# Which is more dangerous, Dispensational Calvinists or Continuationalist Calvinists?



## Bill The Baptist

It seems that, at least in Baptist circles, that all of the Calvinists are either old school Dispensationalists, like Macarthur, or new school Charismatic-lites, like Mark Driscoll. It is truly shocking to learn how many of the so-called "new Calvinists" have charismatic leanings. This article highlights some of these So who exactly IS the mainstream of the charismatic movement? | the Cripplegate. My question is this, which is more dangerous, the Macarthur types or the Driscoll types?


----------



## Fly Caster

It seems to me the least dangerous position is the one that recognizes they have a complete revelation, even if they understand it wrongly. I say that as no fan of Dispensationalism.

I can't follow MacArthur everywhere he goes, but I've rather see friends following him than Driscoll.


----------



## OPC'n

I have my dislike of dispensationalism and have never heard of Continuationalism. So I can't really comment to which is more dangerous. 

Just a side note: I know of Mark Driscoll but not his theology. I think John Macarthur is a godly pastor just a lil confused on the dispensational aspect of things. But then I'm sure I'm confused on a great deal of things and not as nearly godly as he is. As far as generalizing about the Baptist (i think you mean reformed since you said Calvinist), I'm not sure most are dispensationalist. There are reformed baptists here on PB and I don't think they are.


----------



## Phil D.

Bill The Baptist said:


> It seems that, at least in Baptist circles, that all of the Calvinists are either old school Dispensationalists, like Macarthur, or new school Charismatic-lites, like Mark Driscoll.



My pastor isn't...


----------



## CharlieJ

This thread reminds me of a game my nerdy friends and I used to play. Who would win in a fight, batman or spiderman? The hypotheticals are capable of infinite extrapolation.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

What is worse? Rickets or Polio?


----------



## JimmyH

Not loving our brothers and sisters in Christ might be even more 'dangerous' I think ?

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist

JimmyH said:


> Not loving our brothers and sisters in Christ might be even more 'dangerous' I think ?



I can appreciate this sentiment, but the question at hand has nothing to do with loving or not loving our Christian brothers and sisters. I am not suggesting that any of these people are not our Christian brothers and sisters, and there is nothing "unloving" about challenging questionable theology.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH

Bill The Baptist said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not loving our brothers and sisters in Christ might be even more 'dangerous' I think ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can appreciate this sentiment, but the question at hand has nothing to do with loving or not loving our Christian brothers and sisters. I am not suggesting that any of these people are not our Christian brothers and sisters, and there is nothing "unloving" about challenging questionable theology.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. Not trying to be 'holier than thou' but Just wanted to remind myself and anyone else of that exhortation. Going by my own experience when I was following along with the dispensational theology because that was all I was exposed to I knew some devout Christians who follow that teaching. I suppose I can say the same in that "some of my best friends" are charismatic, some Arminians, some dispensational in their theology . I don't agree with those teachings, since being exposed to reformed theology, but I still care about those aforementioned folks regardless.


----------



## JP Wallace

Bill The Baptist said:


> It seems that, at least in Baptist circles, that all of the Calvinists are either old school Dispensationalists, like Macarthur, or new school Charismatic-lites



I think you need to think a bit more about that statement. I actually know hardly any Baptists in the UK who are Calvinistic or Reformed, or reformed in any sense who are either of these two categories.

Likewise you'll see that such bodies as ARBCA etc. might well have something to say about it, and even Mark Dever and other Founders churches.

Now there are plenty of folks who baptise by immersion who are in those two categories, if that's what you mean then you're probably right.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

JP Wallace said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that, at least in Baptist circles, that all of the Calvinists are either old school Dispensationalists, like Macarthur, or new school Charismatic
Click to expand...

I would certainly agree that there are many Baptists who are neither charismatic nor dispensational, but I was referring more to the popular Calvinist Baptists that we are exposed to here in America. There is much talk here about the general swing towards Calvinism and Reformed theology that is occurring among many Baptists, and certainly there is much to commend about this, but it is also seems to me that there is a large dose of Charismatic theology that is also taking hold among these same Baptists, and I for one find that troubling.


----------



## py3ak

CharlieJ said:


> This thread reminds me of a game my nerdy friends and I used to play. Who would win in a fight, batman or spiderman? The hypotheticals are capable of infinite extrapolation.



