Mark Dever (SBC) and O. Palmer Robertson (PCA) agree in a 9Marks Interview that there are two basic covenants in the Bible. One is a Covenant of Works that leads to death through sin and Covenant of Grace that leads to life. They clarify that the CW was not based on grace through it was gracious that God would even do anything with man.
Dever: As human beings either we are part of the Covenant of Works still or the Covenant of Grace?
Robertson: Yes, anyone who outside of Christ is continuing under a covenant of works. And, of course, they fail and are under the curses of the Covenant rather than the blessings.
Dever: You would say that the obligations that were on Adam and Eve are still on us.
Robertson: Yes, absolutely.
Dever and Robertson then have a wonderful discussion about how that so many preachers erroneously view the Old Testament and the New Testament as different covenants rather than a maturing of one Covenant of Redemption. Robertson then explains that “Old” to “New” in references to covenants doesn’t mean that they were different in essence but different in form. “Old” to “New” refers to going from types to antitypes.
Dever points out that many misunderstand the Book of Galatians to be teaching that the Old Testament is “law and works” and the New Testament is “grace.” Robertson agrees and attributes much of the confusion to Dispensationalism’s separation of Israel from God’s Church. They then point out that it is important to teach preachers again that the continuity between the Old and New Covenants overrides the discontinuity. Also, they tie this confusion to the confusion today among Evangelicals concerning the doctrines of justification and imputation.
[Listen to the audio of the whole interview. You will be blessed.]
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
So….here’s (again) the major problem(s) with all of this CT business:
CT’ers use a double standard when interpreting Scripture. CT’ers use the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, except for passages concerning future events (but not all future events mind you…). When CT’ers encounter verses, passages and even whole chapters in the bible regarding the future of Israel or the kingdom of God they revert to Augustine’s allegorical or spiritualizing method of interpretation. It’s a sort of pick and choose thing. Bottom line however, God keeps His promises. He made promises to Israel (the nation) one of which we saw fulfilled in 1948 (Ezekiel ch. 36-37), and He will (when the “times of the Gentiles” are over) bring all of Israel to salvation (Rom. 11). And this is not to say that they (Jews) are better than us, they are the same, meaning, God saves us all in the same way, Jews and Gentiles are saved in the same way: (God is not a respector of persons, etc.) When God says he will bring them into the land, restore it and give it to them (Ezekiel 36-37) he meant it! And it’s not because of the Jews, but becase of His Holy Name’s sake; to bring glory to Himself, to show that he keeps his promises. And besides, nowhere in the bible is the phraseology “Spiritual Jew” or “Spiritual Israel” found.
And what of the antichrist, the mark of the beast, etc? The bible says (Rev.) that the antichrist will go into the temple of God and demand to be worshipped! (Matt. 24, Daniel, etc.) who is this beast, the antichrist? Surely you don’t think he has come yet do you? It couldn’t have been Nero…Nero did his dirty work in the 60′s (1st century) and Revelation wasn’t written till the mid 90′s (also 1st centry) and John wrote it speaking of future events. You just can’t allegorize EVERYTHING away. It doesn’t flow. And what about Micah 5:2?
Oh, another problem is the CT puts Christians under the OT law, and logically leads to theonomy, which is ridiculous. I know it’s a slippery slope, but nonetheless, a valid one.
~Brian
It places the believer under the law.
St. Brianstine, CT has its problems, and they are legion, but be careful here. Some of your objections are not limited to CT. If you want to dismiss CT, you have to do it where CT rises and falls, namely the Covenant of works theory.
Once you do that, the card house falls.
Hey Guys,
Once again I will have Jason and Scott in the studio at http://www.unchainedradio.com on Thursday 09/06/2006. We will be discussing CT and we are even going to address Brian’s comments. Feel free to call in and ask a question at 1-800-466-1873. But be warned, this is FIDO territory and there is nothing I would love more than to have a Chihuahua named “dispy” for breakfast.
Gene
Brian, all of your CT reading has apparently been authored by LaHayesque dispensationalist.
and I will answer your questions when you answer mine.
Oh those pesky Dispensationalists – they ruin everything! For a different perspective, check out some of the recent posts at faithandpractice.blogspot.com including reference to a MacArthur Q & A in which he accuses everyone of being a Dispensationalist.
And I wonder if while St. Brianstine is answering Scott’s questions, he may demonstrate for us how Dispy’s use the historical-grammatical method of interpretation on Matthew 24. I hope St. Brianstine doesn’t “pick and choose” his way through it. And then maybe he would like to give us proof that God fulfilled Ez. 36-37 in 1948 – this should be very interesting. Maybe he has that same Divine hotline that Pat Robertson uses. And since it is God’s name that is stake and this is a literal, physical fulfillment of Ez. 36-37 maybe St. Brianstine can explain to us why God didn’t actually restore all the land to the Jews like He promised. And then once we have all been enlightened by St. Brianstine’s incredible knowledge that has only been given to him, maybe he can share with us why so many great scholars for 2000 years believed that the writing of the Book of Revelation happened prior to 70AD. Of course, Brian must be an amazing scholar to have found this definitive proof that both Cov. and Dispy scholars haven’t been so bold to claim as St. Brianstine has. But hey, we haven’t been given Sainthood either have we.
