Covenant and New Covenant theology

[BABerean2]

I watched this video on You Tube. Is one view of the difference between Covenant theology and Dispensationalism.

The following is an audio file, but does a much better job than the Dispensationalist above.

.

 

[Douggg]

The following is an audio file, but does a much better job than the Dispensationalist above.

.

What I am concluding is that Covenant theology was born out a belief that became popular that the church had become israel, and that persons by virtue of becoming Christians have become Jews.

And that in England that belief, at the time of the reformation, became a formal man-made systematic approach to understanding the bible called Covenant theology. Dividing the bible up into covenants. Which later evolved into New Covenant theology to address among other things the apparent flawed issue over infant baptism.

And Covenant theology was the basic mindset of the Pilgrims coming to America from England, and the Geneva bible, that you like to quote from.

Then along came Darby, Schofield, and others who challenged the basic foundation belief of Covenant theology based on replacement theology and super session theology, by insisting that Israel and the church are separate, and the promises to Israel in the Tanach had not been replaced to apply to the church instead.

And dispensationalism, an equal, but conflicting, man-made approach to the bible was born. Dividing the bible up into dispensations instead of covenants.

Which in the eyes of them holding the Covenant theology view see the world of Christianity in only two camps - that of Covenant theology vs dispensationalism. And Covenant theology individuals do not know how to react when someone who is Christian, but not a dispensationalist, disagrees with their position. Because it outside of their paradigm.

Bab2, all of your videos are about the battle your (New) Covenant Theology group have with the Dispensationalism group.

 

[BABerean2]

What I am concluding is that Covenant theology was born out a belief that became popular that the church had become israel, and that persons by virtue of becoming Christians have become Jews.

And that in England that belief, at the time of the reformation, became a formal man-made systematic approach to understanding the bible called Covenant theology. Dividing the bible up into covenants. Which later evolved into New Covenant theology to address among other things the apparent flawed issue over infant baptism.

And Covenant theology was the basic mindset of the Pilgrims coming to America from England, and the Geneva bible, that you like to quote from.

Then along came Schofield and others who challenged the basic foundation belief of Covenant theology based on replacement theology and super session theology, by insisting that Israel and the church are separate, and the promises to Israel in the Tanach had not been replaced to apply to the church instead.

And dispensationalism, an equal, but conflicting, man-made approach to the bible was born. Dividing the bible up into dispensations instead of covenants.

Which in the eyes of them holding the Covenant theology view see the world of Christianity in only two camps - that of Covenant theology vs dispensationalism. And Covenant theology individuals do not know how to react when someone who is Christian, but not a dispensationalist, disagrees with their position. Because it outside of their paradigm.

Bab2, all of your videos are about the battle your (New) Covenant Theology group have with the Dispensationalism group.

The true source of modern Dispensational Theology is found in the video below.
This is a video I produced for YouTube.
Notice the claim that God did not fulfill His promises to the Jewish people at Calvary, within the book written by Manuel Lacunza. This is the greatest error of the doctrine.

Genesis of Dispensational Theology

.

 

[Douggg]

The true source of modern Dispensational Theology is found in the video below.

Here is another video... Manuel Lacunza, from Chile, at minute 16:15. 1731-1801.

Bab2, dispensationalists are "subset of Pre-mils" minute 10:49 on the video.

New covenant theology at minute 34.

 

[claninja]

I don't think anyone could obey the law. The law was there for Christ to fulfill, after all, Moses and the law were written about Jesus.

Jesus in the sermon on the mount was announcing that no one was eligible, no one was perfect, the law condemns absolutely.

Romans 3:9-12
Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, "There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have become useless. There is none who does good, there is not even one.”

A righteous person does not exist. It is difficult to accept but this is certainly true. All the law does is hold a mirror to your face and tell you in no uncertain terms. That you commit evil, you think evil thoughts, and you were never righteous.

absolutely agree here. Man cannot meet the righteous standards of God by his own will. Christ being the only exception. As You very nicely put it, the law Was for Christ to fulfill.

covenant theology calls this overarching theme of man’s inability to keep the righteous standards of God, Even though God commands it, a covenant of works.

This covenant of works stems from the Garden of Eden when Adam entered into a Conditional covenant with God not to Eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Obviously Adam failed, which lead to death for all mankind.

This differs from NCT in that while covenant theology sees this as one overarching theme Where Gods righteous standards are unchangeable, NCT views these covenants as separate dispensations of Gods commands leading to a new higher standard for God’s people in Christ.

