The basic need I believe exists to necessitate a discussion of this nature is the confusion of the various definitions of "Replacement Theology" Jim has said this, "Amillennialism is Truth except as it is perverted as a result of the error of contrived identity between ethnic, national Israel and the Church." And this, "the root error CT is presupposition of identity between Old Covenant Israel and the Church. The sign of the covenant was circumcision; it’s now baptism." Lastly, this, "As I've contended, credobaptism and Covenant Theology are inherently incongruent."
My contention in this series of articles will be that Covenant Theology asserts that the Church does not "replace" ethnic/national Israel, but that the gentiles are grafted into the natural olive tree with the Jews, forming one elect body (mixing my Biblical metaphors).
I do agree with Jim that, "Lordship salvation" and monergism appear to be antithetical to dispensationalism. A local pastor, Reggie Kimbro has said that, "Dispensationalism was the vehicle that so many got into to go away from the doctrines of grace". But we do see many varieties of Dispensationalism out there, but as Ryrie has said, the sin quo non of Dispensationalism is the distinction of Israel and the Church. Now what exactly is meant by those two bodies is under dispute.
Sam Storms says this,
"Contrary to the paedo-baptist argument, the New Testament counterpart to Old Testament circumcision isn't baptism; it's regeneration or the new birth. Or again, it is spiritual circumcision of the heart, not water baptism, that corresponds in the New Covenant to Old Covenant physical circumcision of the flesh. [By the way, even if one were to concede that water baptism is the New Covenant counterpart to Old Covenant circumcision, the former is consistently predicated on the faith of the individual, unlike the latter. Indeed, this is the very point of Colossians 2:12, as I'll note below.]
My contention in this series of articles will be that Covenant Theology asserts that the Church does not "replace" ethnic/national Israel, but that the gentiles are grafted into the natural olive tree with the Jews, forming one elect body (mixing my Biblical metaphors).
I do agree with Jim that, "Lordship salvation" and monergism appear to be antithetical to dispensationalism. A local pastor, Reggie Kimbro has said that, "Dispensationalism was the vehicle that so many got into to go away from the doctrines of grace". But we do see many varieties of Dispensationalism out there, but as Ryrie has said, the sin quo non of Dispensationalism is the distinction of Israel and the Church. Now what exactly is meant by those two bodies is under dispute.
Sam Storms says this,
"Contrary to the paedo-baptist argument, the New Testament counterpart to Old Testament circumcision isn't baptism; it's regeneration or the new birth. Or again, it is spiritual circumcision of the heart, not water baptism, that corresponds in the New Covenant to Old Covenant physical circumcision of the flesh. [By the way, even if one were to concede that water baptism is the New Covenant counterpart to Old Covenant circumcision, the former is consistently predicated on the faith of the individual, unlike the latter. Indeed, this is the very point of Colossians 2:12, as I'll note below.]
Water baptism is a sign of the circumcision of the heart and the new life and cleansing from sin that it brings. The sign of the New Covenant isn't baptism, but spiritual circumcision or regeneration or the "cutting away" of the heart of flesh, of which water baptism is an outward, symbolic expression."
Further, and I will attempt to provide a quote, Kim Riddlebarger has said that Covenant Theologians do not say that the Church has replaced ethnic/national Israel. Barcelous' quote from below is also helpful.
I also think it would be helpful Jim, if you would provide a line of argumentation proving that credo-baptism is inconsistent with Covenant theology.
9 comments:
Due to ongoing time constraints ("one of those weeks"), I'll quickly and briefly comment according to the order in which portions of the instant "post" are delineated:
I concur with the second paragraph; "replacement theology" is apt as to Covenant Theology, given its presupposition of identity between ethnic/national Israel and the Church. "Replacement theology" is NOT apt as to Truth-based amillennialism; the Church didn't exist until Pentecost and didn't/doesn't replace ethnic/national Israel. The Church is the substance/reality which fulfills the shadow/type which was Old Covenant Israel. Said fulfillment is via being "in Christ", who IS the "abrogating fulfillment" (soon-to-be-Dr. Barcellos' term).
