...and your house...

[Allan]

MK.....The revelation of the covenant is central in scripture..the doctrines of grace. are part and parcel of the fabric of this covenant dealing of God with the seed of Abraham.
When people attack the doctrines of grace, they are attacking the very heart of the covenant salvation available in our redeemer the Lord Jesus Christ.

Saul attacks the church...Jesus says Saul...why do you persecute me...this is covenant language, you cannot seperate Jesus from the elect sheep given to Him. This is why you see calvinists resist careless efforts of some to undermine the heart of the salvation made known to the Church.

While I don't wish to interrupt your conversation, I also could not let this portion pass without addressing it.

You are incorrect in asserting that attacking the doctrine of grace (Calvinism) is attacking the heart of covenant salvation. It is no where near such and should not be placed on the same level. Remember also that many Calvinists do not even agree with Covenant Theology. So to try to make the assertion that they (being Calvinism and Covenant theology) are one and the same is a misnomer at best. While many Calvinists hold to Covenant Theology, not all do but in fact, hold to Dispensationalism. In fact there are many variations of the Covenant view.. so now you have to narrow it down even more.. and you eventually will be found saying... my view is the only biblical view.

Thus to attack the Covenant view does not attack the salvation of Christ in any way because you have to validate which Covenant view you are speaking of.. the old continued, the old and the new coming together to make one.. partial Preterism, full Preterism, ect... and while these all seem similar on the surface, they are not. Please don't make the mistake of placing your theological view as being the gospel. (not saying -you- are, just saying please don't make that mistake)

 

[Iconoclast]

While I don't wish to interrupt your conversation, I also could not let this portion pass without addressing it.

You are incorrect in asserting that attacking the doctrine of grace (Calvinism) is attacking the heart of covenant salvation. It is no where near such and should not be placed on the same level. Remember also that many Calvinists do not even agree with Covenant Theology. So to try to make the assertion that they (being Calvinism and Covenant theology) are one and the same is a misnomer at best. While many Calvinists hold to Covenant Theology, not all do but in fact, hold to Dispensationalism. In fact there are many variations of the Covenant view.. so now you have to narrow it down even more.. and you eventually will be found saying... my view is the only biblical view.

Thus to attack the Covenant view does not attack the salvation of Christ in any way because you have to validate which Covenant view you are speaking of.. the old continued, the old and the new coming together to make one.. partial Preterism, full Preterism, ect... and while these all seem similar on the surface, they are not. Please don't make the mistake of placing your theological view as being the gospel. (not saying -you- are, just saying please don't make that mistake)

Good post Allan,
You are always welcome to post on anything I post here Allan. Even though there are many times we are not on the same page, I have come to see that you are sincerely searching out the scriptures in earnest.
At first I thought you were just trying to be evasive, but over time I have sort of gotten a handle on your style:thumbs: I like that we sometimes approach things diferently,as iron sharpens iron. You do not just attack in ignorance, but seek to come from a biblical basis most of the time.
I can respect that, and own you as a brother in Christ.

ok, lets see if I can offer some clarification.....you say:

You are incorrect in asserting that attacking the doctrine of grace (Calvinism) is attacking the heart of covenant salvation. It is no where near such and should not be placed on the same level.

I will stand by what I have posted...but do note your valid concern.
I stand because God has revealed himself as a covenant keeping God.
All christians I would think embrace this truth.

Now if you are speaking strictly of covenant theology per say, there might be some discussion there.

Remember also that many Calvinists do not even agree with Covenant Theology. S

Well I know that they do not hold the "classic " covenant theology".
Allan....after a year or two as a young christian, I began to get tapes from chapel library ...ie, Dallas theological Seminary.
I learned from S.Lewis Johnson,Ryrie, mcrae,etc. at that time they were completely dispensational...I learned the system inside out, had several schofield bibles, worked thru things to come by Dwight Pentecost, had several of Walvoords commentaries, etc.
I do realize that some can hold the 5 pts, and embrace some type of Dispensational Idea.......John Mcarthur is the leading poster child for such ideas.
As a matter of fact this past week I listened to two of His recent messages,defending himself from some of the reformed who are trying to get him to re-examine some of His ideas.

