Covenant theology for dummies..

[BrokenGhost]

Ok, I have definatively come to the conclusion that dispys range from slighty to completely off their rockers, an covenant theology evidently seems to be the major dissention to the dispys. So what is a dumbed down review of covenant theology?

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Ok, I have definatively come to the conclusion that dispys range from slighty to completely off their rockers, an covenant theology evidently seems to be the major dissention to the dispys. So what is a dumbed down review of covenant theology?

There is a "fair" overview of Covenant theology on Wikipedia. I would differ with it on some points, but it is a good starting point.

We are all Calvinists (i.e. predestinarians). There are two major branches, each with a number of sub groups. The first brance holds to paedobaptism (i.e. infant baptism) and the other is credo (only) baptists (believers baptism).

Let me know if I can help any more.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[BrokenGhost]

So let me see if I have this straight. We NOW live under a Covenant of Grace, specifically the New Covenent. And depending on what kinf of baptism is right in my eyes dictates wether my children are saved?

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

So let me see if I have this straight. We NOW live under a Covenant of Grace, specifically the New Covenent. And depending on what kinf of baptism is right in my eyes dictates wether my children are saved?

Nope! That is not correct.

You have it a bit skewed. I am at work and don't have time to go into detail, but I will try to get back to you on this soon.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

So let me see if I have this straight. We NOW live under a Covenant of Grace, specifically the New Covenent. And depending on what kinf of baptism is right in my eyes dictates wether my children are saved?

Helo Zerocipher,

All who have been saved, since the beginning and until the time of Christ have been saved under God’s of Grace. There is no salvation outside of grace, because we are all sinners and we all fall far short of living perfectly before Him. To fall short of living before God perfectly, rightly brings us under judgement.

In the Old Covenant God called His Covenant People. They lived in the shadows of the Old Covenant, which pointed to the Salvation that was to come. They looked forward to the redemption that Christ accomplished on the cross. We in the New Covenant look to our redemption, which is accomplished and applied to us by the Lord.

All who are saved in the both Old and New Covenant are saved by God’s grace, through faith, in Christ the redeemer.

In both the Old and New Covenants God’s promises are to you and to your children (or house). Those of us who are paedobaptist believe that baptism has replaced circumcision as the covenant sign that God gives to his people. Baptism, like circumcision, marks you out as belonging to God. Does baptism “save” us? Like circumcision it outwardly marks us as belonging to the covenant people of God. Salvation belongs to God’s people, but it does not guarantee salvation. We must repent of our sins and believe on Christ so as to make our salvation sure.

I think that is enough to start with.. I am sure it could bring many questions to mind. If you would like clarifications, please let me know.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[heymikey80]

So let me see if I have this straight. We NOW live under a Covenant of Grace, specifically the New Covenent. And depending on what kinf of baptism is right in my eyes dictates wether my children are saved?

Covenants are solemn agreements of relationship.

"What kind of baptism" is only relevant based on something else (and to me: not highly relevant). The covenant, the relationship you have with God is what matters. Your treatment of baptism emerges from your idea how the covenant is instituted. Generally (and I hope I'm not speaking too arbitrarily, credos may qualify this) if it requires your personal awareness to inaugurate the covenant, you're a credobaptist. If it only requires God's vow to inaugurate the covenant, you're likely to be a paedobaptist. Also remember, paedobaptists are also credobaptists when it comes to adult conversions.

When it comes to God's dealing with men, Covenant theology asserts God has instituted two covenants: one of works, one of grace.

Christ (arguments over "when") establishes (or will) and completes (or will) the covenant of grace by satisfying the covenant of works. This effectively means those who live under the covenant of grace can't be condemned by the covenant of works. And that's critical to Covenant theology, because it is not supersessionist. One covenant doesn't supersede another at a different time (ie, the basic principle of dispensationalism doesn't apply).

Different administrations of these covenants result in what Scripture would itself term "covenants": those of Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Israel, Moses, David, etc. These are ways to become involved in the particular grace relationship or works relationship with God. They do not supersede one another, either. Think of them as successive contracts, all active, some broken, but even broken covenants carry a consequence, just like broken contracts. None is completely neglected. Often the covenants fulfil prior covenants, but they must satisfy the terms or fulfil the purposes of prior covenants to be plausible, themselves. They can't contradict prior covenants. But just as contracts can often be fulfilled in unusual ways, so can covenants. This is very difficult to describe without examples. I'll just mention the case of Abraham's promise preceding and thus not being nullified by the Law of Moses -- that's in Gal 3:15-21, also in Rom 4.

