# Not dispensational, but don't understand the importance of covenant theology



## shelly (Feb 22, 2008)

A few months ago I talked with a pastor of a church we were going to in order to find out what their position was on covenant theology and dispensationalism. The church isn't dispensational--good. He said that covenant theology was irrelevant but he has never studied it out before and didn't intend to any time soon. This church is excellent on application and is basically reformed.

Due to some other things I changed churches, sorta. My heart is still with the other type of church because of their love for the brethren and their incredible application of truth in daily life.

Now we are attending a Presbyterian church again. Is covenant theology really that big of a deal? I don't really get it. I would most likely baptize any future children, but beyond infant baptism what affect does a belief in covenant theology have on everday life?

In other words, as my husband put it the other day, "Which is more important, practical theology or book theology?" 

I've read God of Promise by Michael Horton. I understand, in a basic way, covenants in the ancient world and how they are similar to covenants God made in the OT. Some of the covenants Horton mentions are ones I was taught in the IFB church I was raised in. But it was still a very dispensational church. Even now my eyes glaze over if someone mentions Daniel and that wretched statue in reference to eschatology. If I never fill out another end times chart and timeline it'll be too soon. I don't see how covenant theology does anything except baptize babies. What am I missing?

Here's the catch to it all and what is behind my questions. If I don't figure out something important about covenant theology; then it seems that the whole presbyterian thing is kind of unnecessary as long as the doctrines of grace are still part of the church. So, therefore I can look for a church strong in application in areas my family is in need of; even though it may be weak in doctrine as far as reformed churches would consider it.

I hope I don't come across as already decided and unteachable. I don't want to talk to the pastor of the church we are going to because I think that would sidestep my husband. I'm tired of treading water spiritually because my husband won't lead. Sounds critical doesn't it? It's frustrating to want to learn about things and not be able to without making my husband feel like he's not being a leader. I don't want to push him and I don't want to pass him, so I just keep treading water or going backwards myself.

I'd appreciate good input that tells it like it is, but be nice to me.


----------



## Zenas (Feb 22, 2008)

I'm hoping you will have people who have studied Covenant Theology in-depth give you a run down.

I will provide this advice for you though: Theology Matters. In everything, theology matters and distinctions matter. People split for good reasons and Presbyterians are Presbyterian for a reason. Any pastor who told me he didn't think Systematic Theology was important, he hadn't looked into it, and he wouldn't be looking into it anytime soon would worry me and I would not be returning to his church because I would not feel comfortable sitting under his authority. 

Whether you're dispensational or covanental can effect everything from eschatology to Christology to ecclesiology. 

Someone who is Covanental I would think would be more inclined to adhere to the regulative principle of worship, whereas someone who is dispensational would probably allow just about anything into worship, and a lot of dispensationals will. 

Someone who is Covanental would see Christ as being the only name under Heaven by which man may be saved. Many dispensationals think Jews are under a different "dispensation" of grace, and that physical Israel was the people God made the covanent with, not spiritual Israel, and therefore Jews do not need to accept Christ because they will enter Heaven by keeping the Law.

Doctrine is important, I can't stress it enough. I would go to a church that is strong in doctrine because they naturally will be strong in fellowship, because I think that strong doctrine will begat strong fellowship. A church that is strong in teaching doctrine, but has weak fellowship, I would wager has difficulty applying their doctrine. A church that is strong in fellowship, but weak in doctrine, probably has a weak, immature fellowship that they're covering up.

Book theology should be practical theology. I think your husband was more accurately making a distinction between knowledge and wisdom. I don't think it can be said that the church you're thinking about has practical theology if it doesn't have any sense of itself theologically. Niether can it be said that a church that has sense of itself theologically is practical theologically, but I wouldn't necessarily trade one for the other. One can, and I think will, lead you astray, it being the church with the pastor who's uninterested in systematic theology.

Regardless of what you do, be as the Bereans.


----------



## Seb (Feb 22, 2008)

Shelly,

I agree with Andrew...Covenant Theology is the only proper way to understand much of the Bible. 

Without it you have a lot of disconnected pictures drawn in Scripture without being able to put them together to see God's big picture / plan.

Think of CT as the 'tree trunk' that most of Reformed Theology branches off of. If one doesn't understand or trust CT - I don't see how one can be reformed, I don't see how the Doctrines of Grace can be properly understood, and I don't see how you can properly preach the Scriptures.