That being said, I do now believe that pre-mill Dispensationalism is not consistent with the testimony of scripture. I am okay with the fact that some brothers use a different end time calendar, but that is a seperate topic.

No one can hold to the five points without dealing with The Covenants, particularly the Covenant of Redemption/ Covenant of Grace.
Dispensationalism ......wrongly divides the bible {they pride themselves on"rightly dividing the word"} in a way that I believe does damage to the unity of the scripture,and covenant continuity.
Reformed Baptists are as close to being Presbyterians, without being one,as you can be.
This demonstrates two things:
1] Reformed Baptists have a covenant theology....that differs from the padeos
but yet they see the essential nature of covenant theology.Other baptists are all over the map on this issue,and I think that is something to be ashamed of.
Allan...you and some of the brethren in here study and enjoy the word of God.....i was happy to see MK put out several good posts on the topic:thumbs:
But I think and have seen with my own eyes how in many a baptist church, there seems to be an aversion to study the covenants outside of a dispensational framework. In many a baptist church,you might go a long time withouit hearing the word used,sad to say. This is also another thread in the making.

so now you have to narrow it down even more.. and you eventually will be found saying... my view is the only biblical view.

Yes....this is a valid caution in many ways.I have to keep this in mind often in several ways. maybe we all do to some extent.
1] there are new believers who have never got a handle on many of these scriptural concepts.

2] some have been under a ministry where other views other that the pastors view are not welcomed.

3] some in dispensational circles are told that these other views are heresy.
[years ago i took a couple of classes at baptist bible college,and was instructed that these other views were error]

4] Even if we come to much truth, we are cautioned in scripture that knowledge can puff someone up, it must be governed by the love of Christ.
[not always easy to do when attacked by heretical ideas and persons]

5]I have several times of necessity attended arminian churches,and have to pray before ,during and after the service, to try and edify those who need help,if possible. If the church is dispensational. I try to make sure not to undermine the pastors credibility in the eyes of his people, if any discussion takes place about the scriptures.

6] I avoid if possible going in those assemblies, because i know what is going to happen in there,so I look to fellowship with likeminded brethren if possible, for the sake of unity.

7] The last two times I had to speak up in this very situation was in Virginia, where as part of a study a person gave a false caricature of calvinism from Eph 1:3-11....we have remained online friends and I will visit them again.

As time permits, feel free to jump in. I think this is necessary as baptists.
Why are we baptists and not padeos? Are we correct? why did most of the reformers hold what they held,etc?

thank you for your caution ,brother.

 

[Iconoclast]

I think if we keep our wits and manners about us, we can have a good discussion despite our differences on DoG. Feel free to explain why/how you believe DoG relates to Covenant Theology. (honestly DoG doesn't bother me nearly as much as you might think it does)

Its good to know that we understand each other on the various covenants described in scripture.

I haven't had time to examine closely the bulk of your posts #16 and 17 or the links you gave. So I'll be back later with more comments on those.

I wonder, did you see my question on what makes Covenant Theology different from Dispensationalim?

I did....I will be getting to it..I just lost my second response to your posts and good questions.
I think this will be a good thread. we will get to many of these things
In the post i just lost I said in part that one of the best works to help someone understand how all 66 books tie together is this work by Jonathan Edwards...deals with every major idea of the scripture. I will try to retrieve my post somehow, but in the meantime;

here is another great link for you dealing with this...save it to your favorites;
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works1.xii.html
http://www.monergismbooks.com/History-of-the-Work-of-Redemption-p-16188.html
http://www.paperbackswap.com/History-Work-Redemption-Jonathan-Edwards/book/0851518443/
General Introduction.

