Covenant Theology

[Jazzy]

What Is Covenant Theology?

 

[Lees]

What Is Covenant Theology?

I suspect there are several variations of Covenant Theology. And I do not adhere to that system of theology. You will find it mainly in the 'Reformed' churches.

From what I have read, Covenant Theology sees man's relation to God as being based on covenants. Which, to that extent, I agree. But, it's covenants are called a 'covenant of works' and a 'covenant of grace'. And they were made with Adam before the Fall, and then between the Father and Son, after the Fall, if I remember correctly. But no such covenants are named in Scripture, though it can be implied.

From my encounters covenant theologians will see the Church replacing Israel and/or becoming the 'spiritual Israel'. And they will not see the Church as beginning on Pentecost. I believe they tend to be amillennial, no millennium.

Lees

 

[Josiah]

It's another term for latter-day Calvinism/Reformed theology, Think TULIP.


.

 

[Iconoclast]

Covenant Theology views Scripture in terms of the Divine eternal, creative and redemptive purpose or Covenant of Redemption [the pactum salutis or “Covenant of Peace”] and its out–working in time and history in terms of the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace revealed in Scripture. The various subordinate and progressive covenants under the Old Covenant and Testament [Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic] were covenants of promise (Eph. 2:12), and the New or Gospel Covenant is the realization and finalization of the Covenant of Grace. In short, the New or Gospel Covenant is the Covenant of Grace. It is all of free and sovereign grace from election to glorification, and pertains to the elect alone.

 

[Iconoclast]

Note: The eternal redemptive purpose extends from personal election (Eph. 1:4; Rom. 11:5; 2 Pet. 1:10), to predestination (Eph. 1:5, 11; Rom. 8:29–30), covenant redemption (Rom. 3:24–26; 1 Cor. 1:30; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14; Heb. 9:12; 1 Pet. 3:18), effectual calling (Rom. 8:30; 9:24; 1 Cor. 1:26; Gal. 1:6; Eph. 4:4; 1 Thess. 2:12; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Pet. 2:9; 5:10; 2 Pet. 1:3; Jude 1:1), regeneration (Jn. 3:3–5, 7; Jas. 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23), justification (Rom. 3:24; 4:25; 5:1–2, 16, 18; 8:30; Gal. 3:24; Titus 3:7), adoption (Gal. 4:4–7; Rom. 8:13), sanctification (Jn. 17:17; 1 Cor. 1:1–2, 30; 6:11; 2 Cor. 3:17–18; Heb. 10:10; 1 Pet. 1:15–16) and glorification (Psa. 73:24; Rom. 8:18, 23; 9:23; 1 Cor. 15:43, 2 Cor. 4:17; Col. 3:4; 2 Tim. 2:10; Heb. 2:10; 1 Pet. 5:1, 10; Jude 24).31

By W.R.Downing

 

[Iconoclast]

The New Testament Scriptures, then, are the finality of Divine revelation in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ (Lk. 24:25–27, 44–47; 1 Tim. 3:16).

As the fulfillment and finality of Divine revelation, the New Testament is inherently eschatological. This eschatological aspect is marked
in the nature of the Kingdom of God as both present and future, and in the glory of the future resurrection, judgment and final state.

 

[Iconoclast]

David wrote;
2 sam23:5 Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure: for this is all my salvation, and all my desire, although he make it not to grow.

Heb.13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

Psa.25:
10 All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies.

11 For thy name's sake, O Lord, pardon mine iniquity; for it is great.

12 What man is he that feareth the Lord? him shall he teach in the way that he shall choose.

13 His soul shall dwell at ease; and his seed shall inherit the earth.

14 The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant.

 

[Iconoclast]

God is a Covenant making/ Covenant keeping God.

On the last day, there will only be one people of God.
In Christ there is only one people now.
Rom2:
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Gal3:
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 

[Iconoclast]

What Is Covenant Theology?

Covenant theology, is biblical theology, rightly understood.
2cor6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? 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.

The teaching of the Covenants exists all through scripture. It does not always list the names of the Covenants in a nice user friendly little package. The doctrine is found in the verses.

many people do not follow up and study it out, because it takes a bit of time to lay out all the major portions of scripture necessary to begin to see the root teaching in scripture.

 

[Lees]

The teaching of the Covenants exists all through scripture. It does not always list the names of the Covenants in a nice user friendly little package. The doctrine is found in the verses.

many people do not follow up and study it out, because it takes a bit of time to lay out all the major portions of scripture necessary to begin to see the root teaching in scripture.