Maybe you can take some time and read this excellent (and short) article on the subject : (Covenant Theology Illustrated)

A quote from the article:


> "Covenant is the fabric of the whole Bible. Once this fundamental schema of covenant in the Scriptures comes clear, all the patterns of God's relations with the sons and daughters of Adam unfolds into a rich tapestry unifying the Scriptures."


----------



## Zenas (Feb 22, 2008)

Briefly read a bit of it, sounds like a very good article.


----------



## Sydnorphyn (Feb 22, 2008)

*The only way? A presupposition?*

I agree with Andrew...Covenant Theology is the only proper way to understand much of the Bible. 


Steve/Andrew
What do you mean, "covenant theology is the only way to understand much of the Bible?" Could not a dispensationalist say the same thing? Is this not a presupposition? It does not seem to be a theology that is arrived at exegetically ; I do not think disp. is either. All not all systems human constructs and therefore open to scrutiny and adjustment, if not abandonment alltogehter?

Grace and peace

John


----------



## Seb (Feb 22, 2008)

Sydnorphyn said:


> It does not seem to be a theology that is arrived at exegetically



I disagree, there are God ordained covenants throughout the Scripture that only seem to make sense with the framework of CT tying them together.

Your bio makes me think you presuppose CT as a valid framework also.

Don't we exegetically see the threads of the "Covenant of Works" and the "Covenant of Grace" running throughout Scripture?

Am I missing something here?


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Feb 22, 2008)

Our God is a Covenant Keeping God!



> Deut. 7:9
> Know therefore that the Lord your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations,



Through out the Bible, God relates to His people by way of a Covenant of Grace. Covenant theology provides the basic framework for rightly interpreting the Bible. Covenant theology is about continuity.

1. Continuity of the Covenant of Grace. The Bible teaches one and the same way of salvation in both Old and New Testaments, despite some some different outward requirements. The Covenant of Grace refers to God's general covenantal plan to redeem sinful people to Himself, a plan born in the eternal counsel of the Trinity. This one covenant extends through out the the Bible from Genesis to Revelation.

2. Continuity of the People of God. Since there is one covenant of grace between God and man, there is one continuous people of God (The Church) in the Old and New Testaments.

3. Continuity of Covenant Signs. Baptism is the sign of the covenant in the New Testament, just as circumcision was the sign of the covenant in the Old Testament.

4. Continuity of Households. Whole households are included in God's Redemptive Covenant in both the Old and New Testaments.

So then, with Covenant Theology there is continuity in the Biblical message of Redemption.

Dispensationalism, on the other hand, does not see this continuity, and in the words of John H. Gerstner:



> Dispensationalism divides rathers than preserves the unity of the Bible. It divides the people of God. It divides predestination from the people of God. It divides salvation from the people of God. It divides the people of God into the endless future.



--John Gerstner, A Primer on Dispensationalism (page 35).

Yes Shelly--Covenant Theology is very important.


----------



## Herald (Feb 22, 2008)

I'm a Baptist who left dispensationalism about six years ago. But according to the common definition I wouldn't be a Covenant Theologian either. Why? Because I am a credobaptist. Most CT's I know would say that paedobaptism is an inherent characteristic of CT. So that leaves me in limbo. I agree that we worship a covenant making and covenant keeping God. I would obviously disagree with my Presbyterian brethren on baptism, so where does that leave me? I wouldn't put myself in the NCT camp either. I suppose I'm a man without a systematical home.


----------



## JM (Feb 22, 2008)

Dr. Morey wrote, _"Some of us, therefore, have entered into a phase in which we are wondering about in the wilderness without any system."_ That about sums up my understanding right now. Must We Have A System by Robert Morey


----------



## Herald (Feb 23, 2008)

Here is a larger quote from Morey's article:



> In our initial enthusiasm for covenant theology, we assumed naively that we could adopt this system without partaking of infant baptism. The Presbyterian covenant theologians told us that if we were going to be "Reformed" we must accept all of it or none of it. They could not see how we could refrain from accepting the system in its entirety.
> 
> Some of us, therefore, have entered into a phase in which we are wondering about in the wilderness without any system. Others in various traditions have experienced the same thing. Contemporary Reformed theologians have accused us of being dispensationalists because in their minds there are only two systems of thought for options. It must be understood clearly that Reformed theology has always assumed that there is a comprehensive theological system which can be discovered and expounded. That is why most systematic theologies are written by Calvinists!
> 
> Since many feel uncomfortable with both dispensationalism and covenant theology, the question arises, do we need a system? Must we carry on the quest which has been followed for centuries?