PERIOD I. From the Fall to the Incarnation.

PART I. From the Fall to the Flood.
PART II. From the Flood to the calling of Abraham.
PART III. From Abraham to Moses.
PART IV. From Moses to David.
PART V. From David to the Babylonish Captivity.
PART VI. From the Captivity to Christ.
PART VII. Improvement of the First PERIOD.

PERIOD II. From Christ's Incarnation to his Resurrection.

PART I. Of Christ's Incarnation.
PART II. The Purchase of Redemption.
PART III. Improvement of the Second PERIOD.

PERIOD III. From

 

[convicted1]

In Acts 16 Paul tells the deeper of the prison that he will be saved "and all thy house" (KJV) and later in the passage goes on to describe the keeper being baptised and "all his". (there are other similar passages)

Did the early Church believe that when the head of the house choose Christ that he choose Christ for all of his household?

Did these sorts of descriptions lead to the belief of some that "since mama was Christian I am too"?

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all

37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;

41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

Here is another example. Just because the head of the household heard the word, and was saved, it was no guarantee that his whole household would be saved. Only those who hear and believe will be saved.

i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

[menageriekeeper]

Love that we are getting good discussion!

Iconoclast, I often find I have to write my post in Word or Notepad and then copy and paste here, especially if they are long. I've lost many by not doing so.

 

[Iconoclast]

Love that we are getting good discussion!

Iconoclast, I often find I have to write my post in Word or Notepad and then copy and paste here, especially if they are long. I've lost many by not doing so.

When i went to post the connection with theserver was lost and so were the posts. This must have been the providence of God,so i will re-post with some modification.

Mk...what view does your pastor teach, on dispensationalism, covenant theology? What end time view do you favor at this time?

Have you seen this kind of chart?

http://www.armageddonbooks.com/lahayechart.html

I will take a brief look at the dispensational idea at the end of the day if you would like. Just want to know what you have come across in your own study and home church.

 

[Iconoclast]

Love that we are getting good discussion!

Iconoclast, I often find I have to write my post in Word or Notepad and then copy and paste here, especially if they are long. I've lost many by not doing so.

This topic should be a good discussion,because it deals with God,His plan and purpose to show mercy and loving-kindness to a multitude in His Son.

Some other terms that are important in this discussion are;

oath, promise,covenant of promise, I shall be to you a God ,you shall be to me a people....like here;

12That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises. 13For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, 14Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.

15And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.

16For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.

17Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:

for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Exodus 19:5
Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

Leviticus 26:12
And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people.

Psalm 89:33
Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail.

Jeremiah 9:24
But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.

Jeremiah 31:3
The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

 

[J.D.]

Good posting Iconoclast. Before approx 1900, ALL Baptists were covenantal, just like the presbyterians (with noted differences between them). Methodists and Lutherans are also covenantal, so it's not just the arena of the calvinist. However, most calvinists are covenantal.

I second your recommendation to study Covenant Theology. I cannot overstate the rewards from it. There's nothing like coming to understand one's connection to the Old Testament after having had it taken away by dispensationalism.

(I should state the the Lutheran form of CT is quite different from others - they see a full antinomy between the law and the New Covenant, much like dispensationalists do)

 

[Iconoclast]

Good posting Iconoclast. Before approx 1900, ALL Baptists were covenantal, just like the presbyterians (with noted differences between them). Methodists and Lutherans are also covenantal, so it's not just the arena of the calvinist. However, most calvinists are covenantal.

I second your recommendation to study Covenant Theology. I cannot overstate the rewards from it. There's nothing like coming to understand one's connection to the Old Testament after having had it taken away by dispensationalism.