I also concur with the quote of Sam Storms, who apparently has recognized Truth despite the (Covenant) Theology to which he maintains adherence. I intend to synthesize and elaborate upon my comments which you've re-posted here (thanks, again!); at this point, such is on my weekend "to do" list.
Jim,
What I was saying is, CTs don't hold to RT as defined.
I've just received* my copy of John G. Reisinger's eighteenth book**; to my pleasant surprise***, the Forword is by NCT Pastor Kerry Kinchen of San Antonio. The following brief quote from the Forword is representative of my own experience as well as of other "NCT folks" I've come to know during the past year:
"After [having been influenced by] Covenantalism and Dispensationalism, I discovered an approach to the Scriptures dictated from the Scriptures themselves. * * * I discovered New Covenant Theology. Finally, a clear, consistent, working revelation from God's Word replaced theories that did not WORK without being artificially pushed. Finally, the Bible made sense without being run through a complex system of covenants or dispensations, or theories of various people existing in numerous covenants during God's new and final covenant with the true people of God -- the elect in Christ." Isaiah 42:6, 49:8 [his (Kerry's) "signature" verses]
* Thanks, Bobby, for obtaining!
** in response to soon-to-be-Dr. Richard Barcellos' In Defense of the Decalogue: A Critique of New Covenant Theology
*** Good job, Kerry!
Another pleasant surprise is JGR's moving Dedication of the book to John T. "Jack" Jeffery, who served our country in Vietnam more than three dozen years ago and in Iraq just a few years ago (!) and who, even more importantly, has served our Lord "as a fellow laborer in promoting the gospel of soveriegn grace and New Covenant Theology".
Jason ~
It's RBs' self-definition. I'll "return" (Dv) as soon as tomorrow evening.
Hi Jim,
I'm sure there are countless and numerous things on which I would agree with brother Reisinger. I can remember that one of the first "Table Talk" articles I ever read was one of his.
I didn't necessarily desire to debate the contrasts between NCT and CT, but to get you to see that (though there may have been CTs who have maintained that the church (visible I believe) has replaced ethnic/national Israel, but there are mutitudes of CTs who would not say that, but state it in such a way as I have before...that God has one elect body through time, of both Jews and gentiles, and it is only them that will be saved, and they are all saved to the same eternal destination, and it is in that way that the charge of RT does not stick to the "system" of CT.
Just out of curiosity, are there premils, Amils, and post mils in NCT?
What is RBs self definition?
In reverse order: Reformed Baptist = Reformed, Calvinistic, Puritan, Covenantal, Baptist ... as defined via Reformed Baptist Fellowship (look to right of MCTS blog home page for link, then look to right for link to "The Five Points of Reformed Baptist Churches"; Sam Waldron, Rich Barcellos, and James White are among the contributors).
"Visit" www.idsblog.com , scroll to bottom of "page", click previous, scroll to bottom of "page" click title to February 29 "post" for details as to NCT folks' lamentable "big tent" attitude toward eschatology and for reasons why the hermeneutic which NCT proponents agree "produces" an understanding of Truth as to the Law of Christ necessarily also must "produce" partial preterist Amillenialism and categorically rule out premillennial dispensationalism. I'm aware of no post-millennials among NCT proponents and seriously doubt that such will change (fortunately!). Some NCT folks, including John Piper, default to Historic Premillennialism; see Dr. Waldron's #21 (dated today) for his astute observation that HP is merely a cop-out.
The second paragraph "sounds" NCT-ish; to my understanding, CT and RT are interchangeable. Of course, the divergence within CT/RT is paedo- v. credobaptism.
I can't strongly enough recommend John Reisinger's ABRAHAM'S FOUR SEEDS [1. Ishmael, 2. Isaac, 3. Jesus (Gal. 3:16), 4. Elect (Gal. 3:7, 29)], TABLETS OF STONE, and BUT I SAY UNTO YOU; I assume that JGRs latest (see my previous comment) is of the same "must-read" quality (purchase via New Covenant Media to receive 30% discount).
Finally, for now, in partial response, I refer to WCF. Please understand that I would never refer to it or to any man-made document in ostensible support of Truth; I refer to it in order to indicate what "classic" (consistent) CT teaches.
First: Ch. 19 Of The Law of God.