I identify myself with this quote. In my reading about CT it is always inexorably linked to paedobaptism. I believe the majority of CT's on the PB would concur. And yes, I've been called a dispensationalist because I am not a paedo. Of course, I dismiss that charge. While I like Morey's article I'm not ready to concede that a systematic theology is wrong. Scripture *is *linked with scripture. There is a continuity from Genesis to Revelation. To deny this continuity is to take each passage of scripture as an independent revelation. It would be like calling each beam a house, even though it takes many beams to build a house. I don't believe Morey is arguing against the continuity of scripture as much as he has a bent against systematic theology.

Late me state for the record that _I do not believe_ a person is a dispensationalist if they reject WCF-CT and its insistence on paedobaptism. My WCF brethren may contest that claim but I contest it in return. I believe _it is_ possible to a CT, but a CT of a different persuasion. This is possible without being called NCT, or at least the NCT of John Reisinger. I state again that I believe our God to be a God of covenants. I would disagree with the WCF-CT in there understanding that paedobaptism is an inherent component of CT. How that makes me a dispensationalist, I don't understand.


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 23, 2008)

shelly said:


> I'd appreciate good input that tells it like it is, but be nice to me.



Have a read of Back Free Church - Sermons and Studies - Covenant Theology - an Introduction


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 23, 2008)

*THE SUM OF SAVING KNOWLEDGE, &c.
HEAD I.​*Our woeful condition by nature, through breaking the covenant of works. Hos. 13:9. O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself.

*I.* THE almighty and eternal God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, three distinct persons in the one and the same undivided Godhead, equally infinite in all perfections, did, before time, most wisely decree, for his own glory, whatsoever cometh to pass in time: and doth most holily and infallibly execute all his decrees, without being partaker of the sin of any creature.

*II.* This God, in six days, made all things of nothing, very good in their own kind: in special, he made all the angels holy; and he made our first parents, Adam and Eve, the root of mankind, both upright and able to keep the law written in their heart. Which law they were naturally bound to obey under pain of death; but God was not bound to reward their service, till he entered into a covenant or contract with them, and their posterity in them, to give them eternal life, upon condition of perfect personal obedience; withal threatening death in case they should fail. This is the covenant of works.

*III.* Both angels and men were subject to the change of their own free will, as experience proved, (God having reserved to himself the incommunicable property of being naturally unchangeable for many angels of their own accord fell by sin from their first estate, and became devils. Our first parents, being enticed by Satan, one of these devils speaking in a serpent, did break the covenant of works, in eating the forbidden fruit; whereby they, and their posterity, being in their loins, as branches in the root, and comprehended in the same covenant with them, became not only liable to eternal death, but also lost all ability to please God; yea, did become by nature enemies to God, and to all spiritual good, and inclined only to evil continually. This is our original sin, the bitter root of all our actual transgressions, in thought, word, and deed.


*HEAD II.​*The remedy provided in Jesus Christ for the elect by the covenant of grace. Hos. 13:9. O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help.

*I.* ALBEIT man, having brought himself into this woeful condition, be neither able to help himself, nor willing to be helped by God out of it, but rather inclined to lie still, insensible of it, till he perish; yet God, for the glory of his rich grace, hath revealed in his word a way to save sinners, viz. by faith in Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, by virtue of, and according to the tenor of the covenant of redemption, made and agreed upon between God the Father and God the Son, in the council of the Trinity, before the world began.