If it weren't for "dispensationalism" being so obsessed with cutoffs and time periods of enforcement, we'd be more inclined to call the administrations "dispensations" as Calvinists did in the 1600's. They also create the structures and institutions God made to dispense grace & law.

Frankly OP Robertson's out-of-print primer called "Covenants" I thought was a good overview. However, the more detailed analysis "Christ of the Covenants" is excellent and extensive, including a critique of dispensationalism.

 

[truebluefan24]

well i'm new to this board and i'm not a baptist. I'm just a christian trying to follow Christ's word and forgive me if i'm a little behind on some topics but i'm trying to learn the true path to christ.

But i was wondering why you consider a covenant a contract. A contract is an exchange of goods or services. The bible always made the divine covenants more of an exchange of persons. A contract is nothing compared to a covenant. Or am i just understanding the bible wrong?

 

[JohnR7]

So what is a dumbed down review of covenant theology?

I think that my wife says it best. If you do your part, God will do His part. But if we do not do our part of the covenant, then God will not perform His part.

The Bible is filled with many wonderful promises. But we have to do our part to claim the promises of God. Here is an example

Proverbs 3:5-6
Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding;
[6] In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He shall direct your paths.

Here is a promise where God will direct your path. There are three things we need to do. If we do our part, then we can be sure that He will do His part. The Bible is filled to overflowing with these promises.

Isaiah 26:3
Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee.

Here is a good passage for people who want "perfect peace" in their lives. If our mind is "stayed" on God and we "trust" in Him, then His promise to us is that He will keep us in perfect peace. Peace of course is a work of the Holy Spirit in us. It is one of the fruits of the Spirit.

 

[JohnR7]

But i was wondering why you consider a covenant a contract.

A contract is an agreement between two people. Marriage is a contract or a covenant between two people. It takes two people in agreement to make a covenant. But one person can break it if they do not do their part. Of course with marriage they always claim it was the other person who did not do their part. But they can not claim that with God. He always does His part. He will never disappoint us.

 

[heymikey80]

But i was wondering why you consider a covenant a contract. A contract is an exchange of goods or services. The bible always made the divine covenants more of an exchange of persons. A contract is nothing compared to a covenant. Or am i just understanding the bible wrong?

No, you're quite right that a covenant is not exactly a contract. However, a covenant is like a contract in that it operates the same way -- through a formal relationship. A contract is a formal relationship, often limited, and set up to exchange goods and services considered mutually beneficial at the time it's instituted. A covenant is a formal relationship, often unlimited, and set up at the agreement of both sides (whether by submission or by desire).

So there will be similarities. Paul describes one of those similarities in Gal 3:15ff. The Apostle describes another similarity (to a particular contract, a "will"), in Heb 9:16ff.

The net result? Covenants operate like contracts and wills. They aren't strictly the same thing. You're not in a "this for that" relationship with God, but in a promise relationship, much like an adoption contract (or ... covenant). But they're quite similar in the way they're regulated.

 

[lilymarie]

A contract is an agreement between two people. Marriage is a contract or a covenant between two people. It takes two people in agreement to make a covenant. But one person can break it if they do not do their part. Of course with marriage they always claim it was the other person who did not do their part. But they can not claim that with God. He always does His part. He will never disappoint us.

I disagree that the new covenant was baptism as some have said in this thread. The quote above says a covenant was "marriage" that is correct, but I'll take it a step further with my post....

Baptism as shown in the Holy Bible was the precurser to Jesus. John the Baptist came to pave "the way" remember? What the Bible shows is baptism is for cleansing and washing away, so that the new "man" or new creation can begin.

The old covenant was circumcision of the flesh which showed someone was "born" into God's people. It was an outward sign.

The new covenant is "circumcision of the heart" 1) for the law to be written on our hearts and 2) for the ability of the Holy Spirit to indwell within us: Born again.

This is why Jesus is called the Bridegroom and we his people are called "the Bride".

A covenant was a marriage contract and/or a contract sealed in blood.

Type in your search box old and new covenants bible and see what you come up with.

I can provide scripture support for the old and new covenants of "circumcision" at a latter time. However, if you notice in the Bible God always "connects". Jesus became the passover lamb, Jesus became the blood of the last sacrifice, Jesus became the 'circumcision' of the heart; Jesus became the living water at The Feast of the Tabernacles -- all kinds of things interconnect in the Bible.

Baptism is for the repentance and remission of sins; but is not the new covenant.

