# Flattened out distinctions



## arapahoepark (May 8, 2017)

How would you respond to the notion that Reformed Covenant theology has flattened out distinctions between the 'covenants'? I tend to hear that a lot.


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (May 8, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> How would you respond to the notion that Reformed Covenant theology has flattened out distinctions between the 'covenants'? I tend to hear that a lot.



I would tell them that if the think that then they do not understand CT.


----------



## hammondjones (May 8, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> How would you respond to the notion that Reformed Covenant theology has flattened out distinctions between the 'covenants'? I tend to hear that a lot.



Which covenants are they referring to?


----------



## arapahoepark (May 8, 2017)

hammondjones said:


> Which covenants are they referring to?


The Covenant of Grace and their respective administrations. Many would see them as all separate.


----------



## hammondjones (May 9, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> The Covenant of Grace and their respective administrations. Many would see them as all separate.



Ah, well, coming from a dispensational background, I remember the first time I heard a Sunday School lesson in a PCA church on convenants. I was sure I knew all about them: Adamic, Noahic , Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and how each of the replaced the one that was before. So when the teacher's framework was a Covenant of Works/Covenant of Grace distinction, and he lumped Abraham and Moses and David in with each other, I was beyond confused. And mind you, I'd been in church my entire life. But, my previous exposure to covenants did not really prepare me to be capable of processing Reformed Covenant Theology in the space of 45 minutes. With time and study, sure, but first I had to unlearn my assumption of discontinuities.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 9, 2017)

I think you should ask questions, beginning with: What are the "discontinuities" that (in their view) should be taken into account, and what is their nature? Otherwise, you do not know what they mean by the language; and you may find out that they are only parroting language they have heard elsewhere. That is, they may not have any clear definition of "discontinuity."

For example, I am willing to guess that for their part unless they are deeply dispensationally divided at base, they perceive/imagine considerable *continuity *amid the OT covenants all told; and only really start emphasizing _discontinuity _when comes time for the New Covenant institution.

Until you know what your conversation partner thinks positively about his own view, and what is the meaning of his terms; until you are clear on the structure of classic Covenant Theology, and where it finds *both *continuity *and *discontinuity--you cannot effectively communicate either to teach or correct misunderstanding.

Again, I guess that what you'll find is really just a case of perspective. Those coming from a dispensational, or a NCT, or even Ref.Bapt. (or Cov.Bapt) point of view all think that the Presbyterians have "flattened" too much--just how much is debatable between their dissents.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## MW (May 9, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> How would you respond to the notion that Reformed Covenant theology has flattened out distinctions between the 'covenants'?



"And ye shall be my people, and I will be your God." It would be a very poor theology which neglected the riches of the covenant of grace.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Peairtach (May 27, 2017)

Reformed theology recognises different administrations of the essentially one Covenant of Grace e.g. from the Fall to Moses, from Moses to Christ, the Apostolic administration at the time of the inscrpturation of the New Testament Scrptures, and the New Testament or Christian administration/dispensation from the completion of the canon and death of the Apostles to the Eschaton.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------

