How do scholars differentiate between a Covenantal and Dispensational view of Biblical understanding? Covenant people criticize Dispensationalists for cutting up the Bible narrative into distinct parts, for saying God deals with his people in different ways in different times. They prefer to use the word "Covenant" instead of Dispensation, but isn't this the same thing using a different word? Covenantal people divide the Bible into different covenants, explaining how God deals with his people in different ways in different times. What would help me make up my mind concerning this dilemma?

There are two major frameworks of Biblical Theology in Protestant Christianity: Dispensationaliam and Covenant Theology. Simplistically, Dispensationaliam says there is a big discontinuity between Israel and the Church, while Covenant Theology says there is a great continuity between Israel and the Church. While the Southern Baptist Covention has a mix of Calvinist and Arminian congregations, my understanding is that the seminaries tend to the Calvinist side. Neither Dispensationaliam nor Covenant Theology would sit well with Reformed Baptists, so I was wondering what these seminaries teach. New Covenant Theology is a more recent framework that tries to chart a middle path between Dispensationaliam and Covenant Theology. Do any of the SBC seminaries teach NCT? Or do they teach their own framework that similarly tries to chart a path between the two, but differs in the details? Or do they teach traditional Dispensationaliam or Covenant Theology? The SBC seminaries may not all teach the same framework, but as there are only six, it shouldn't be too hard to summarise what they do.

When talking to my generally reformed friends on the topic of pedo-baptism they often say that baptism is the new circumcision, circumcision was done on babies to bring them into the Old Covenant, therefore we baptize babies to bring them into the New Covenant. I have a hard time with this because before infant circumcision was not based on the faith of the child but on the parents and their adherents to God's command to do so. But in the New Covenant, this same theological truth does not apply. I can not come into the covenant unintentionally or outside of my will. I am sure Reformed Theology has an answer to this and I just have not seen it yet, so how would Reformed Theology answer this?

**No Christian can claim that the fact they believe or have accepted Jesus as their personal saviour is a full-proof barrier against committing sin going forward.** Many discussions I have encountered on this forum take the view that Old Testament animal sacrifices and repentance were inneffectual and would not reduce the propensity to sin (they had become routine, repetitive, and "religious"). **If faith/belief in Jesus doesn’t stop one from sinning again, in what way is it better than or different from Old Testament animal sacrifice coupled with repentance?** **Many great men and women of the Old Testament times are recorded in scripture as having highly intimate and powerful relationships with God; so it can not be true that it was impossible to have a personal relationship with God under the belief system of those times.** If even Christians who have accepted Jesus as their personal saviour can fall into sin and repent; **is the advantage of the "new regime" only in the fact that we don't have to spend money buying sacrificial animals?**

Covenant theology generally regards God's covenants with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and the new covenant as the primary divine covenants. The priestly covenant Numbers 25 seems to go largely ignored. My knowledge comes mostly from the lectures of the covenant theology course of Reformed Theological Seminary (listening online, not attending) and it isn't mentioned. All that I found is a footnote in The Christ Of The Covenants saying the priestly covenant is just considered an extension of the Mosaic. Is there anything more to this or is the topic just not discussed?

I understand that N.T. Wright, an Anglican Bishop, has been promoting this teaching in evangelical churches. [*Source*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._T._Wright) >According to Wright, "Paul in the twentieth century, then, has been used and abused much as in the first. Can we, as the century draws towards its close, listen a bit more closely to him? Can we somehow repent of the ways we have mishandled him and respect his own way of doing things a bit more?" Sounds eminently reasonable to me. However, after reading [this section](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._T._Wright#Views) re on his theological views, I found myself somewhat confused, and so I would appreciate a simplified summary of what he says about Justification, Righteousness, Covenant and works of the Law. [This article](https://www.gotquestions.org/New-Perspective-Paul.html) from the *GotQuestions* website presents arguments against the New Perspective on Paul, as does John Piper's 2007 book [The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1581349645) . I understand that Wright has addressed the issue of Justification in his 2009 book [*Justification: God’s Plan and Paul's Vision*](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0830851399) , but I do not have access to it. A very brief summary of his reply can be read in a [2009 interview by Trevin Wax](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/interview-with-nt-wright-responding-to-piper-on-justification/) , where he refers the reader to a fuller response in his book [Paul: In Fresh Perspective](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0800663578) .

