Thursday, April 07, 2011

You Have Not Come to Mount Sinai

A few more thoughts on Covenant Theology before I move on:

1. I probably should have mentioned in the previous post that I understand the matter of the continuity of the covenants to be a foundational building block to the system. Essential unity to the covenants reverberates through it all. If it falls, the system falls, as best I can tell. (I'm curious to hear if any CT'ers out there would disagree.)

2. This 9Marks interview with O. Palmer Robertson was helpful to me. It's been a while since I listened, but it might be a nice introduction to some of the issues from a CT perspective if you're looking for one.

3. Finally, if you're trying to teach people to affirm Dispensationalism, you are not helping your cause if you do not lead them to grasp the fundamental tenets of Covenant Theology on terms CT'ers would recognize. And I suppose the vice versa applies as well. Disdain is not an argument.

4. UPDATE: I just stumbled upon this, which is a helpful breakdown of some different positions, including one I'd not encountered.

7 comments:

James Kime said...

I think he did a mostly good job in NCT. Those comparisons are often onesided but I can tell he at least tried to be accurate.

Didn't John Owen believe the New Covenant really was a separate covenant? I am thinking he did.

BE said...

"you are not helping your cause if you do not lead them to grasp the fundamental tenets of Covenant Theology on terms CT'ers would recognize. And I suppose the vice versa applies as well."

Granted, it's difficult when summarizing, but I definitely don't recognize the Dispensationalism I've encountered in that "helpful breakdown" No moral law? No imputation of Christ's righteousness?
"DT: There is no moral law. Believers in this age are only responsible to
respond to God’s offer of grace. There is no moral law, but smoking, drinking,
dancing, and gambling are sins."

If you find that helpful, maybe you've never understood Dispensationalism on its own terms.

BE

Anonymous said...

There is much in the short descriptions of MCT that can be found in the thinking of those who have never heard that term and think of themselves as CT. There are tributaries to the river of CT.

The part that may have resulted in the addition of the "M" (modified) to the CT is the particularly baptist bits -- on baptism/circumcision.

Keith

Ben said...

BE, I was actually referring to the breakdown of the CT/MCT/NCT variations, not the DT summary. I barely looked at that part.

Keith, true, like dispensationalism.

Anonymous said...

Ben,

I agree that the river Dispensationalism has many tributaries. The ones that flow closer to those of the river Covenantalism are the best :)

Keith

David Morris said...

"Disdain is not an argument."

Awesome line.

Joshua Caucutt said...

I do not consider myself dispensational or covenant. The term that I like (although cannot completely define yet) is "historical redemptive".

I will also say that I was never really presented with a non-dispy view of Scripture all through my days at a Baptist Bible college and graduate school, but I saw all kinds of inconsistencies within the dispy grid. The first time that I was shown a non-dispy system, I rejected dispensation almost immediately. Still working on what I actually am . . .