# Any view other then dispensational or covenant



## AshleyB (Monday at 11:56 AM)

Is there another view point other then dispensational or covenant? What if you don't fully agree with either?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Monday at 12:21 PM)

AshleyB said:


> Is there another view point other then dispensational or covenant?



I've never heard of one.



AshleyB said:


> What if you don't fully agree with either?



In that case, you might just have problems.

Just out of curiosity, what are your disagreements with Covenant Theology?


----------



## Polanus1561 (Monday at 12:23 PM)

AshleyB said:


> Is there another view point other than dispensational or covenant? What if you don't fully agree with either?


Your disagreements would then shape and guide you to other possible viewpoints such as New Covenant Theology or a Baptist variation of Covenant Theology


----------



## AshleyB (Monday at 12:48 PM)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> I've never heard of one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree with what I know of covenant theology as long as you don’t add replacement theology with it. Just curious if its a thing where people don't adhere to either side.


----------



## AshleyB (Monday at 12:49 PM)

Polanus1561 said:


> Your disagreements would then shape and guide you to other possible viewpoints such as New Covenant Theology or a Baptist variation of Covenant Theology


Just briefly what do those two views believe if you don't mind me asking.


----------



## iainduguid (Monday at 1:10 PM)

AshleyB said:


> I agree with what I know of covenant theology as long as you don’t add replacement theology with it. Just curious if its a thing where people don't adhere to either side.


"Replacement theology" is a fundamentally dispensationalist idea (that covenant theology teaches that Israel "replaces" the church). It presupposes the dispensationalist idea that there are two peoples of God, Israel and the church, which covenant theology in its essence denies. Covenant theology believes that there is one people of God, who find their center and unity in Jesus Christ. Strictly speaking, Jesus is the Israel of God, the heir and fulfillment of God's promises to his OT people. Jews and Gentiles enter the Israel of God through union with Christ. So the church is not the replacement for Israel, but in Christ, it is the fulfillment of God's purposes for his people from the very beginning. Jews and Gentiles become part of this new Israel by being grafted into the one olive tree/vine, Christ.

Reactions: Like 10 | Informative 1 | Amen 4


----------



## AshleyB (Monday at 1:26 PM)

iainduguid said:


> "Replacement theology" is a fundamentally dispensationalist idea (that covenant theology teaches that Israel "replaces" the church). It presupposes the dispensationalist idea that there are two peoples of God, Israel and the church, which covenant theology in its essence denies. Covenant theology believes that there is one people of God, who find their center and unity in Jesus Christ. Strictly speaking, Jesus is the Israel of God, the heir and fulfillment of God's promises to his OT people. Jews and Gentiles enter the Israel of God through union with Christ. So the church is not the replacement for Israel, but in Christ, it is the fulfillment of God's purposes for his people from the very beginning. Jews and Gentiles become part of this new Israel by being grafted into the one olive tree/vine, Christ.


That was helpful, thank you!


----------



## MyCrows (Monday at 2:15 PM)

iainduguid said:


> "Replacement theology" is a fundamentally dispensationalist idea (that covenant theology teaches that Israel "replaces" the church). It presupposes the dispensationalist idea that there are two peoples of God, Israel and the church, which covenant theology in its essence denies. Covenant theology believes that there is one people of God, who find their center and unity in Jesus Christ. Strictly speaking, Jesus is the Israel of God, the heir and fulfillment of God's promises to his OT people. Jews and Gentiles enter the Israel of God through union with Christ. So the church is not the replacement for Israel, but in Christ, it is the fulfillment of God's purposes for his people from the very beginning. Jews and Gentiles become part of this new Israel by being grafted into the one olive tree/vine, Christ.



I think of Galatians 3 every time this subject is brought up. 


Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ.
-
Gal 3 : 16

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
-
Gal 3 : 26-29

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## AshleyB (Monday at 2:50 PM)

MyCrows said:


> I think of Galatians 3 every time this subject is brought up.
> 
> 
> Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ.
> ...


I agree! Do you know what the dispensational argument against the clear meaning of those verses would be? How do they refute that?


----------



## MyCrows (Monday at 2:56 PM)

AshleyB said:


> I agree! Do you know what the dispensational argument against the clear meaning of those verses would be? How do they refute that?



Honestly I'm not familiar with their argument there. 

All I know is that _*I*_ can't argue against what the text clearly seems to say there.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jack K (Monday at 3:43 PM)

AshleyB said:


> Is there another view point other then dispensational or covenant?