I found this interesting partial quote from today’s Morning & Evening devotional by Charles Spurgeon. It’s about the “Covenant of Grace”: >Jesus is the representative head of His people. In Adam every heir of flesh and blood has a personal interest, because he is the covenant head and representative of the race when considered under the law of works; so under the law of grace, every redeemed soul is one with the Lord from heaven, since He is the Second Adam, the Sponsor and Substitute of the elect in the new covenant of love. Then I found this interesting snippet which, speaking of the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ, the Mediator, suggests that from eternity the covenant settlements of grace were decreed, ratified, and made sure forever. My curiosity has been piqued. Is the expression “covenant of grace” about the Abrahamic covenant established by God? Or is it about the “New Covenant” introduced by Jesus? Is this “an everlasting covenant”? I invite answers from Protestants on this topic, mainly because Spurgeon was a Baptist minister. I would appreciate a short overview (links to articles would suffice) of all the covenants established by God and whether any of them are everlasting. Edit: As suggested, this question is about Covenant Theology

Circumcision is part of the covenant process in the old testament, and is replaced by Paul’s spiritual interpretation of sacrifice in the new testament. I would have thought this covenant is different from the new covenant. I take it that Saint Paul still regards this covenant as relevant to Christians, it’s just he wants reinterpretation. I am therefore confused, as this leads me to think there are two covenants (the new covenant, and the covenant being reinterpreted) that should be taken to be Christian. Would you be so kind as to resolve this issue? If either of the covenant’s do need to be taken, how should they be formally done? Thank you all so much. As "I am planning on becoming a member of the Church of Scotland" I seek answers from those in that Protestant and Presbyterian 'stable'.

In Reformed theology, there are summary theological constructs termed the covenant of works, the covenant of grace, and the covenant of redemption. In short, the covenant of works encompasses the path to salvation through perfectly obeying God. The covenant of grace is the path to salvation whereby believers are covered by the blood of Christ, who keeps the covenant of works on our behalf. And the covenant of redemption is between Christ and the Father, where Christ agrees to pay for the sins of his people. Is there any similar or different version of covenant theology in the RCC? What does the RCC teach about the explicitly mentioned covenants in the Bible, e.g. the covenants with Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and the New Covenant and Old Covenant that the NT and Jeremiah talk about?

An adherent of Dispensationalism is called a "dispensationalist" but would the proper term for an adherent of Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology be, respectively, "Covenant Theologian" and "New Covenant Theologian"? It sounds to me like it would lead to a little confusion, but I haven't really heard any terms in usage for either.

In the book of Genesis , God makes the covenant of circumcision with Abraham for him and his descendants. In verse 7 we are told this is an everlasting covenant. How does this go in hand with the fact that a new covenant is established by at the Last Supper? This question is addressed to any Churches that believe in the New Covenant theology (Catholic,Lutheran,Reformed,etc.)

In Covenant Theology the [**Covenant of Grace**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology#Covenant_of_grace) refers to an overarching theological covenant which God made on the basis of grace. The various Biblical covenants such as Abraham's, the Mosaic/Deuteronomic, and David's are considered to be expressions, administrations, or even (ironically) dispensations of the single original Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of Grace is timeless, an eternal agreement that God will graciously save his people, on the basis of which God made other specific covenants like Abraham's etc. 1. Who first developed this concept of the Covenant of Grace? 2. Were the other two metacovenants of Covenant Theology, the Covenants of Redemption and Works, developed at the same time? 3. Are there any substantial differences from how the Covenant of Grace was first conceptualised compared to how it is understood now?

