The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Old and New Covenants

How best to understand the two covenants? What are some things to look for when someone from a dispensational position explains the two? How about from a Reformed viewpoint?

To get you started, there is this chart: Covenant Theology vs. Dispensational Theology.

I'm sure there are a number of salient articles that would address your question, in addition to the one above HERE.

Thanks.

Why I'm asking is that tonight's Bible study that I attend will be studying Hebrews 8. I just wanted to get better acquainted in what the New Covenant represents here. Is it just that Jesus is the fulfillment of the ultimate covenant. You see words such as replace, obsolete (the old covenant) thrown around in explaining this new covenant vs the old.

Also, how does the use of the new covenant relates to other covenant uses such as covenant of grace, covenant of works. I'm pretty grounded on those covenants understandings, but the new covenant seems to not fit into those expressions. I mean the covenant of grace started at Genesis 3:15, and the old covenant in referenced to the new is all about the law - though we were already under the covenant of grace when the law was given. Is covenant termilogy used in some type of paralleled understandings. Sorry for any confusion.

Tomes have been written in regard to what the "New Covenant" consists. If I had to put it in an extremely succinct statement it would be... The New Covenant was not "new" in the sense that the Old Covenant was totally abrogated and something totally new replaced it. Rather, the "new" refers to the fulfillment of all that the Old Covenant pointed to typologically. There is but one Covenant of Grace and all other covenants were different "administrations" of it. Each added more information as to what was coming with the appearance and work of the Messiah, Christ. Salvation of God's people was the ultimate purpose of all that the Old Covenant established through types and shadows. The civil and ceremonial law was fulfilled but the moral law was perpetual for it was the moral law which the Christ had to adhere in perfect obedience. And it is that perfect obedience, aka: righteousness, which is imputed to the elect when they embrace Christ by a true and living faith flowing out of a new nature, created in them by the Spirit's work of regeneration.

I hope that gives you a little better understanding.

ADDENDUM: I should have encouraged you to read through Chapter 7 of the WCF which gives a succinct statement concerning God's covenant(s) with man.

Pipe smoking man speak truth.

Things to look for include the DFs basic denial of the historical continuity of the Covenants. To the point of teaching that the church was not foreseen in the Prophets and therefore cannot be the promised Kingdom. In fact Chafer called the church age an 'intercalation' in history, the nonsensical' Great Parenthesis' of myth and legend. Nuts eh?


Another telling example common among the DF is imminent rapture theory ,in many DF circles THE test of faith, while all along pointing to modern Israel as the fulfillment of prophecy. You wont make friends pointing out the inconsistency. heh heh

You likely know all this ,but you did ask; one more thing; The DF will step in and out of strict literalism like a dog at an open door, well a very creative dog.


H

Thanks for all your references.

It never came up, so the group of men is better trained that I anticipated.