That's easy - Batman.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Brian R.

I agree with Fly Caster. Gimme Johnny Mac any day. His dispensational leanings bug me immensely, but I think there are few who preach Christ as well as he does. I'd never commend Driscoll to any friends or new converts, but I'd happily give them a MacArthur book for growth and edification.


----------



## kodos

Just another reminder before we start new heresies: Batman is always the correct answer to "who would win a fight, Batman or [insert comic book character here]".


----------



## py3ak

kodos said:


> Just another reminder before we start new heresies: Batman is always the correct answer to "who would win a fight, Batman or [insert comic book character here]".



That sounds about right.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Many in the Fellowship of RB Churches of New Zealand appear to be using Acts 29 training material for church planting. The man who is strongly promoting this here in RB circles is strongly influenced by Driscoll


----------



## Mushroom

py3ak said:


> charliej said:
> 
> 
> 
> this thread reminds me of a game my nerdy friends and i used to play. Who would win in a fight, batman or spiderman? The hypotheticals are capable of infinite extrapolation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's easy - batman.
Click to expand...

wham! Pow!


----------



## arapahoepark

So has it boiled down to just MacArthur or Driscoll rather than the theologies that they follow?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist

arap said:


> So has it boiled down to just MacArthur or Driscoll rather than the theologies that they follow?



I certainly hope not. These names were simply given as widely known proponents of the two sides being examined. I would presume that the majority of the people on this board, in keeping with the respective confessions, would confess Calvinism while rejecting Dispensationalism and Continuationalism. It seems to me that a large number of people today who espouse Calvinism also embrace one of these other two positions as well, and the question I seek to answer is which of these two errors has the potential of doing more damage in terms of leading people astray. I am not interested in the merits of individual pastors or theologians.


----------



## JP Wallace

Bill The Baptist said:


> and the question I seek to answer is which of these two errors has the potential of doing more damage in terms of leading people astray



Bill 

What I find interesting is that from a distinctly confessional/Reformed Baptist postion both in many ways, go wrong in the same direction but by different routes.

Both disps/ and charismatic are ambivalent (theologically at least) on the Law of God. One because of their dispensationalism and the other tending to New Covenant Theology.

Both are loose in their own ways in relation to worship, one claims to be conservative, but is still not governed by the RPW, and the other is freer and adopts whatever will get the lost in (terrible generalisation of motive admitted!)

Both see little need for a confessional basis for the local church nor global church.

When looked at from this perspective there's not much between them in terms of potential, to use your phrase 'leading people astray'.

However with all that said, ultimately with the dispensationalist you will be arguing about the interpretation of the Bible, as we and they both claim that Scripture is the ultimate authority and is sufficient. Whereas it will not necessarily be so with the charismatic, because whatever their claims to the contrary their doctrine of Spirit impacts upon their doctrine of the Word in a negative way. The Scriptures are not final, ultimate, or sufficient.

From that perspective I believe there is greater potential for harm from the charismatic error. It will depend on just how charismatic the charismatic go I suppose.

Now, to comment upon why the charismatic position seems so attractive to the new Calvinist crowd - call me judgemental but I think it can be explained with one word - 'cool'. The charismatics have the cool music, cool conferences, cool preachers, cool web sites, blogs and twitter feeds. They're just cool. Dispensationalists are not so cool, blame than on John Macarthur! As as for confessional, Reformed folks - don't ask!


----------



## KMK

py3ak said:


> kodos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just another reminder before we start new heresies: Batman is always the correct answer to "who would win a fight, Batman or [insert comic book character here]".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds about right.
Click to expand...