 

[mkgal1]

I don't think anyone could obey the law. The law was there for Christ to fulfill, after all, Moses and the law were written about Jesus.

I agree. Moses even seemed to expect the Israelites to break them (and even said so to them). It wasn't written "IF" you don't obey....but "when":

Deuteronomy 30:1 ~ When all these things come upon you—the blessings and curses I have set before you—and you call them to mind in all the nations to which the LORD your God has banished you..​

 

[mkgal1]

Here's an interesting article that describes mainly 3 different hermeneutics (dispensationalism, Progressive covenantalism, and new covenant theology): Progressive Covenantalism and New Covenant Theology - The Gospel Coalition

I think I align with what this article is labeling as "progressive covenantalism". One key point i wanted to point out - that goes back to my comment about Moses being the one to promulgate the laws we see beyond the Ten Commandments - is this quote below (doesn't that role apply to Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and Christ as well? They were all mediators of God's covenants with His people, the way I'm seeing it):

Quote from article: Adam is created in relation with God as he mediates God’s rule to the world.​

 

[mkgal1]

More from this article:

Quote:

AN ESSAY By
Stephen Wellum

DEFINITION
Progressive covenantalism and new covenant theology are evangelical biblical-theological systems that seek to understand how God’s entire plan of redemption unfolds from creation to Christ. Specifically, they seek to understand how God’s one, eternal plan is progressively unveiled and revealed through the biblical covenants, and how all of God’s promises are fulfilled in Christ, applied to the church as God’s new covenant people, thus allowing us to draw right theological conclusions from Scripture for God’s glory and our good.

SUMMARY
This article will describe the distinctives of progressive covenantalism. It will do so by setting it against the backdrop of dispensational and covenant theology, thus highlighting where it differs in such areas as the progression of the covenants, the relationship between Israel and the church, and the overall metanarrative flow of Scripture centered in Christ Jesus.

All Christians agree that “covenants” are central to the Bible’s story and that God’s redemptive plan unfolds over time reaching its fulfillment in Christ. All Christians also accept some form of redemptive epochs or dispensations across history demarcated by the biblical covenants, and that the fulfillment of God’s saving purposes in Christ has brought some kind of change from past eras. However, Christians disagree on the exact relationships between the covenants. This is not a new debate. In the early church, the apostles wrestled with the implications of Christ’s new covenant work (see Acts 10-11, 15; Gal. 3-4; Eph. 2:11-22).

Today, Christians still disagree on the precise relationships between the covenants, which has implications for other theological disputes such as: debates on the newness of what Christ has achieved; what moral demands apply to Christians today, as reflected in disagreements regarding the Decalogue and the Sabbath/Lord’s Day observance; and how previous Old Testament promises are now fulfilled in Christ and the church, tied to the larger discussion of the Israel-Church relationship and the role of national Israel in God’s plan. In fact, within evangelical theology, people tend to think about these issues within the views of either dispensational or covenant theology, while progressive covenantalism and new covenant theology serve as mediating views. To grasp better the latter views, let’s first briefly describe the basic points of the former views.
Progressive Covenantalism and New Covenant Theology - The Gospel Coalition

 

[mkgal1]

This resonates for me. A distinction of Progressive Covenantalism:

Quote from article:
However, unlike most advocates of covenant theology, progressive covenantalism does not divide the biblical covenants into simply two categories: “the covenant of works” (law) and “the covenant of grace” (gospel), although the truth of “law” and “gospel” as theological concepts is vital to maintain. Nor does it categorize the covenants as either unconditional/unilateral (royal grant) or conditional/bilaterial (suzerain-vassal), as both covenant and dispensational theology tend to do.

Why? For this reason: each covenant contains both elements, but with a clear distinction between the covenant in creation before and after the fall, and that redemption is grounded in Christ alone. In fact, it’s due to this blend of both elements that a deliberate tension is created in the Bible’s unfolding covenantal storyline—a tension that heightens as God’s plan unfolds—and is only resolved in Christ’s perfect obedient life and death for us.

On the one hand, the covenants reveal our triune Creator-covenant Lord who makes and keeps his promises. As God initiates covenant relationships with his creatures, he is always the faithful partner (Heb. 6:17-18). Regardless of our unfaithfulness, God’s promises, commencing in Genesis 3:15, are certain.