(I should state the the Lutheran form of CT is quite different from others - they see a full antinomy between the law and the New Covenant, much like dispensationalists do)

JD,
I am thankful that even in the maze of dispensationalism that they do address the covenants to some degree[as they seek to complete the scriptural puzzle] It gave a framework to look at the covenant theologians,as I tried to hold onto my dispensationalism as long as I could:laugh:
What caused me to move on from that teaching and seek for a better understanding is I found that many passages I had learned in the one system did not seem to fit,lol.{like when you sleep with a blanket that is too short,you pull it up then your feet stick out and get cold,lol.
Jonathan Edwards work helped me the most in that it clearly demonstrates a continuity in all 66 books , and it removed so much confusion on how the books tied together.
Like any trusted teacher or guide, they are only men,[not infallible] but some of these men were gifted in the scriptures and prayer and we can harvest the fruit of their labors

 

[Allan]

Good posting Iconoclast. Before approx 1900, ALL Baptists were covenantal..

Not true, not all were.. and the time period was more like early to mid 1800's.
However I would like to set up some important notes. Like the fact that Covenant theology is a fairly new belief system according to church history must like dispensationalism.

We note historically that Covenant theology, even in a infant type form (amillinnialism) was not apart of church orthodoxy for nearly the first 400 years of the church.

Louis Berkhof, a covenant theologian, wrote,

"In the early Church Fathers the covenant idea is not found at all."

In fact, it can not be found as 'a system' of belief till much later, somewhat after the Reformation (around 17th century).

Dr. Ryrie states:

It [covenant theology] was not the expressed doctrine of the early church. It was never taught by church leaders in the Middle Ages. It was not even mentioned by the primary leaders of the Reformation. Indeed, covenant theology as a system is only a little older than dispensationalism. That does not mean it is not biblical, but it does dispel the notion that covenant theology has been throughout all church history the ancient guardian of the truth that is only recently being sniped at by dispensationalism.

Covenant theology does not appear in the writings of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, or Melanchthon… There were no references to covenant theology in any of the great confessions of faith until the Westminster Confession in 1647, and even then covenant theology was not as fully developed as it was later by Reformed theologians. The covenant (or federal) theory arose sporadically and apparently independently late in the sixteenth century

Note that he is speaking of the 'theology' or system of belief. Like Dispensationalism both are relatively new in relation to church history.

 

[Allan]

JD,
What caused me to move on from that teaching and seek for a better understanding is I found that many passages I had learned in the one system did not seem to fit

Hmmm... that is the exact reason why I could not accept Covenant Theology. In order to accept it, I had to either stop or modify biblical hermeneutics to make scripture say what it (Covenant Theology) was making a case for.

Now this is me, and not necessarily an emphatic statement. However, for me, when I must leave the normal reading of the text to allegorize scripture where we have no valid reason to.. I must leave that view behind.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hmmm... that is the exact reason why I could not accept Covenant Theology. In order to accept it, I had to either stop or modify biblical hermeneutics to make scripture say what it (Covenant Theology) was making a case for.

Now this is me, and not necessarily an emphatic statement. However, for me, when I must leave the normal reading of the text to allegorize scripture where we have no valid reason to.. I must leave that view behind.

Well.....it remains to be seen what gets allegorized....are you holding out for a strictly literal idea...... are you speaking of Israel?
give an example if you think of one, or if any come up...comment on them

14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

did anyone understand the numbers passage this way, before Jesus used it?

22For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

27For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

28Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

29But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

30Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

31So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

You did say ,unless there is a valid reason....i think there are many reasons that are valid...we shall see

 

[Iconoclast]

Not true, not all were.. and the time period was more like early to mid 1800's.
However I would like to set up some important notes. Like the fact that Covenant theology is a fairly new belief system according to church history must like dispensationalism.

We note historically that Covenant theology, even in a infant type form (amillinnialism) was not apart of church orthodoxy for nearly the first 400 years of the church.

Louis Berkhof, a covenant theologian, wrote,
In fact, it can not be found as 'a system' of belief till much later, somewhat after the Reformation (around 17th century).