Yeah, in the DC universe, anything is possible.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

JP Wallace said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the question I seek to answer is which of these two errors has the potential of doing more damage in terms of leading people astray
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill
> 
> What I find interesting is that from a distinctly confessional/Reformed Baptist postion both in many ways, go wrong in the same direction but by different routes.
> 
> Both disps/ and charismatic are ambivalent (theologically at least) on the Law of God. One because of their dispensationalism and the other tending to New Covenant Theology.
> 
> Both are loose in their own ways in relation to worship, one claims to be conservative, but is still not governed by the RPW, and the other is freer and adopts whatever will get the lost in (terrible generalisation of motive admitted!)
> 
> Both see little need for a confessional basis for the local church nor global church.
> 
> When looked at from this perspective there's not much between them in terms of potential, to use your phrase 'leading people astray'.
> 
> However with all that said, ultimately with the dispensationalist you will be arguing about the interpretation of the Bible, as we and they both claim that Scripture is the ultimate authority and is sufficient. Whereas it will not necessarily be so with the charismatic, because whatever their claims to the contrary their doctrine of Spirit impacts upon their doctrine of the Word in a negative way. The Scriptures are not final, ultimate, or sufficient.
> 
> From that perspective I believe there is greater potential for harm from the charismatic error. It will depend on just how charismatic the charismatic go I suppose.
> 
> Now, to comment upon why the charismatic position seems so attractive to the new Calvinist crowd - call me judgemental but I think it can be explained with one word - 'cool'. The charismatics have the cool music, cool conferences, cool preachers, cool web sites, blogs and twitter feeds. They're just cool. Dispensationalists are not so cool, blame than on John Macarthur! As as for confessional, Reformed folks - don't ask!
Click to expand...


I think you are correct in your assessment. The Charismatic theology that is creeping into churches is even more dangerous that Dispensationalism because it denies the sufficiency of Scripture and the fullness of revelation, which will ultimately lead to a host of other errors. Besides, Dispensationalism seems to be fading away, while Charismatic Calvinism seems to be growing like wildfire.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I think it matters on what is understood by cessationism and despensationalism. It also matters what boundaries they hold to concerning the scriptures. I know some confessional Presbyterians who would possibly be classified as non-cessationists but will not go to the lengths of Charismatics or Pentecostals. Dispensationalism is the same way. Classic Dispensationalism says whole portions of the Bible are not applicable to the Gentile believer while some Progressive Dispensationsists won't tow that line at all. It matters what is understood by these doctrines and what various school of interpretation is being adhered to.


----------



## MW

If Batman is far more dangerous than either dispensationalism or continuationism should he not be banned from this board!


----------



## py3ak

It is bootless to ban Batman! His schemes would unmake the Board itself if it were attempted.


----------



## Free Christian

C,mon, Batman has no super powers, he relies on little boomerangs with wires on them and other tools. Spidey would wrap him up like a fly in no time and leave him hanging.
But seriously I have heard J Macarthur sermons and they were very Christ based and the ones I heard were good. But I do know he has some literature or CDs out there with images of Christ on them. Yeah I know that I go on about those things but lets not forget that not to have them is one of the 10 commandments.
And as equally as important as following all the others. But somehow that one gets swept aside these days and forgotten about. If any of the other commandments were openly broken by a well known minister and on display many would be up in arms and talking about it to no end. But with that one, no one cares much if anything at all. I once years ago got a CD of his, on the cover was the so called "shroud of turin imprint" picture, supposedly Jesus dead in His shroud. Couldn't believe it when it arrived and I saw it! I contacted them but got no real reply, "we'll pass on your concern" and that was it.
So many promote that image these days and so few care!


----------



## Mushroom

Bats eat spiders. Just sayin'.


----------



## Free Christian

Why not both I ate chocolate coated grasshoppers once, along with fried baby ants and curried rattle snake! A friends mum had an exotic food shop when I was a kid. Had witchety grubs too which I cooked myself. They all tasted good too.


----------



## Ruby

There are a lot of nerds on this board  (Just sayin')


----------



## Pilgrim

JP Wallace said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that, at least in Baptist circles, that all of the Calvinists are either old school Dispensationalists, like Macarthur, or new school Charismatic-lites
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to think a bit more about that statement. I actually know hardly any Baptists in the UK who are Calvinistic or Reformed, or reformed in any sense who are either of these two categories.
> 
> Likewise you'll see that such bodies as ARBCA etc. might well have something to say about it, and even Mark Dever and other Founders churches.
> 
> Now there are plenty of folks who baptise by immersion who are in those two categories, if that's what you mean then you're probably right.
Click to expand...