Oh and by the way, St.Bri, Covenant theology doesn’t lead to theonomy. It leads to theocracy — it’s called Lordship. Yeah, I know, that is something else the fathers of Dispensationalism denied.
Jason, since you are a former progressive dispy, I am embarrassed for you with that last post.
1. Dispies take Matt 24 literally the entire way through, events and time references. It is everyone else that must take one possible literal meaning of the time references and then destroy the meaning of events.
2. Israel becoming a nation in 1948 had nothing to do with anything. Jack van Impe and his gang of fools are off the wall. You and I both know that credible scholars do not buy into that hype. (I know you didn’t bring of Jack, so I am not misrepresenting you).
3. God did not restore all the land… yet. According to Romans 3:4-6, God is faithful even though Israel wasn’t. It is you that has to say that God was either unfaithful to his promise or intentionally confusing to people.
4. Great many scholars? Puuhhhhhlease. How about John’s disciples. How about people who actually would have known. THEY believed it was written during the reign of Domitian. Who do I trust, John’s disciples or CT guys who HAVE to have it written prior to 70AD? Not a tough one at all.
5. CT is on a slippery slope to theonomy. It isn’t on par with it, yet.
6. Perhaps we could get that long waited for exegesis of SCRIPTURE that even hints at a Covenant of Works. It would be better than just assuming it. At least dispies try to interpret what can be found on the pages of Scripture.
JASON:
Wow what a bunch of straw mans (i.e. who ever said I’m a “Dispy”?, and “incredible knowledge that has only been given to him”…)and ad hominems (condescending sarcastic comments). You come across like your living in a theological ivory tower looking down on everyone else who doesn’t agree with you. My favorite part is when you said, “…so many great scholars for 2000 years believed that the writing of the Book of Revelation happened prior to 70AD.” as if that means its true and that settles it. Your whole theological framework rests on the idea that Rev. was written before 70 AD. Yet you commit two fallacies there: ad populum (i.e. “Most scholars…” and ad verecundiam (“again, you say “Most scholars” without naming any. When the fact is that a great deal of scholars (i.e. Bruce Metzger, M. G. Easton, David E. Aune, David A. Fiensy, Richard C.H. Lenski, M.S. Mills, + many more).) Your post is full of sarcastic BS, not arguments. I’m done with you…for now.
Update:
I didn’t finish my thought previously:
“When the fact is that a great deal of scholars (i.e. Bruce Metzger, M. G. Easton, David E. Aune, David A. Fiensy, Richard C.H. Lenski, M.S. Mills, + many more) agree with the mid 90′s date. As well as John’s disciples as Irenaues pointed out…
Also: Amen Irenaeus.
Hmmm…are we surprised that you neither answered Scott’s questions nor mine? No. And I have a sneaky suspicion you aren’t done here. You are hooked on Fide-O, just like irenaeus is. And we are glad. You make our light a little brighter. Thanks a bunch.
Dispensationalism is just a way for modern day (post-1850) christians to get out of obedience. Since they figure if Israel is separate, then all the OT laws only apply to Israel, and the dispys can do whatever they want. It’s a rebellion and antinomianism that leads to an acceptance of all sins.
Jason,
Do you agree with Lance Roberts?
I am seriously hooked on Fide-O too. Not only that, but I love reading St. Brianstine’s “arguments” here (and his own blog) because it’s exactly how my mom thinks, only with more sarcasm, personal attacks, and references to scripture.
All I gotta say is=
1. Haha, I am hooked on Fide-O, but I started being hooked due to your more funny posts…what happenned?
2. Lance roberts is crazy with that slippery slope, So…because I don’t wholeheartedly embrace Cov. Th. I accept all sins? What an asinine thing to say. (Galatians 3:10 ESV) “For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”
So Christ came to “set us free from the curse of the law…” But anyways, again, what an asanine thing (Lance’s post) to spout off.
3.You said, “Hmmm…are we surprised that you neither answered Scott’s questions nor mine?…” I throw the same assertion back at you….
Peace
Bl
Anthony Martin-
Funny again.
Brianstine I am working on a post that I know you will like.
Also you do realize Iranues disagreed with you?
Hey, if you Dispensationalists knew the history of your own system of theology then you would know that Lance is right. I suggest reading The Gospel According to the Apostles and you will find that John MacArthur (a leaky dispy by his own admission) saw this very same “slippery slope” in Dispensationalism of which Lance spoke.
