Covenant Theology

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Dr Steve, Sep 16, 2002.

  1. Dr Steve

    Dr Steve
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2002
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please tell me how it is possibly to be a covenant theologian and a baptist? These two things are mutually exclusive aren't they?
     
  2. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please explain why you think they are mutually exclusive. [​IMG]
     
  3. Optional

    Optional
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2001
    Messages:
    478
    Likes Received:
    0
    How about New Covenant theology and Baptist?

    Are you speaking of covenant in general? Or a specific such as covenant of works or covenant of grace or covenant of redemption?
     
  4. VoiceInTheWilderness

    VoiceInTheWilderness
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the question is in regard moreso to the Noahaic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Palestinian, Davidic, New...
     
  5. Dr Steve

    Dr Steve
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2002
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am thinking of the view that superimposes upon the scriptures the system which demands we read back the New testament into the Old, that catagorizies all of the biblical covenants as "the covenant of grace" and imposes the standards of the law upon believers today. The same view from which baby baptism is derived.The view that replaces Israel with the church and leads to an a millennial approach to eschatology. This is not in keepiong with the baptist tradition which has a high view of scripture and generally follows the historical grammatical literal hermeneutic.
     
  6. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Baby baptism is not necessary to covenant theology.

    Historically, many, many baptists have been covenant theologians. Covenant theology has a high view of scripture, and also follows the historical grammmatical literal hermaneutic, just not in exactly the same places that dispensationalism chooses to.

    The rest of the things in your post have nothing much to do with being a Baptist or not.

    BTW, I am not a covenant theologian, but I have many Baptist friends who are.
     
  7. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,130
    Likes Received:
    320
    There is a lot which goes under the umbrella of Covenant Theology which is not typical Covenant theolgy.
    My recollection is The Covenant of works given to Adam versus the Covenant of grace though the gift of God is "old-school" Covenant Theology.
    Everything else in Scripture is categorized as under one or the other.

    Actually, I would prefer to call myself a Coventalist rather than a dispensationalist.
    But I don't want to be confused with the traditional Covenant Theologian.
    That is, I prefer to interpret Scripture through a view of the various Covenants rather than the "dispensations" (Noahic Covenant, Abrahamic Covenant, Mosaic, Davidic, etc).

    The final culminating Covenant being the New and Everlasting Covenant.

    HankD

    [ September 17, 2002, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]
     
  8. Ulsterman

    Ulsterman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is certainly impossible to be a fundamental Baptist and a covenant theologian. One can hardly apply the literal, grammatical, and historical system of interpretation to the Scriptures and come to the conclusion that the church is Israel, baptism is equivalent of circumcision the millennium is not a literal 1000 years but the whole church era, etc., etc,
     
  9. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    replacement theology is evil.
     
  10. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can you explain what, specifically?
     
  11. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know much about either one of these, could someone explain these?
     
  12. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am a committed dispensationalist. I believe that covenant theology (in its various forms) has a multitude of problems that have arisen from overlooking the plain meaning of the text in favor of presuppositions brought to the text. I believe covenant theology is simply wrong.

    Having said that, I believe we need to stop short of calling it evil. It is possible to be a fundamental Baptist and a covenant theologian just as it is possible to be a fundamental baptist and an arminian. However, both are inconsistent, not with being a Baptist, but rather with the text of Scripture. Baptist distinctives do not include issues about eschatology. We need to be careful.

    Katie, In the baptist theology or the general baptist forum up above, there was a recent thread where this was discussed. In that I outlined a few issues that are essential to the respective sides. Do a search if you have time and find that one. I don't have time right now to do it again [​IMG]
     
  13. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Would you agree that the moral law, embodied in written form in the Ten Commandments, has always been in effect and continues in effect today?

    Ken
    A Southern Baptist and a Covenantalist

    [ September 21, 2002, 08:47 AM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]
     
  14. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was asked why I felt it was evil. I feel it is evil because it claims that every time the word Israel is mentioned in the NT it means the Church. This is replacement theology. We are to bless Israel.

    HCL
     
  15. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think that's exactly right. But even if it was, that would simply be "wrong", not "evil". [​IMG]
     
  16. Dr Steve

    Dr Steve
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2002
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    In reply to Ken Hamilton, in respect to the 'moral law' where is the distintion between the ritual ceremonal or moral law in the Bible? Their is a distinion made in theology but not in scripture. The believer is not under the law by which we mean the 613 commandments of the Mosiac code which is indivisible, but he is under grace, by which we mean the teachings of Christ as embodied by the New Testament epistles.
     
  17. Dr Steve

    Dr Steve
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2002
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    Think about it. If baptists believe, and we do, in the scriptures as the only rule of faith, then how can covenant theology which is based on Augstinian philosophy derived from the heretic Origen, be consistent with being a baptist? Furthermore as regards fundamentalism, covenant thoelogy effects certian fundamental doctrines, such as the scriptures, God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the church, baptism, and eschatology.
     
  18. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Steve, I would suggest that you don't understand historic fundamentalism. Early fundamentalism was not distinctively baptist. It was baptist, presbyterian, and methodist predominantly because of the common devotion to fundamental doctrine and the common enemy of theological modernism. The personal visible return of Christ is a fundamental. The particulars of it are not. Let's be careful not to overstate the position.
     
  19. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,130
    Likes Received:
    320
    Also, the definition and description of "Covenant Theology" varies greatly even among so-called covenant theologians.
    I personally would agree that the typical/traditional Adam Covenant vs Grace Covenant (and all its ramifications) is a difficult interpretation to defend without some kind of dispensational aspect being brought in somewhere.

    For instance traditional Covenant theologians were fond of talking about Sabbath worship but were in reality referring to the Lord's Day.

    HankD

    [ September 22, 2002, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]
     
  20. Maverick

    Maverick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    0
    We are under the New Covenant, which supercedes all the other convenants as they were made to Israel and we are the Church. Yes, moral law continues on because morality has no national basis, but is based in the character of God. Even if you want to call us "spiritual" Israel, Paul clearly teaches that we are not under the Law or its traditions as they were but a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.

    The reformers did not leave enough of Catholicism behind and Catholicism is the Judaizers in Acts triumphant. Covenant theology borders on if not crosses over into that same error.
     

Share This Page

Loading...