3. "Besides this law, commonly called* moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, AS A CHURCH UNDER AGE, ceremonial laws ... ." (emphasis added)
* "commonly called" = you won't find support in Scripture
As I'd pointed out previously in Dr. Waldron's Future Israel series, the moral/civil/ceremonial trichotomy was invented by Roman Catholic Thomas Aquinas and is but one of many of Rome's errors which the Reformers dragged into the Reformation. Again, Hebrews 7:12 unequivocally instructs that "with a new priesthood necessarily comes a new law". The "moral law" cornerstone of CT is nothing short of abject rebellion to Truth. Hebrews 7:12 instructs that the Old Covenant Law was lifted out, removed, set aside/annulled, and replaced. The Law of Christ [every imperative/command found within the New Covenant Scriptures (see, e.g., Romans 12:6 ff.)] is the measure (kanon) against which the elect are to be measured at the Judgment Seat of Christ.
Ch. 7 Of God's Covenant.
6. "There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations."
As I've contended, as with (consistent) dispensationalism, CT denies the New Covenant [by relegating it to a second administration of one (non-existent/man-invented) "covenant of grace"].
It's probably best that I leave it at that for now, don't you agree?
Jim,
You made this statement, "CT and RT are interchangeable. Of course, the divergence within CT/RT is paedo- v. credobaptism."
You have said things like this several times, but I don't think this can be (no do I think you have) proven to be true historically or as a logical outworking of the "system". I think your definition is far too narrow. Waldron, Barcelous and others would claim to be credo baptist and also claim to be CT. As Barcelous pointed out in one of his comments several days ago,that "The only way it can is if infant inclusion in the covenant community is of the essence of the covenant of grace. But CT of all stripes argues that the covenant of grace (as to its essence) was first revealed in the first promise of the gospel in Genesis 3:15."
After reading yours and Patrick Rauh's comments in particular, one might get the impression that NCTs don't think CTs or DTs are saved. I would definitely give you guys the benefit of the doubt and conclude that you would not say that, but some of Patrick's words on the idsblog have that flavor.
Pat, I'm confident, doesn't need me to speak for him, so I won't; perhaps he will "chime in". Perhaps you didn't read subsequent comments by him; he recognized that his initial two comments were unduly harsh and sought forgiveness for such. It's no excuse, but it's quite frustrating to attempt to discuss theology with folks who doggedly adhere to system-driven theology despite ignorance as to what such theology actually teaches and, worse, despite plain teaching of Scripture to the contrary.
As you may have read elsewhere from me, pride is the root of error among the regenerate elect; none is exempt -- no one since the first century "gets" ALL Truth. Prideful rebellion against Truth is the source of error as to Israel (whether as to its ostensible future or its ostensible identity with the Church). Again, start with Hebrews 7:12 and/or Galatians 3:7, 16, and 29.
Multivariant error results from absence of regeneration among folks who attempt to understand Scripture. I've written that error as to Israel among DT and CT proponents is primarily resultant not from absence of regeneration, but, rather, from (pride-induced) quenching of the Spirit.
Adherence to CT by a credobaptist is not "proof" that credobaptism and CT are not inherently inconsistent. Appeal to the "essence" of the (non-existent) "covenant of grace" does nothing to change the reality that consistent ("classic") CT teaches that children of believing parents are in the (non-existent) covenant community and that the ostensible sign of the covenant is no longer circumcision but baptism.
Go ahead an close your mind to pursuit of Truth if your pride causes you to prefer to believe what you would quickly discover to be absurd were you to sincerely pursue Truth. Otherwise (I believe that you may sincerely desire to pursue Truth), get to work; Steve Lehrer's New Covenant Theology: Questions Answered is inexpensive and indispensable (you may be able to read it online). Articles by IDS founder Geoff Volker and Mike Adams may be read online. Articles by Jon Zens and articles and -- especially -- books by John Reisinger, also, are tremendously helpful. You may find -- if you look for -- reasons to quench the Spirit and dismiss them, but it won't be failure on their part to be irenic. By-the-way, most of those men were seminary-trained in Covenant Theology; their pursuit of Truth was literally as well as figuratively costly and worthy of admiration and emulation.
