Jesus somehow brought a *new* or *higher* or *better* law when He came to earth.