In the USA, Baptists who embrace a Calvinistic soteriology are much more numerous than strict ARBCA types. ARBCA and strict 1689ers in general are a very small percentage of the Baptists in the USA who embrace Calvinistic soteriology. I'd be somewhat surprised if it's more than 10-15% at the most. Others who "affirm" the confession affirm it no more than the broadest evangelicals in the PCA or EPC affirm the Westminster Standards. (In other words, for those, pedobaptism+TULIP+Presbyterian church government="affirming" the confession.) 

Many who accept TULIP reject traditional Baptist covenant theology. What is taught at Southern Seminary, the most influential educational institution, has been dubbed "Progressive Covenantalism" and has a lot of similarity with New Covenant Theology with regard to its teaching on the perpetuity of the moral law, etc. Many of the younger men who identify with much of what is taught at SBTS are also continuationists if not charismatic in practice and are influenced by the likes of Piper and Carson on that issue. This is despite the fact that charismatics who have a "private prayer language" cannot serve as foreign missionaries of the Southern Baptist Convention. (Of course, there are many Calvinistic Baptists who are not SBC.) None of the bestselling authors who are Calvinistic immersionists are 1689ers. Even though I think he is a 1689er, Dever's influence tends to go no further than his teaching on plural elders and church discipline. 

Many churches that identify with Dever's 9 Marks are continuationist in their theology even if they don't appear to be that way on Sunday morning. But there is a difference of course with merely being unpersuaded by the Warfieldian interpretation of 1 Cor 12-14 and going to the extremes of things like Driscoll's pornographic visions. That should be taken into account. 

In my experience even some of the younger pastors are backing away from Driscoll with his antics over the past few years, starting roughly with Elephant Room 2. I think some finally see the issues with what he teaches in "Real Marriage" as well. That wasn't any new revelation at the time the book was published but previous discussion of it (i.e. saying sodomy is ok within the bounds of marriage, etc) was clouded by Southern Baptist politics, etc. Regardless, the issues raised in Bill's OP aren't directly related to Driscoll personally at this point. 

Driscollism plus the kind of antinomian teaching popularized by Tullian T. would perhaps be the most dangerous. I guess the most dangerous would be one who also loves everything Hal Lindsey has written but I'd be interested to know where such people could be found. 

Also, all of the energy today (In other words,, as a movement growing in influence) is on the side of the kind of continuationists alluded to in the OP. While many still affirm dispensationalism, the number is declining presently, even among non-Calvinistic Baptists. (More and more it is amil or "Historic" Premil. instead.) About the only Calvinistic Dispensationalists around are the MacArthur types, which are dwarfed by the kind of brethren I've described above, especially in terms of the size of their churches and thus the breadth of their influence on younger people. MacArthur is dismissed as an out of touch fundamentalist by many, and he is by far the most visible Calvinistic Dispensationalist. Steve Lawson is also dispensational but I think he may emphasize it so little that many probably are not even aware of that.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

In my estimation, one of the biggest issues with these Calvinist pastors who espouse continuationism is that it seems to be self-serving. You would not likely find anyone speaking in tongues or healing in these churches, and so it seems that the spiritual gifts in these churches manifest themselves solely in the respective pastors ability to receive a "prophetic word."


----------



## stephen2

Two altogether separate questions are being discussed here. First, dispensationalism vs. reformed continuists. Second, MacArthur vs. Driscoll. I think many of us who have _very _grave concerns about Mr. Driscoll and who deeply respect Pastor MacArthur would say on the other hand (and at the same time) that dispensationalism is a far more dangerous and damaging position than that of the reformed continuists. My reasoning is simple: dispensationalists are always partly antinomian. There is not a single dispensationalist who remembers the Sabbath to keep it holy. Rather dispensationalists live (preach and teach) as if there were no Sabbath command. It seems to me that the same is true of the 2nd commandment. So, on the one hand you have a system that reduces the commandments from 10 to 9 (or even 8). On the other hand you have a system that theoretically at least upholds God's law while wandering into other errors. 

Which is more damaging to the Church? The Old Testament teaches me to believe that the desecration of God's law by priest and people has absolutely devastating consequences for the Church and nation and far more damaging than an error on the gifts of the Spirit for example. 

I have brothers who subscribe to the Westminster standards and take the continuist position. It is impossible, however, to be dispensational and subscribe to the Westminster standards. Dispensationalism is a system that touches the law and the gospel and so proves damaging to the very fundamentals of our faith.