Dr. Ryrie states:

Note that he is speaking of the 'theology' or system of belief. Like Dispensationalism both are relatively new in relation to church history.

Well for sure the reformation was big in that the church had gone off the rails
I think it begs the bigger question however.....How did Jesus and the apostles after pentecost see the whole of scripture?

 

[Allan]

Well.....it remains to be seen what gets allegorized....are you holding out for a strictly literal idea...... are you speaking of Israel?
give an example if you think of one, or if any come up...comment on them
did anyone understand the numbers passage this way, before Jesus used it?


You did say ,unless there is a valid reason....i think there are many reasons that are valid...we shall see

You seem to misunderstand what the phrase of 'literal' means with respect to hermeneutics. Please keep with what is being spoken of and not the exaggerated aspects of what I'm saying.

Literally to consistently understand the Scriptures in their plain, normal, natural, obvious sense. Thus if the text stress a metaphorical usage then the obvious sense is to understand it as a metaphor.

We note the passage you speak of is allegorical BECAUSE scripture tells us THAT portion being spoken of IS allegorical, but to presume much of the rest of scripture (specifically that of end times) is allegorical, with/for no valid contextual reason, does not hold to standard hermeneutics and interpreting scripture.

 

[Allan]

Well for sure the reformation was big in that the church had gone off the rails
I think it begs the bigger question however.....How did Jesus and the apostles after pentecost see the whole of scripture?

Let us look:

Act 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

Well first, they would not have viewed it any differently than 'before' pentecost.

Here we see that after the resurrection, for 40 days, he was speaking to his chosen disciples of the "things pertaining to the Kingdom of God".

Then we see Jesus tell them to go to Jerusalem and wait for the the Holy Spirit and the baptism thereof.
Next:

Act 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

So, after Jesus spent the last 40 days teaching these disciples about the Kingdom of God (what was, is, and will come to pass)... we see them come to him and ask - when he will RESTORE -again- the Kingdom to Israel.

It is of importance here to note what they were asking, in light of the fact that the last 40 days, they were under Jesus specific teachings specifically pertaining to the Kingdom of God. And then we see the disciples ask when he would -restore again- the Kingdom TO Israel.

To 'restore again', means that at one time it existed but does not any longer yet shall once again be so. Now what it is that will be again that no longer was.. the Kingdom of Israel. And the fact they asked when 'HE" was going to restore it, was part of the OT prophesies regarding the Messiah.

Now since we 'know' the Kingdom of God has never been removed and that it was NOT, no longer in existence, we know that this was speaking NOT of spiritual Israel but of literal physical Israel.

Some try to state that Jesus did not answer them regarding their question, but we find in fact not only did He answer them, but He answered them specifically regarding the question they posed.

Act 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

Act 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Note He addressed their question.. it is not for you know when the Father will do so. Again, note this.. He did not deny their question, nor did He tell them they misunderstood, or that they are asking the wrong question, No His answer was in agreement with the question posed but was refocusing them on what they should be more concerned with. Why? Because that is the Father's business. Don't get caught up on when the Father will accomplish what He promised..

He then goes on to tell them what they ARE to be concerned about.. to be His witnesses everywhere. Basically telling them - The Father will bring to pass what is His to worry about. You however need to worry about the tasks that you have been placed in charge of.

Just on Acts 1 alone, there is no dispute that Jesus taught of a literal physical Kingdom of Israel HE will re-establish, and the disciples wanted to know when He was planning on doing this (which is the fulfillment of God's promises) because it was part of the teachings he conveyed.

We also know this not only because of scripture (and in more than just that one place) but also because of the early church fathers and we know that one of these was one of Johns (the writer of Revelation) disciples and he is noted for teaching this very same view. Justin Martyr (one of the early church fathers) is noted as stating this is/was the orthodox teaching of the church. Thus the earliest works we have of disciples of Christ (scripture) as well as those who were taught by His disciple's disciples state this was the common teachings of the church.