That covenants exist throughout Scripture is true. That Scripture does not always list the names of the covenants is an assumption.

Scripture does list the covenants between God and man. And Scripture explains them. And the covenants that are listed in Scripture are sufficient to accomplish everything God wants in the redemption of man.

In other words, a covenant of works and grace, which are not named, are not needed. As works and grace are to be found, and their purpose given, in the Biblically explained covenants.

Lees

 

[Josiah]

Covenant theology, is biblical theology

Well, according to some Calvinists. Some Calvinists agree with Calvinist theology. Others, well....



.

 

[Iconoclast]

That covenants exist throughout Scripture is true. That Scripture does not always list the names of the covenants is an assumption.

Scripture does list the covenants between God and man. And Scripture explains them. And the covenants that are listed in Scripture are sufficient to accomplish everything God wants in the redemption of man.

In other words, a covenant of works and grace, which are not named, are not needed. As works and grace are to be found, and their purpose given, in the Biblically explained covenants.

Lees

Hello lees, Do you believe the Covenant of Redemption exists? If the formal name is not written, how would you explain it?

 

[Iconoclast]

Well, according to some Calvinists. Some Calvinists agree with Calvinist theology. Others, well....



.

Hello Josiah, Not sure what you mean here? Would you be able to clarify this a bit. I will help if I can.

 

[Lees]

Hello lees, Do you believe the Covenant of Redemption exists? If the formal name is not written, how would you explain it?

I believe, as I stated in post #(10), that God's purpose in the redemption of man is covered in the stated covenants given in the Bible.

In other words, all of the stated covenants flow from the source of God's purpose in the redemption of man.

In more words, one single 'covenant of redemption' is not necessary, for all the covenants are for the prescribed end.

Lees

 

[Josiah]

@Iconoclast

Hello Josiah, Not sure what you mean here? Would you be able to clarify this a bit. I will help if I can.

Sure.

You wrote, "Covenant theology is biblical theology." To which I commented, " Well, according to some Calvinists. Some Calvinists agree with Calvinist theology. Others, well...."

"Covenant theology" is Reformed/Calvinist theology - generally hyper, radical forms of that. And so it's not TOO shocking that there are Calvinist/Reformed Christians who believe their unique, distinctive views are biblical. Catholics also believe that their unique, distinctive doctrines are biblical. Baptists also believe that their unique, distinctive views are biblical. Pretty common for Christians to hold that their own, unique, distinctive views are biblical. It's another issue whether they are.

As a Lutheran, I agree with the VAST majority of what most Calvinists embrace (especially not the hyper, extreme, radical ones). We're both passionate monergists, for example. But I reject the unique, distinctive teachings of them - where they are different than other Christians - the TULIP stuff. But then they disagree with the unique, distinctive doctrines of Lutheranism. Which is why Calvinism is not Lutheranism and Lutheranism is not Calvinism. And either is Roman Catholic or Pentecostal or Baptist.

Now, IF you want to defend the corpus of TULIP as understood among some (very, very few) hyper-Calvinists, go ahead. I'd welcome your effort (you'll find several threads here at CH on this very issue... we've been down that path often here in the past). But simply noting that these Calvinists hold that Calvinists teachings are "biblical" does not make it so.

Make sense?

Blessings!


- Josiah



.

 

[Doran]

Well, according to some Calvinists. Some Calvinists agree with Calvinist theology. Others, well....



.

Amen to that! As for me and my [reformed] household, we hold to New Covenant Theology (NCT).

 

[Doran]

I believe, as I stated in post #(10), that God's purpose in the redemption of man is covered in the stated covenants given in the Bible.

In other words, all of the stated covenants flow from the source of God's purpose in the redemption of man.

In more words, one single 'covenant of redemption' is not necessary, for all the covenants are for the prescribed end.

Lees

What you state in your first sentence is correct; yet, at the same time the gospel that was preached in the OT was still in "mystery" form compared to what is revealed in the NT.

Your second statement is also true, as all the OT covenants gradually build upon one another and find their ultimate fulfillment in the New Covenant. This is why there are so many types and shadows in the OT, whereas the NC reveals the substance of those things.