----------



## Pilgrim

stephen2 said:


> Two altogether separate questions are being discussed here. First, dispensationalism vs. reformed continuists. Second, MacArthur vs. Driscoll. I think many of us who have _very _grave concerns about Mr. Driscoll and who deeply respect Pastor MacArthur would say on the other hand (and at the same time) that dispensationalism is a far more dangerous and damaging position than that of the reformed continuists. My reasoning is simple: dispensationalists are always partly antinomian. There is not a single dispensationalist who remembers the Sabbath to keep it holy. Rather dispensationalists live (preach and teach) as if there were no Sabbath command. It seems to me that the same is true of the 2nd commandment. So, on the one hand you have a system that reduces the commandments from 10 to 9 (or even 8). On the other hand you have a system that theoretically at least upholds God's law while wandering into other errors.
> 
> Which is more damaging to the Church? The Old Testament teaches me to believe that the desecration of God's law by priest and people has absolutely devastating consequences for the Church and nation and far more damaging than an error on the gifts of the Spirit for example.
> 
> I have brothers who subscribe to the Westminster standards and take the continuist position. It is impossible, however, to be dispensational and subscribe to the Westminster standards. Dispensationalism is a system that touches the law and the gospel and so proves damaging to the very fundamentals of our faith.



I don't think I've ever met a person who fully subscribes to the Puritan view of the Sabbath who is a continuationist. That's a "your mileage may vary" kind of thing, evidently. More would hold to the third use of the law, but some effectively reject it even among those who "affirm" a Reformed confession. Many explicitly reject it. As I understand it, the OP is in reference to Baptists, and the movement described there is more antinomian in practice than MacArthur is and has a view of the moral law that is virtually indistinguishable from the dispensational view on that question. Ditto for Tullian Tchvidjian and the sonship types (which is a big influence on him, along with certain Lutheran theologians), in my opinion. It seems to me that that has a lot more in common with the view of outright old school "Dallas dispensationalism" on that specific issue (e.g. Ryrie, Walvoord, Lightner) than many recognize even if they use different terminology. M'cheyne said that for every time you look at yourself you should take 10 looks at Christ. But many today evidently believe that the Christian should NEVER examine himself. The theologians like Tullian who subscribe to a Reformed confession will usually formally affirm the third use but that's not the message the people get. 

Also, as Bill notes, many of the "continuationsts" are basically of the "open but cautious" camp that simply cannot affirm the kind of Warfieldian position taken by MacArthur (for example) but are generally opposed to basically all manifestations of charismaticism that I can conceive of. For example, the ones I know would look askance at someone who says "God told me..." whether it's a preacher or layman. They would reject many of the things that Piper gives a pass to, much less Driscoll's pornographic visions or even Grudem's distinction between OT and NT prophecy. In some cases it comes down to arguing over whether or not some things Spurgeon said is real prophecy or if it is what some Puritans referred to as "extraordinary providences." Those I'm describing here aren't the "Driscoll types" but the Calvinistic megachurch pastors (who are sometimes hypothetical universalists (or 4.5 pointers) at best) obviously have a much bigger platform and have a much bigger influence on "ordinary" people who listen to their sermons and read a few books here and there. And isn't that really the most important thing with regard to dangerous influence? On the other hand, many of the people who were pretty much in MacArthur's camp regarding "Strange Fire" are not dispensationalists.


----------



## stephen2

Chris what's a your mileage may vary kind of thing? I guess one of the points I wanted to make is that a continuist can subscribe to the Westminster standards whereas a dispensationalist cannot. The fact that there are continuists of all different stripes does certainly complicate this. Its kind of hard to lump Carson, Piper, Driscoll and the truly reformed in one continuist camp. It may be that continuists are typically more antimonian, but it needn't be so; whereas being dispensational by very definition implies antimonianism of a sort.


