There's been a lot of discussion on dispensationalism, so it is fair to talk about covenant theology in comparison.
Last edited:
Covenant theology
- Thread starter CoreIssue
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Looking at the image above showing the covenant theology progression, let's take a look.
They start with what they call the covenant of works. Their problem is there was no such covenant.
They start with what they call the covenant of works. Their problem is there was no such covenant.
Then the Adamic covenant.
God set down a bunch of an realities. But there was no if you do this I will do that.
The major outcome of the covenant was a promise of Jesus Christ. God said it was going to happen but he put no conditions on it.
Yet covenant theology labels with a covenant of works.
God set down a bunch of an realities. But there was no if you do this I will do that.
The major outcome of the covenant was a promise of Jesus Christ. God said it was going to happen but he put no conditions on it.
Yet covenant theology labels with a covenant of works.
Next is the Noahic covenant.
This one is extremely simple. God would not destroy the earth again with water.
This one is extremely simple. God would not destroy the earth again with water.
Next is Abrahamic Covenant.
I do not see any distinction between covenant theology and dispensationalism.
I do not see any distinction between covenant theology and dispensationalism.
Next is the Davidic covenant.
I honestly don't understand how covenant theology handles the Davidic covenant in distinction from non-covenant theology believers.
I honestly don't understand how covenant theology handles the Davidic covenant in distinction from non-covenant theology believers.
If you notice in dispensationalism mosaic law is a dispensation of all which covers, and covenant theology thinking, mosaic covenant and the Davidic covenant.
Then we have the new covenant.
Here I will inject a difference of opinion with both groups.
As pointed out thread on covenants the Bible teaches the Christ given new covenant blood followed by the new covenant to the houses of Judah and Israel.
Covenant theology mergesBoth into one. Dispensationalism also merges covenants but separates the time of the new covenant into the dispensation of grace and the new covenant to the houses of Judah and Israel into the dispensation of
Grace for the new covenant of blood and dispensation of kingdom for the new covenant to the houses of Judah and Israel.
As said before and a lot of this confusion comes from the KJV.
Here I will inject a difference of opinion with both groups.
As pointed out thread on covenants the Bible teaches the Christ given new covenant blood followed by the new covenant to the houses of Judah and Israel.
Covenant theology mergesBoth into one. Dispensationalism also merges covenants but separates the time of the new covenant into the dispensation of grace and the new covenant to the houses of Judah and Israel into the dispensation of
Grace for the new covenant of blood and dispensation of kingdom for the new covenant to the houses of Judah and Israel.
As said before and a lot of this confusion comes from the KJV.
In covenant theology new heaven and earth are next.
In dispensationalism after the kingdom comes the new heaven and earth.
In dispensationalism after the kingdom comes the new heaven and earth.
A huge problem with covenant theology is lately as they label creation as a covenant of work. How they get that I do not know.
Another issue is most in covenant theology are Calvinists.
They denying salvation by faith through grace.
They denying salvation by faith through grace.
As I said before I am not a traditional dispensationalist.
In is supposed to be an explanation of how God has operated throughout the history of man. Not a doctrine.
Covenant theology has tailored its thinking to support Calvinism.
Just in the idea of calling creation a covenant of work makes that very clear.
In is supposed to be an explanation of how God has operated throughout the history of man. Not a doctrine.
Covenant theology has tailored its thinking to support Calvinism.
Just in the idea of calling creation a covenant of work makes that very clear.
Similar threads