Your meaning in your third statement eludes me; for I see only two redemptive covenants in scripture, and both were necessary. The Israelites' redemption from their physical bondage in the physical land of Egypt was but a type of a much greater redemption from the bondage of sin and the law in Satan's kingdom of darkness that Christ accomplished for his Father's elect when He ratified the NC in his own precious blood at the Cross. From the very beginning, the end game, the goal of redemptive history has been the eternal NC. And I believe this covenant is explicitly called "eternal" because this covenant was made in eternity among the three persons of the Godhead, and was eventually fulfilled and is being fulfilled and will finally be fulfilled at the end of the age due to all the the other covenants that have preceded the NC in temporal reality.

 

[Lees]

What you state in your first sentence is correct; yet, at the same time the gospel that was preached in the OT was still in "mystery" form compared to what is revealed in the NT.

Your second statement is also true, as all the OT covenants gradually build upon one another and find their ultimate fulfillment in the New Covenant. This is why there are so many types and shadows in the OT, whereas the NC reveals the substance of those things.

Your meaning in your third statement eludes me; for I see only two redemptive covenants in scripture, and both were necessary. The Israelites' redemption from their physical bondage in the physical land of Egypt was but a type of a much greater redemption from the bondage of sin and the law in Satan's kingdom of darkness that Christ accomplished for his Father's elect when He ratified the NC in his own precious blood at the Cross. From the very beginning, the end game, the goal of redemptive history has been the eternal NC. And I believe this covenant is explicitly called "eternal" because this covenant was made in eternity among the three persons of the Godhead, and was eventually fulfilled and is being fulfilled and will finally be fulfilled at the end of the age due to all the the other covenants that have preceded the NC in temporal reality.

That which was necessary to believe, to be saved by faith, always pertained to Christ is some form. Be it the 'Seed' or be it the 'Messiah' or be it the person of Jesus Christ. But the gospel message was not always the same. It wasn't that it was in 'mystery form'. It just wasn't the same gospel.

I disagree. The Old Testament covenants do not find their fulfillment in the New Covenant, as though the New Covenant now is the only Covenant. The New Covenant is also an Old Testament Covenant. (Jer. 31:31)

You say you see only two 'redemptive covenants' Name them and their Scripture reference.

Lees

 

[Doran]

That which was necessary to believe, to be saved by faith, always pertained to Christ is some form. Be it the 'Seed' or be it the 'Messiah' or be it the person of Jesus Christ. But the gospel message was not always the same. It wasn't that it was in 'mystery form'. It just wasn't the same gospel.

There has only been forever one gospel. The first appearance of the gospel rose was in Gen 3:15 when the first bud of it was revealed. But now in the NT, this "mystery" gospel has been fully revealed (Col 1:26)

I disagree. The Old Testament covenants do not find their fulfillment in the New Covenant, as though the New Covenant now is the only Covenant. The New Covenant is also an Old Testament Covenant. (Jer. 31:31)

Seriously? Is not the NC the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham that through his "seed" all nations would be blessed? Paul certainly thought so (Gal 3:14-16). And is not Jesus the Son of David, therefore fulfilling the promise God made to the king that he would have an heir to always sit on his throne which was made possible only the resurrection of Christ from the dead?

You say you see only two 'redemptive covenants' Name them and their Scripture reference.

Lees

The are only two redemptive covenants in scripture: The Old and the New covenants. In the former the ancient Hebrews were redeemed from their bondage to Pharoah in Egypt (Ex 6:6; Deut 7:8, etc.). And in the latter all God's elect throughout the entire world are redeemed (Mat 26:28; 1Pet 1:18-19; Gal 3:13-14; Eph 1:7, 14: 4:30, etc.)

 

[Doran]

I disagree. The Old Testament covenants do not find their fulfillment in the New Covenant, as though the New Covenant now is the only Covenant. The New Covenant is also an Old Testament Covenant. (Jer. 31:31)

The NC is most definitely not an OT covenant; for the New is very much unlike the Old (Jer 31:32). Only the promise of a future NC is explicitly stated in Jer 31:31-33. And while the NC was instituted at the Last Supper and, therefore, in the first half of Daniel's 70th Week (still the Jewish Age), it was not ratified until the middle of the Week (when the Messiah was "cut off") at the Cross, at which time the thick curtain that separated the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place was rent in two from top to bottom (Mat 27:51), which signified a "NEW and living way" to God through the veil of Christ's body (Heb 10:20) . The NC was inaugurated at the Cross with Christ's ratification of it in his own blood, which simultaneously marked the beginning of the end of the OC era, but the consummation of the OC age didn't occur until 70 A.D. with the destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple and OC Judaism.