----------



## Pilgrim

stephen2 said:


> Chris what's a your mileage may vary kind of thing? I guess one of the points I wanted to make is that a continuist can subscribe to the Westminster standards whereas a dispensationalist cannot. The fact that there are continuists of all different stripes does certainly complicate this. Its kind of hard to lump Carson, Piper, Driscoll and the truly reformed in one continuist camp. It may be that continuists are typically more antimonian, but it needn't be so; whereas being dispensational by very definition implies antimonianism of a sort.



your mileage may vary=Your mileage may vary. In other words, anecdotal evidence. None of us knows what everybody out there believes, etc. In my case, in my "mileage" those you describe are outliers at best, especially among strict subscriptionists. Admittedly however I am not very well acquainted with "broadly Reformed" or "barely Reformed" evangelicals in the PCA or other NAPARC denominations although I do have somewhat more knowledge of the EPC. But that's what I had in mind with the TULIP+paedobaptism+Presbyterian government="subscription" statement in an earlier post. For what it's worth, I do know that some PCA TE's who are otherwise quite conservative (meaning more or less confessional otherwise) will do things like invite visitors out to eat lunch after Sunday worship. I'm sure there all kinds of exceptions men take to the standards beyond the usual ones. But how many PCA or ARP presbyteries would say that a continuationist (or much more, a practicing charismatic) doesn't even have to take an exception? How many would say it is not even an issue? On the other hand, how many candidates and credentials committees would reject such a one altogether, especially a tongue speaking charismatic? 

There are hundreds of posts on this board arguing over whether or not a continuationist can affirm the WCF (Article I in particular) with most of the participants in the threads I've seen taking the position that they cannot. (I simply direct you to those posts to see the argumentation unless someone else wants to take that up now.) A good many would argue that continuationism violates the system of doctrine found in the standards and thus flunks the test of system subscription along with "truly reformed" strict subscription. Back to your mileage may vary, I don't know of anybody (which includes online acquaintances) who would be considered a TR strict subscriptionist who is continuationist. An exception might be a few who would cite some alleged charismatic occurences among the covenanters. But however many would be in that camp is maybe 1% of the number of "Young Restless and Reformed" Calvinistic Baptists who could not affirm the 2nd London Baptist Confession. 

My point with regard to the continuationist camp the OP seems to have in view is that the overwhelming majority of them outright reject covenant theology and the Reformed confessions and so by definition reject Reformed teaching on sanctification and the 4th Commandment every bit as much as MacArthur type dispensationalists do. (See my last post about what MacArthur types (whether Dispensational or no) believe about sanctification in practice vs. some others as well.) Those who reject covenant theology and the confessions include Carson, Piper, Driscoll, Schreiner (and evidently most of the SBTS faculty, for example, especially in the theology dept), Mahaney, most likely everyone affiliated with Acts 29, etc. I mention all of those names simply because, off the top of my head, it pretty much covers the bases from an academic and/or leadership standpoint. 

Another big factor in the recent popularity of Calvinistic soteriology in evangelicalism is modern praise or CCM music, with a good many of the artists today being both Calvinistic in theology and charismatic in theory or practice. This is seen with the Passion conferences, for example, as well as Reformed rap, although I don't know how much the latter is employed in stated worship. The RPW is nonsense and "legalism" or "fundamentalism" to most of them whether they crank up the electric guitars or not. Thus, some might say that most of what is today referred to as the "New Calvinism" is Calvinistic soteriology married to some form of seeker sensitive worship and outlook (generally speaking) as opposed to "ordinary means" ministry.


----------



## Matthew1344

So, if not dispensationalism, then what? Please be easy on me... i want to learn.


----------



## JimmyH

Matthew1344 said:


> So, if not dispensationalism, then what? Please be easy on me... i want to learn.


Covenant theology is the alternative that many on this board adhere to As far as I know.

What does John Piper believe about dispensationalism, covenant theology, and new covenant theology? | Desiring God


----------



## Matthew1344

Great! From my understanding, that is the one i think i fall into mostly. 

I believe that his plan has always been grace through faith. 

But here is my hangup... sorry if this does not make sense. And, sorry if this seems off topic. 

Is the idea that goes with covenant theology "God's concepts never change"?

Because if so, what about God's idea of how to populate the earth?
He tells Adam and Moses to do it in an incestial way right? 
But, then he God later says that it is sin.

And, same thing about eating animals.
At first he tells Adam that the plants will be his food.
Then, later, he tells Noah that just like the plants, now man can eat animals.

Why is it ok? Then not ok?

And again, sorry if my question is confusing, out of nowhere, or doesn't pertain. Im just trying to understand all this.

Thanks


----------