*II.* The sum of the covenant of redemption is this: God having freely chosen unto life a certain number of lost mankind, for the glory of his rich grace, did give them, before the world began, unto God the Son, appointed Redeemer, that, upon condition he would humble himself so far as to assume the human nature, of a soul and a body, unto personal union with his divine nature, and submit himself to the law, as surety for them, and satisfy justice for them, by giving obedience in their name, even unto the suffering of the cursed death of the cross, he should ransom and redeem them all from sin and death, and purchase unto them righteousness and eternal life, with all saving graces leading thereunto, to be effectually, by means of his own appointment, applied in due time to every one of them. This condition the Son of God (who is Jesus Christ our Lord) did accept before the world began, and in the fulness of time came into the world, was born of the Virgin Mary, subjected himself to the law, and completely paid the ransom on the cross: But by virtue of the foresaid bargain, made before the world began, he is in all ages, since the fall of Adam, still upon the work of applying actually the purchased benefits unto the elect; and that he doth by way of entertaining a covenant of free grace and reconciliation with them, through faith in himself; by which covenant, he makes over to every believer a right and interest to himself, and to all his blessings.

*III.* For the accomplishment of this covenant of redemption, and making the elect partakers of the benefits thereof in the covenant of grace, Christ Jesus was clad with the threefold office of Prophet, Priest, and King: made a Prophet, to reveal all saving knowledge to his people, and to persuade them to believe and obey the same; made a Priest, to offer up himself a sacrifice once for them all, and to intercede continually with the Father, for making their persons and services acceptable to him; and made a King, to subdue them to himself, to feed and rule them by his own appointed ordinances, and to defend them from their enemies.

*HEAD III.​*The outward means appointed to make the elect partakers of this covenant, and all the rest that are called, to be inexcusable. Matt. 22:14. Many are called.

*I.* THE outward means and ordinances, for making men partakers of the covenant of grace, are so wisely dispensed, as that the elect shall be infallibly converted and saved by them; and the reprobate, among whom they are, not to be justly stumbled: The means are especially these four. 1. The word of God. 2. The sacraments. 3. Kirk-government. 4. Prayer. In the word of God preached by sent messengers, the Lord makes offer of grace to all sinners, upon condition of faith in Jesus Christ; and whosoever do confess their sin, accept of Christ offered, and submit themselves to his ordinances, he will have both them and their children received into the honour and privileges of the covenant of grace. By the sacraments, God will have the covenant sealed for confirming the bargain on the foresaid condition. By kirk-government, he will have them hedged in, and helped forward unto the keeping of the covenant. And by prayer, he will have his own glorious grace, promised in the covenant, to be daily drawn forth, acknowledged, and employed. All which means are followed either really, or in profession only, according to the quality of the covenanters, as they are true or counterfeit believers.

*II.* The covenant of grace, set down in the Old Testament before Christ came, and in the New since he came, is one and the same in substance, albeit different in outward administration: For the covenant in the Old Testament, being sealed with the sacraments of circumcision and the paschal lamb, did set forth Christ's death to come, and the benefits purchased thereby, under the shadow of bloody sacrifices, and sundry ceremonies: but since Christ came, the covenant being sealed by the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper, doth clearly hold forth Christ already crucified before our eyes, victorious over death and the grave, and gloriously ruling heaven and earth, for the good of his own people.


*HEAD IV.​*The blessings which are effectually conveyed by these means to the Lord's elect, or chosen ones. Matt. 22:14. Many are called, but few are chosen.

*I.* BY these outward ordinances, as our Lord makes the reprobate inexcusable, so, by the power of his Spirit, he applies unto the elect, effectually, all saving graces purchased to them in the covenant of redemption, and maketh a change in their persons. In particular, 1. He doth convert or regenerate them, by giving spiritual life to them, in opening their understandings, renewing their wills, affections, and faculties, for giving spiritual obedience to his commands. 2. He gives them saving faith, by making them, in the sense of deserved condemnation, to give their consent heartily to the covenant of grace, and to embrace Jesus Christ unfeignedly. 3. He gives them repentance, by making them, with godly sorrow, in the hatred of sin, and love of righteousness, turn from all iniquity to the service of God. And, 4. He sanctifies them, by making them go on and persevere in faith and spiritual obedience to the law of God, manifested by fruitfulness in all duties, and doing good works, as God offereth occasion.