In Covenant Theology, the Covenant of Grace is a singular overarching covenant God makes with his people. The various Biblical covenants are understood to be expressions or administrations of this singular Covenant of Grace. Here's what the Westminster Confession says about the Covenant of Grace: > Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers **unto sinners** life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe. > > This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed. > > This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament. (WCF 7.3–5) Here's what Horton says: > Like the covenant of creation, this covenant is made between God and **human partners**—in this case, fallen Adam, Seth, Abraham, and David. It is in this covenant that provisions are made for offenders, based on another's fulfillment of the legal covenant on their behalf. (*Introducing Covenant Theology*, p105) So the Covenant of Grace is between God and all of his people, anyone who will receive in repentance the offer of free grace and turn to God in faith. But the parties of the Noahic covenant appear to be different, not just humans, but all life of the earth: > Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, “Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your offspring after you, **and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the livestock, and every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark; it is for every beast of the earth.** I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you **and every living creature that is with you,** for all future generations: I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant that is between me and you **and every living creature of all flesh.** And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God **and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth**.” God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me **and all flesh that is on the earth**.” (Gen 9:8–17, ESV) My reading of this passage is that the Noahic covenant is a unique one, when God bound himself to a covenant not just with people, but with his animal creations as well. Let no one say God does not love his animals! How do Covenant Theologians explain the Noahic covenant? If all the Biblical covenants are administrations of the Covenant of Grace, how do they account for the different covenant parties? Surely they would not say that the non-human animals are part of the CoG; Jesus did not die for the sins of animals. Do Covenant Theologians say that the Noahic covenant is really only with humans, that the parties are God and humanity with animals being non-party beneficiaries, despite God five times saying that it was with "every living creature" or "all flesh"?

I have a somewhat vague understanding of dispensationalism and Covenant theology, and have until now preferred the latter to the former because it seems simpler and hence more intuitive. I recently came across Free Grace Theology (FGT), which seems very appealing to me and, to my mind, focuses on the Gospel in a sharper way than either Reformed or Arminian theology. However, in watching talks by FGT people, I've noticed that they link FGT to dispensationalism in a very tight way, as if dispensationalism needs to be assumed in order to arrive at the Free Grace position. I would like to understand how and why this is the case, if it is true. Also, is FGT compatible with Covenant Theology?

When instituting the Lord's Supper, Jesus Christ said ([Luke 22:20](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+22%3A20&version=NIV) , NIV): > In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup > is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. And in [Jeremiah 31](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jeremiah+31&version=NIV) the new covenant is also mentioned, with the blessings of the covenant listed. [Hebrews 8](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews+8&version=NIV) talks about the new covenant superceding the old in some way (the details of which perhaps I will put in another question). **At which stage did this new covenant supersede the older covenant, according to Reformed theology?**

In Calvinism, the children of believers are considered "members of the covenant" and as a sign of that covenant, they are baptized as infants. Practically speaking, this means that if at least one parent is a Christian and member of the church, then the child may be baptized. But sometimes, people other than the parents might be considered "responsible" for that child's spiritual well-being, and thus a child could be baptized even if neither parent is a Christian/church member. Sometimes those other people are grandparents, but the issue quickly gets tricky – for example, what about the cases of [household slaves](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/42009/21576) or [foster children](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/40756/21576) ? Usually, the litmus test is that the "sponsors" of the child must be in a situation to train and nurture the child. However, I recently saw the claim that John Calvin believed that descendants of Christians, even several generations removed, were entitled to the sign of the covenant, *without* the requirement of a Christian "sponsor." So, for example, the grandchild of a deceased member of the church would be entitled to infant baptism, even if no one else in the family is a Christian. My initial reaction to this claim was skepticism, but on reflection I'm wondering if this would fit well within Calvin's system. **Did Calvin believe that descendants of church members, even to two or more generations, were *entitled* to infant baptism, even without a Christian guardian?** Where in his works does he argue for or against such a position?

