# This might be a stupid question, but....



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 18, 2005)

Is the WCF (1646) or the LBC (1689) a faithful basic exposition of covenant theology ?

As in - would someone who affirmed them automatically be lumped in the category of holding to covenant theology ?

Or would someone like Fred Zaspel or MacArthur be able to affirm the LBC as well ?

[Edited on 4-18-2005 by OS_X]


----------



## JM (Apr 18, 2005)

I think yes.


----------



## Theological Books (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> Is the WCF (1646) or the LBC (1689) a faithful basic exposition of covenant theology ?
> 
> As in - would someone who affirmed them automatically be lumped in the category of holding to covenant theology ?
> ...



A dispensationalist (or NCT proponent) could not adhere to the LBC of 1689, simply because of the chapter regarding the covenants. The LBC of 1689 has a prominent (and even stronger) representation of covenant theology than the WCF, specifically as it lists in details the covenant of works, the covenant of redemption (which is NOT mentioned explicitly in the WCF), and the covenant of grace. See Chapter 7 of the LBC and compare that with Chapter 7 of the WCF. Also notice the difference in the titles of the chapters. The WCF speaks of the covenant with "MAN," whereas the LBC speaks of God's covenants with man and within the Trinity.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 20, 2005)

Zaspel could also not affirm the chapter on the Law, or the Sabbath.


----------



## Philip A (Apr 21, 2005)

Well said, Fred.


Unfortunately, though, there are far too many who call themselves "Reformed Baptists", and claim to adhere to the 1689 Confession, while still holding to dispensational distinctives. I can only think of two reasons how this can happen:

1) Ignorance of the historical theology and theological terminology in general, i.e., not knowing enough about the subject to recognize all of the implications of the chapters on covenant, law, worship, etc.

2) A postmodern reading of the confession, i.e. "this means what it means to me, who cares about the original intent of the authors...."

If more "Reformed Baptists" would study the theology of the Puritans and of the authors of the confession in particular, there would be a lot less confusion and silliness in the ranks (and a lot less straw men on the Puritanboard!).

No CT, no 1689.

[Edited on 4-21-2005 by Philip A]


----------



## JonathanHunt (Apr 21, 2005)

Oohhhhhh

And there was I thinking that Covenant Theology was only a presbyterian thing...



...kidding, just kidding...

JH


----------