Oh, and St.Bri, as long as you keep commenting Fide-O remains funny.
3 Things:
1. Yes I realize he (Irenaeus) disagreed with me partially, but we agrred on more than we disagreed, so…there.
2. Additionally, do you (Jason) honestly think that I “accept all sins” because I don’t agree with you?
3. Thirdly, I don’t identify with either camp exclusively (Disp. or CT), but of course I am more dispensational than not.
CYA
Brian
Lance Roberts writes:
“Dispensationalism is just a way for modern day (post-1850) christians to get out of obedience. Since they figure if Israel is separate, then all the OT laws only apply to Israel, and the dispys can do whatever they want. It’s a rebellion and antinomianism that leads to an acceptance of all sins.”
This sounds to me like an unqualified denunciation of dispensationalism as denying important distinctives of the Christian faith with regard to soteriology and its practical implications for Christian living. Are we to conclude dispensationalists are in rebellion and accept all sin while spurning any obedience in the Christian life? If that were the case, dispensationalism would be heresy and damnable doctrine. However, I am not even sure this could be attributed to Zane Hodges and his crowd as painfully erroneous as his teaching is.
Here is what MacArthur says in an Appendix in ‘Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles’:
“The Lordship debate has had a devasating effect on dispensationalism. Because no-lordship theology is so closely associated with dispensationalism, many have imagined a cause-and-effect relationship between the two” (p. 221).
Notice MacArthur says, many have “imagined” the cause and effect relationship. But nothing could be further from the truth. While he decries those who have espoused no-lordship within the camp of dispensationalism, one should not jump to grand GBA conclusions. He says,
“Several outspoken anti-dispensationalists hailed the book ['Gospel Acoording to Jesus'] as a major blow to dispensationalism. They wanted to declare the system dead and hold a celebratory funeral.” He agrees “some mongrel species of dispensationalism ought to die” and I agree as well. However, MacArthur goes on to say,
“Pure dispensationalism has no ramifications for the doctrines of God, man, sin or sanctification. More significantly, true dispensationalism makes no relevant contribution to soteriology, or the doctrine of salvation. In other words, nothing in a legitimate dispensational approach to Scripture mandates that we define the gospel in any unique or different way. In fact, if the same zealous concern for literal hermeneutics that yields a distinction between Israel and the church were followed consistently in the salvation issue, there would be no such thing as no-lordship soteriology” (p. 222).
It ought to shame many CTer’s who seek to broad brush Dispy’s with what some in the camp hold to while others loudly reject them. Lance Robert’s comments in my mind amount to unqualified slander and that is a sin I cannot accept.
Agreed. (Calvdispy)
We should be careful using Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons, as a source for the late dating of The Revelation of Jesus Christ.
In his work, Against Heresies, Irenaeus uses second hand information to date not only the writing of the book, but the date of Johns’ death and time of Christ death and resurrection.
In Heresies, Irenaeus gives us two dates for the death of John. The first reference, 2.22.5, is Dominatians reign. The second, 3.3.4, Trajan’s reign. Which one is it? Seems Irenaeus is not sure.
Irenaeus, also in Heresies, stated that the “elders witness” that Jesus was close to 50 yrs old when crucified. He also uses Polycarph and Papias as supports. We do not have any evidence that Polycarph said or believed this and Papias himself states he never heard the apostles and elders. Eusebius and Papias discount Irenaeus.
So, most “modern” historians are only repeating what Irenaeus states. And those statements have no basis in fact. Starting with Eusebius and his historical work, historians began questioning the validity of some of the statements of Irenaeus concerning the dating of the Revelation and the death of Christ.
Just because someone repeats a falsehood, mis statement or error, does not make it beyond critical reveiw or reproach. Or true after a few centuries.
In fact, if Irenaeus is beyond reproach on the dating of Revelation, why not the death of Christ? Both the Gospels and the Revelation have time texts. Why do we and Irenaeus accept one but not the other?
Also, was John talking about future things? Rev 1:1 “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants-things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John.”
Shortly means…what? 2000+ years. The II Peterian passage, the “1000 years as one day”, is a poor counter if used to show God as not bound by time or viewing time differently. Peter is talking about the believers being with God. John was writing to then present Christians who were suffering tribulation at that time. Which John was suffering. Present tense, not future.
Irenaeus is the earliest source, outside of scripture, on the dating of Revelation and he is questionable at best. So any historians that use Irenaeus as their source…. they are questionable. The books I have read does not mention the 12 Apostles as sources. None of John’s disciples give us a date. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarph. Not John.
I would be interested in any 1st century documents any one has to support the claims of our dispensationalist brethren that claim the late date and 1st hand supporting data. Now the 1st century parameters should be from say 33 A.D. to 99 A.D. If there is such valid documentation, I will have to re think my position.