In the triumphal song of Moses, it is mentioned in 15:15 that the people were purchased. > Exodus 15:16 Terror and dread fall upon them; because of the > greatness of your arm, they are still as a stone, till your people, O > LORD, pass by, till the people pass by whom you have purchased. > (ESV) "Purchase" usually implies an exchange of one valuable thing for another valuable thing. Purchasing language becomes important in the New Testament for understanding the sense that the Lord Jesus purchased his people with his own blood. In the Exodus, there is no clear exchange taking place. The Exodus appears mainly to be a triumph of the Lord against his enemies. Yet Moses sings of a purchase. How does Reformed covenant theology understand the purchase here described? Is this a foreshadowing of the ultimate purchase of God's people with the blood of Christ, or is there a more immediate sense that a purchase has taken place?

I have mostly studied theology by people who have their views labeled as Covenant Theology, by the label makers. Recently, I have studied views of some who prefer the label, Biblical Theology. I have noticed differences between the two but have not attempted to put those differences into words. My question is, 'What are the main differences between Reformed Protestant Biblical Theology and Covenant Theology ?' I am not asking about Systematic Theology as this label seems to speak more about style rather than content. I am asking about differences in actual belief, not style.

Galatians 3:16-18 denies that the Mosaic covenant annulled the promises of the Abrahamic and proceeds to argue the Christian gospel on the basis of the Abrahamic covenant against the idea of salvation by keeping the Mosaic law. Yet, when the covenant was initially made with Abraham, God gave circumcision as the sign. Circumcision was given to Abraham (Genesis 17), not Moses (Exodus 34). Yet, in Paul especially, circumcision is often associated and even identified with the law of Moses in distinction to salvation by faith. Paul seems emphatic that circumcision is not necessary and that trusting in circumcision is dangerous. It is easy to see why Paul would warn against trusting in works of the law given through Moses, but it is easy to sympathize with someone who feared the prospect of uncircumcision. > Genesis 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the > flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken > my covenant. (Again, speaking to Abraham, not Moses). Paul is not alone in his interpretation. It is also the verdict of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, affirmed by none other than Peter himself. In Acts 15, they associate circumcision with a "custom of Moses" (v. 1 and 5 by the pro-circumcision men from Judea and Pharisees, and again in v. 10 when Peter indirectly refers to it as a yoke). The bow placed in the sky in the Noahic covenant remains because the covenant with creation remains, summer and winter, seedtime and harvest. So it is reasonable to believe that even very ancient covenant signs that came before the advent of Christ could still be in effect if their corresponding covenants remain in effect. Why is circumcision then associated with Moses and therefore part of the burden of the law? Clearly, Reformed Covenant Theology accepts the New Testament canon containing the Pauline epistles and Acts as scripture, and so we can understand this view to be correct on the basis of authority. I would just like a better explanation than I have for why this sign has passed away or been swallowed up by Moses. For context, I am a Reformed Christian who affirms Reformed Covenant Theology.

In [Genesis 17:9–13](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+17%3A9-13&version=ESV) we read: > 9 And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13 **both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised.** So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. (ESV) I understand this passage to say that male household slaves and the male children of household slaves were to be circumcised, regardless of any "statement of faith." In modern times we don't see many examples of household slaves or servants. However, several hundred years passed between the beginning of the [Reformation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation) and widespread prohibitions on chattel slavery in the West. Other forms of generational household servitude continued even longer. Many Reformers affirm that baptism is the new sign of the covenant, replacing circumcision, and therefore practice [infant baptism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_baptism) (or *paedobaptism*) for the children of believers ([WCF 28-4](http://www.opc.org/wcf.html#Chapter_28)) . Thus, my questions: 1. Do any Reformed paedobaptists, past or present, *explicitly* argue that members of one's household, *including one's household slaves or servants*, ought to be baptized (even if they make no statement of faith)? 2. In the absence of any examples of (1), do any Reformed paedobaptists, past or present, *explicitly* explain *why* household slaves and servants ought not to be baptized?