The creation covenant is foundational for all future covenants since all subsequent covenants unpack Adam’s role in the world. Adam, and all humanity, is created as God’s image-son, a priest-king to rule over creation (Gen. 1:26-28; cf. Psa. 8). Adam is created in relation with God as he mediates God’s rule to the world. Yet, God demands perfect obedience from his covenant partner, which, sadly, he fails to do (Gen. 2:16-17; cf. Gen. 3). But God graciously promises that a “seed of the woman” will come (Gen. 3:15), a greater Adam, who will reverse the effects of sin and death. In truth, all subsequent covenant heads will function as subsets of Adam, who, in God’s plan, will not be the greater Adam, but who will point forward to Christ.
Progressive Covenantalism and New Covenant Theology - The Gospel Coalition​

 

[mkgal1]

Okay....I think I'm convinced this is the hermeneutic my beliefs align with:

From same article as above posts:
However, it’s in the new covenant that all the previous covenants are fulfilled. Since all of the covenants are part of God’s one plan, no covenant is unrelated to what preceded it, and no covenant makes sense apart from its fulfillment in Christ. Yet, what the previous covenants revealed, anticipated, and predicted is “already” here. That is why Jesus is the last Adam and head of the new creation (Rom. 5:12-21; 1Cor. 15:21-22; Heb. 2:5-18), the true seed and offspring of Abraham who brings blessings to the nations (Gal. 3:16), the true Israel fulfilling all that she failed to be (Matt. 2:15; John 15:1-6), and David’s greater son who rules the nations and the entire creation as Lord (Acts 2:32-36; Rom. 1:3-4; cf. Psa. 2, 45, 110)Progressive Covenantalism and New Covenant Theology - The Gospel Coalition​

 

[mkgal1]

To clarify, you subscribed to replacement theology?

The most grievous form of replacement theology is the one that removes Christ as the recipient of the inheritance and promises of God and replaces Him with a secular modern-day geopolitical entity.

2 Corinthians 1:20 ~ For all the promises of God are “Yes” in Christ. And so through Him, our “Amen” is spoken to the glory of God​

 

[Guojing]

The most grievous form of replacement theology is the one that removes Christ as the recipient of the inheritance and promises of God and replaces Him with a secular modern-day geopolitical entity.

2 Corinthians 1:20 ~ For all the promises of God are “Yes” in Christ. And so through Him, our “Amen” is spoken to the glory of God​

For me, RT is simply that "The Body of Christ has replaced Israel" in God's timetable.

 

[jgr]

For me, RT is simply that "The Body of Christ has replaced Israel" in God's timetable.

What is your definition of Israel? How is Israel identified?

1. By DNA?
2. By religion?
3. By culture?
4. By geographic location?
5. By something else?

 

[Guojing]

What is your definition of Israel? How is Israel identified?

1. By DNA?
2. By religion?
3. By culture?
4. By geographic location?
5. By something else?

The Nation of Israel, the 12 tribes of James 1:1, the House of Israel and the House of Judah in Hebrews 8:8.

The Body of Christ is not Israel, in my books

 

[mkgal1]

For me, RT is simply that "The Body of Christ has replaced Israel" in God's timetable.

Hosea 11:1 ~ When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.
​

Matthew tells us that Jesus fulfills Hosea 11 (Matt. 2:13–15). He is the true Israel, the faithful Israel who succeeds where old covenant Israel failed.

But a remnant was saved. That was the disciples and the early church.

Romans 9:27 ~ Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the Israelites is like the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved.​

 

[jgr]

The Nation of Israel, the 12 tribes of James 1:1, the House of Israel and the House of Judah in Hebrews 8:8.

The Body of Christ is not Israel, in my books

So which of the five choices is it?

How does one identify "The Nation of Israel, the 12 tribes of James 1:1, the House of Israel and the House of Judah in Hebrews 8:8."?

 

[Guojing]

So which of the five choices is it?

How does one identify "The Nation of Israel, the 12 tribes of James 1:1, the House of Israel and the House of Judah in Hebrews 8:8."?

Ethnic Jews should be the closest fit.

 

[jgr]

Ethnic Jews should be the closest fit.

So you mean by DNA?

 

[Guojing]

So you mean by DNA?

I suppose so.

 

[jgr]

I suppose so.

According to Scripture, are God's salvation and covenants based upon physical DNA?

Or are they based upon spiritual DNA -- faith and obedience?