Yes, there's a position usually labelled "New Covenant Theology" that can reasonably be thought of as middle ground. Rather than me trying to explain it (and probably getting things wrong, or only expressing one of many variations), you could look it up. It's good to be aware of it, since many Calvinistic churches today that reject dispensationalism but don't want to go full-blown covenant theology either will hold to it.

But, if personally your only concern about covenant theology is the replacement thing, what Iain said is exactly what you need to know. Covenant theology is NOT replacement theology. You have to be a dispensationalist in the first place to even consider that the church could replace some other people of God.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## AshleyB (Monday at 9:15 PM)

Jack K said:


> Yes, there's a position usually labelled "New Covenant Theology" that can reasonably be thought of as middle ground. Rather than me trying to explain it (and probably getting things wrong, or only expressing one of many variations), you could look it up. It's good to be aware of it, since many Calvinistic churches today that reject dispensationalism but don't want to go full-blown covenant theology either will hold to it.
> 
> But, if personally your only concern about covenant theology is the replacement thing, what Iain said is exactly what you need to know. Covenant theology is NOT replacement theology. You have to be a dispensationalist in the first place to even consider that the church could replace some other people of God.


Thank you! I did see something about that earlier and from what I briefly know I think I would be in line with New Covenant Theology. I will have to research more to see all the details and differences. Wish there was a good book on the subject.


----------



## MyCrows (Monday at 10:16 PM)

AshleyB said:


> Thank you! I did see something about that earlier and from what I briefly know I think I would be in line with New Covenant Theology. I will have to research more to see all the details and differences. Wish there was a good book on the subject.


NOOoooo!!!

Stay away from that lol


----------



## Steve Curtis (Monday at 10:16 PM)

AshleyB said:


> I think I would be in line with New Covenant Theology.


Just so you know, that would be in violation of Rule #3 of the PuritanBoard:
b. *NCT and non-Reformed views of the Law*. The Puritan Board forbids the membership of proponents of New Covenant Theology (NCT) and unconfessional views of the Law of God.


----------



## arapahoepark (Monday at 10:35 PM)

AshleyB said:


> Thank you! I did see something about that earlier and from what I briefly know I think I would be in line with New Covenant Theology. I will have to research more to see all the details and differences. Wish there was a good book on the subject.


A better book would be by Pascal Denault called the Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## AshleyB (Monday at 10:45 PM)

MyCrows said:


> NOOoooo!!!
> 
> Stay away from that lol


Well I was reading more and am honest confused. It seems from a very basic understanding that all of them have what’s seems to be some point that could be likely. I guess it will be the finer details that really separates them and distinguish them. What are your concerns and warnings mostly against NCT? I have a lot more studying to do!


----------



## AshleyB (Monday at 10:48 PM)

kainos01 said:


> Just so you know, that would be in violation of Rule #3 of the PuritanBoard:
> b. *NCT and non-Reformed views of the Law*. The Puritan Board forbids the membership of proponents of New Covenant Theology (NCT) and unconfessional views of the Law of God.


Thank you for pointing that out to me. I am not sure what I believe yet. I am pretty confused and need to do a lot more research, but if I were to land in that camp (though after more research this afternoon I don’t think I would.) I would keep with the rules and delete my account.


----------



## AshleyB (Monday at 10:48 PM)

arapahoepark said:


> A better book would be by Pascal Denault called the Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology.


Thank you!


----------



## John The Baptist (Monday at 11:04 PM)

I’ve also heard “The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom” by Sam Renihan is a good primer on 1689 federalism. It’s on my shelf but I haven’t read it yet.

Perhaps others can elaborate on it?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JH (Tuesday at 3:37 AM)

@AshleyB Romans 9:6-8 c.f. Galatians 4:28

1) Not all Israel are truly Israel
2) True Israel are not according to the flesh
3) True Israel are the seed of promise, called in Isaac
4) Paul says to believers of a Gentile church that they as Isaac, are the seed of promise, AKA the true Israel

Romans 2:28-29


----------



## ZackF (Tuesday at 9:46 AM)

Are there ways of guiding the seeking folks, newer to the ideas about salvation history, other than with threats to bounce them from the forums? There are often lengthy processes one undergoes after being saved and increasing in knowledge. I think there can be a place, though I know I am not the boss around here, for one to be allowed to hold a view at the same time be without permission to promote it.

Reactions: Like 4


----------