Baptism didn't show up until the NT only, so I totally disagree that baptism is the new covenant. Circumcision of the heart is the new covenant so that we may be "born again".

p.s. I can add scripture when I have more time.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

I think that my wife says it best. If you do your part, God will do His part. But if we do not do our part of the covenant, then God will not perform His part.

I'm kinda new to covenant theology, but I think your statement here is only half true.

My understanding is that there are essentially two covenants: the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace.

The covenant of works is more or less as you describe. Two examples of this type of covenant are: 1. When God told Adam not to eat of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. There was a consequence for disobedience as part of the covenant. 2. The coventant with Moses and the children of Israel. All of the children of Israel were called agreed to this, and there were blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. The difference with what you said is not that "if we do not do our part of the covenant, God will not do His part", but if the human end of the covenant is not followed, God will do what He has promised in that event...and it's always something unpleasant for the humans involved!!

The covenant of grace is a covenant God enters into promising to do something with no requirements on the part of the human party. Two examples of the covenant of grace are: 1. When God promised Adam He would send a redeemer that would crush the serpents head. 2. God's promise to Abraham that his descendants would be greater in number than the sand. In each of these cases, there were no strings attached and no obligation on the part of Adam or Abraham.

 

[heymikey80]

I'm kinda new to covenant theology, but I think your statement here is only half true.

Yes, you're quite right. In Covenant theology God has made a covenant with His people that He intends to fulfil. It's not a mutual back-scratching agreement.

The covenant of grace is being fulfilled toward those it's promised to. Those are the people who end up having saving faith. But God grants us faith.

For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not just believe in him but also suffer for his sake Pp 1:29
​

And to those He grants faith He also saves.

This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. Gal 3:17-18
​

So we take part -- it's just not that we do a part in order to get God's part. We're full-bore participants, as people answering a summons from their King -- that's the "call" ("summons" and "call" are the same word in Greek). But we don't answer the summons to get on God's good side. God's already shown favor to us, and we're simply responding in grateful humbleness to that massive stroke of favor, the sacrifice of Christ for us.

Also, to keep from cross-posting threads, there's another one active on this subject: http://www.christianforums.com/t3297645-is-salvation-a-convenant.html

 

[TheScottsMen]

I think that my wife says it best. If you do your part, God will do His part.

We have no part to play in our salvationl; left to our own devices, we would never choose God.

Rom 3:10
10 There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
12 They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.”[b]
13 “ Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit”

But if we do not do our part of the covenant, then God will not perform His part.

Again, I disagree completely. This is not a cooperational salvation where man must meet God in the middle; man is dead in his sins, not sick nor injured, but dead. Our nature is set against God, our greatest inclination at anytime will never be to serve God. It takes a complete spiritual resurrection, where God takes away our heart of stone, and gives us a heart of flesh, before we will love God and worship Him.

Proverbs 3:5-6
Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding;
[6] In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He shall direct your paths.

God will direct the paths of His elect, amen! But we are only able to trust, because God in His great mercy enabled us by giving us a new birth.

 

[heymikey80]

Just to be sure, TSM, there's still something that we do, but we act only as a result of relying on the Christ and the Spirit God has granted to us for no other reason than, "He's favoring us."

I agree with your statements, I just want to keep shy of the fatalistic idea creeping in rhetorically. JohnR7, the point being it's not we give in order to get -- it's that we give because we've been remade by God's grace, and so we're just passing on what God's given to us.

That's one thing about the old, worn "Pass It On" song that I really like.

 

[Adammi]

.

 

[Smileyill]

I do have a question. Are most Covenantalists also evangelical? Also, do they belive Christ died for the sins of all?

 

[Adammi]

I do have a question. Are most Covenantalists also evangelical? Also, do they belive Christ died for the sins of all?

I'm evangelical, but not an Evangelical.

 

[Smileyill]

I'm evangelical, but not an Evangelical.

So am I. Actually I'm ~non-denominational, but attend a pentecostal chruch currently. I've limited transportation resources and they provide christian fellowship.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I do have a question. Are most Covenantalists also evangelical? Also, do they belive Christ died for the sins of all?

Yes, we are evangelical with a little "e."

Most of us, but certainly not all, believe that Christ died for those elected unto eternal life. Some Reformed Christians, called Amyraldians or four-point Calvinists, do believe that Christ died for everyone.

The most well know Amyraldian of the English Puritans was the famous pastor/author Richard Baxter.

I hope this information proofs useful.

In Christ,
Kenith