Apparently they thought and asked if Jesus was going to RE-establish the Kingdom.

 

[J.D.]

Not true, not all were.. and the time period was more like early to mid 1800's.
However I would like to set up some important notes. Like the fact that Covenant theology is a fairly new belief system according to church history must like dispensationalism.

We note historically that Covenant theology, even in a infant type form (amillinnialism) was not apart of church orthodoxy for nearly the first 400 years of the church.

Louis Berkhof, a covenant theologian, wrote,
In fact, it can not be found as 'a system' of belief till much later, somewhat after the Reformation (around 17th century).

Dr. Ryrie states:

Note that he is speaking of the 'theology' or system of belief. Like Dispensationalism both are relatively new in relation to church history.

Show me ONE, just ONE, Baptist statement of faith written before 1900 that embraces dispensationalism and I'll eat my hat.

 

[J.D.]

Like the fact that Covenant theology is a fairly new belief system according to church history must like dispensationalism.

Allen: Augustine said this:

But even the infants, not personally in their own life, but according to the common origin of the human race, have all broken God’s covenant in that one in whom all have sinned. Now there are many things called God’s covenants besides those two great ones, the old and the new, which any one who pleases may read and know. For the first covenant, which was made with the first man, is just this: "In the day ye eat thereof, ye shall surely die." Whence it is written in the book called Ecclesiasticus, "All flesh waxeth old as doth a garment. For the covenant from the beginning is, Thou shall die the death."

He said this around the year 400 AD. Let's see, dispy 1850, covenant 400 - that's one thousand four hundred fifty years apart. Now tell me again which one is new?

 

[menageriekeeper]

Quick reply, cause this is a hugely busy week for me.

Iconoclast, my preacher hasn't been with us long enough for me to know how he stands in this regard. So far it seems his beliefs line up with my own, but since I have never defined where I stand (some mix of Covenant and Dispensalism perhaps?), I can't name his.

You already know I'm coming from a nonCal yet nonArm background. (one of the nameless ones) and the only "title" I hold to is Sola Scriptura.

 

[Allan]

Allen: Augustine said this:

He said this around the year 400 AD. Let's see, dispy 1850, covenant 400 - that's one thousand four hundred fifty years apart. Now tell me again which one is new?

Sorry, that does not establish Covenant 'theology' as even the premillinnialism AND dispensationalism talks about the Covenants of God. Just because the 'word' covenant issued does not make it covenant theology. Even the vast majority of reformed scholars agree there was not Covenant Theological system prior to 17th century. While many make the 'claim' aspects were present, or the idea was there but unformed is silly at best to try to say Covenant theology existed as a system of Christian beliefs.

So which is historically new? BOTH are.

Since you are referring to Augustine,
"The Covenant Of Grace Its Scriptural Origins and Development in Continental Reformed Theology" - Rev. C. A. Schouls

Augustine - ...He also spoke of the covenant but he made mention especially of the Sinaitic covenant. It seems that he did not develop a separate concept of the Covenant of Grace; rather, he distinguished between the old and the new covenant....

Although Augustine may not have contributed directly to the development of covenant theology, his view on the unity of Scripture is of the utmost importance for this..."

You must remember that his view was amillinnialism, NOT Covenant theology, which was also known as Replacement theolgoy. This supplantor theology of premil became the primary doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church and over time because the foundation of the Reformed Covenant Theological system.
(not stating this as bad or good.. just the process of time and it roots).

 

[Allan]

Show me ONE, just ONE, Baptist statement of faith written before 1900 that embraces dispensationalism and I'll eat my hat.

Only Reformed Baptists wrote confessions and/or creeds and the others did not. Just because there were not confessions or creeds written by many baptists does not mean they were not there and to presume that because the reformed baptists spoke for all baptists is just silly. However the very fact, that Dispensationalism is noted among the churches in American at around 1880 (the first in America 1864 at a Presbyterian church)