As helpful as the foregoing writers articles and books are, what one must do is read Scripture for the Truth it reveals, rather than for ostensible support for what one already believes. Reading Scripture through system goggles allows DT proponents to thump their chests as to the nonsense they believe, and the same is true as to CT adherents ... and to Roman Catholics.
At issue is Truth. Teaching as Truth what is not Truth is false teaching. One who propagates error is an enemy of Truth. It's a tremendous challenge to restrain passion for Truth; while it may indeed be necessary to "fight fire with fire", it's not necessary to fight pride pridefully. I hope I've managed to avoid such.
hi jason;
i did drop some napalm on the ids blog at one point. i dont remember what i said, but i apologized for it. I was raised Roman catholic and upon regeneration i fully realized the extent of the lies that were taught to me. I have since then become aware that there are other systems of lies being taught to truly regenerate elect Christians. I am sensitive to it. Why they go along with terminology and theology that is not only unbiblical, but irrational is beyond me. Doubting the salvation of disps and CT's has never been my point. My advice to you is to pursue the TRUTH at all costs. Embracing false doctrine will eventually cost more than the Truth does now.
I had several comments wriiten yesterday that i didnt get to post. I will post them here: hi jason;
Please consider the inherent conflict and logical fallacy of progressive dispensationalism as compared to classic dispensationalism. classic dispensationalism is consistent with itself(consistently wrong, but consistent nonetheless.) CD maintains that the Church and Israel are separate, the kingdom is not yet started and neither has the NC because it is written to Israel. a Progressive dispensationalist who (rightly) see that the kingdom has started and that the NC was inaugurated by Jesus and we are part of it, become inconsistent and in conflict with themselves. (We can’t be part of the NC written to Israel if we are a distinct and separate entity from "Israel.") They then contort scripture to try and make sense of these 2 positions inherently in conflict with each other.
Similarly, covenant theology that holds to a "replacement" theology is consistent with itself. The Church replaces Israel and thus it’s children are inherently "children of the covenant" and baptized as such. They are subject to the same 10 commandments or God's "Moral law" including the statute concerning the "Lord's day" or Christian sabbath. This "replacement" is consistent with CT's insistence on a (manufactured) "covenant of grace" with "2 administrations." Let me ask you: If a CT guy (rightly) sees the flaw of infant baptism (antithetical to election and numerous passages about a man's enemies being members of his own household) why would he then doggedly hold onto a manufactured “covenant of grace” with “2 administrations?” I ask because it seems there is simply no point in maintaining it anymore. It is unscriptural, but necessary to maintain a “replacement” theology.
It is easy to scripturally prove that OT Israel were never a believing people and that the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of works not grace. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Mosaic Covenant (and all it’s components...law, temple AND people); He is the fulfillment of Israel. He is the New Covenant which is the fulfillment of all these things and the inheritor of the promises made to Abraham. He is the promise made to Abraham.
Read “Abraham’s 4 Seeds” and “Tablets of Stone” by john riesinger.
Pat's comment brings us "full circle"; amillennialism which is indeed "replacement theology" is false and worthy of denigration. Ethnic/national Israel wasn't "replaced" by the Church; the Israel of God is and always has been the focus of God's plan of redemption ... ethnic/national Israel NEVER WAS such. Getting that wrong results in Premillennial Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology's errant amillennialism.
Three quite helpful links (two of which were "posted" this weekend):
1. Riddleblog's "How Many Points?" (look to right of Home page, under Theological Essays).
2. heidelblog.wordpress.com ~ Who or What Defines "Reformed"? (RE: "Reformed" Credobaptists).
3. Mike Adams' Theological Blind Spots and the Lord's Day [Love Broke Thru; you may access such via www.idsblog.com (look to right of IDS Blog Home page)].
Pat ~
Thanks; that helps.
Jason ~
I realize that focus hasn't been optimal (to greatly understate); please let me know what you'd like for me to "target" (if anything); thanks!
While you have abundant online resources at your disposal, given your geographic location, you ought to begin with Pastor Dustin Seegers' Grace in the Triad; I hope that you have considered the half-hour "Sunday drive" to Greensboro! Dustin, by-the-way, endeavors to maintain irenicism.
Post a Comment