*II.* Together with this inward change of their persons, God changes also their state: for, so soon as they are brought by faith into the covenant of grace, 1. He justifies them, by imputing unto them that perfect obedience which Christ gave to the law, and the satisfaction also which upon the cross Christ gave unto justice in their name. 2. He reconciles them, and makes them friends to God, who were before enemies to God. 3. He adopts them, that they shall be no more children of Satan, but children of God, enriched with all spiritual privileges of his sons. And, last of all, after their warfare in this life is ended, he perfects the holiness and blessedness, first of their souls at their death, and then both of their souls and their bodies, being joyfully joined together again in the resurrection, at the day of his glorious coming to judgment, when all the wicked shall be sent away to hell, with Satan; whom they have served: but Christ's own chosen and redeemed ones, true believers, students of holiness, shall remain with himself for ever, in the state of glorification. 

The Sum of Saving Knowledge.


----------



## shelly (Feb 23, 2008)

Seb said:


> Shelly,
> 
> I agree with Andrew...Covenant Theology is the only proper way to understand much of the Bible.
> 
> ...



Steve,
Thank you for the article link. I read it and see that the point seems to be that the continuity of OT and NT is best served by covenant theology.
What I don't see in this article is a great difference in the way some things are explained with CT in mind compared to Dispensational such as: first Adam/last Adam, sin and righteousness imputed to us. Maybe that's why it's so difficult for me to see the clear differences between CT and Deut. 

I was taught some covenant things in a Dispensational way that was sometimes truth(I think) but more often twisted the truth in some way. This covenant or that one was for those in the OT or Israel not for us. I never could figure out how "they" decided which covenant was for us and which one was for Israel; didn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it. 

So can a church or a pastor call covenant theology irrelevant, _*not*_ believe in dispensational theology and yet still believe and preach and practice the doctrines of grace? I have seen this lived out, but perhaps they really do believe in CT if they knew what it was. Sounds lame doesn't it?

I leave out all end times things and figure it'll all come out in the wash. But I still believe in the doctrines of grace and I see the continuity between OT and NT(sorta). I would have no problem baptizing future children. I get the baptism thing. Is this all that covenant theology is? baptizing babies and understanding that the elect are spiritual Israel(but don't get ethnic Israel mixed up with spiritual Israel-good luck with that)


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 23, 2008)

shelly said:


> Steve,
> Thank you for the article link. I read it and see that the point seems to be that the continuity of OT and NT is best served by covenant theology.
> What I don't see in this article is a great difference in the way some things are explained with CT in mind compared to Dispensational such as: first Adam/last Adam, sin and righteousness imputed to us. Maybe that's why it's so difficult for me to see the clear differences between CT and Deut.
> 
> ...



The core distinctive of dispensationalism is the distinction between Israel and the Church. That is DTs key interpretive grid over Scripture. 

What is Dispensationalism?

CHANGING PATTERNS IN AMERICAN DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 23, 2008)

Shelly,

Here is a page on our website where I have placed presentations and audio of a series I am just now completing on Covenant Theology. The last week will be this week, and it will be updated tomorrow.

Christ Church PCA » God Has a Plan

I covered both the doctrine and its application to all of life (marriage, family, work, church, etc.) You may find it helpful. It is not intended to be comprehensive or a treatise, but a basic, pastoral, Sunday school introduction to Covenant Theology.


----------



## Seb (Feb 23, 2008)

shelly said:


> Is this all that covenant theology is?



Not at all! 

I don't think I'm qualified to present all the 'ripples' that are caused by having a different view on CT, but I have found some relevant links that may help as you sort through this. Hopefully they will help show that there is more involved than just the subject of Baptism.


These are other threads on the PB:

Four Theological Systems Compared
http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/ct-heremeneutic-20169/#post253263
Covenant Theology and the WCF


And a couple of good charts from off site:

Covenant vs. Dispensational
DISPENSATIONALISM AND COVENANT THEOLOGY


----------



## Herald (Feb 23, 2008)

Oh, and Shelly? I didn't mean to hijack your thread. I apologize.


----------



## shelly (Feb 26, 2008)

Fred,
Thank you for the link to the teaching on covenant theology. I haven't gone through it all yet, but I'm working on it.
thanks,
shelly


----------



## shelly (Feb 26, 2008)

I have either completely read through the links offered or else am still working my way through them. Thank you for such good info.

I have another question on it, but it won't quite go to words yet. It's more of a wrinkled forehead huh? than a well formed thought at this point.

Oh, and I didn't even notice it was being hijacked. My thoughts on things go all over the place. It seemed to be related well enough. It's actually a question that is tagging along on my CT question.

thanks,
shelly


----------

