The Problem With Radical Discontinuity

8/13/2019 The Problem With Radical Discontinuity

1/37

The Problem with Radical Discontinuity

An essay on the Continuity of the Old and New Testaments in Covenant Theology as

contrasted not only with Dispensationalism, but also with "New Covenant Theology."

By Greg WeltyOriginally posted onEssays on Continuity

Statement on offsite articles

Presuppositions assumed but not proven in this essay: The use of language and reason,

Calvinism (whih has many impliations, suh as the infallibility of !riptures"#

Presuppositions assumed and demonstrated (to more or less degree of suess": Basi

$undamental Continuity of the Old and %ew Testaments, Covenant theology#

&'', &''' )avid Wendt

Prefae

This presentation was inspired firstly, by my pastor George Carey, who suggested *

teah a !unday shool lass on Covenant Theology, and seondly, by conversations*

have had with beloved brothers in Christ who have adopted what is now alled %ew

Covenant Theology# $or the most part these dear brothers are influened by +ohn G#

eisinger and his disiple, Geoff -ol.er, who follows eisinger very losely in his

(-ol.er/s" teahing ministry alled *n0)epth0!tudies#Doubtless there are those, such

as Fred Zaspel, who while holding to something like NC, do not hold to all the radical

distinctions of the !eisinger"#olker camp, but sine this is the brand * am most familiar

with, most of the 1uotes shall ome from these two teahers and andy !eiver# 2lso the

%CT web page lin.s to -ol.er3s wor.s as an introdution to the system and this is

naturally where see.ers will start# 2ll -ol.er/s 1uotes are ut and pasted right from the

douments * got from the web in order to ensure auray# !ine )ispensationalism is

so well .nown, doumentation will be limited# We need to .eep in mind that %CT is not

yet systemati4ed and it is li.ely that many of its adherents have not thought through all

the impliations# There are also ontraditions in the system even within the writings of

5ust one person let alone the whole system#

The debate over ontinuity6disontinuity is not an easy one# *t is not unommon to

have the waters louded by not properly understanding the terms as we will see more of

later# 7Presenting an issue sharply is indeed by no means a popular business at the

present time### Clear0ut definition of terms in religious matters, bold faing of the

logial impliations of religious views, is by many persons regarded as an impious

proeeding###7 (8ahen, Christianity and $iberalism &"# When we spea. of a basi

fundamental ontinuity, we do not mean that everything from the Old Testament has

ome over into the Christian hurh unhanged, but we mean that everything from the

Old Testament ontinues into the %ew Testament insome form or another, possible

even by being ompletely fulfilled as with the animal sarifies finding omplete

fulfillment in Christ# We may not say that the %ew Testament starts with a 7lean slate7and only brings over those things from the Old Testament that are e9pliit# !ine all of
http://hometown.aol.com/davidwendt/page/rad.htmlhttp://solochristo.com/_SC/offsite.htmhttp://solochristo.com/_SC/offsite.htmhttp://hometown.aol.com/davidwendt/page/rad.html


2/37

God3s word is true in all times, we dare not say some parts no longer apply without the

onsent of the writers of the %ew Testament as in the ase of essation of animal

sarifies# To ignore the Old Testament is a sad mista.e that auses us to miss out on

muh that God has said and wants us to .now# Two e9amples might help to see the

relationship of ontinuity with disontinuity before moving on#

We will loo. at the state of God3s people as it hanges from national to universal as

an e9ample of basi ontinuity# The state of the hurh in the %ew Testament may seem

to some to be a general disontinuity or even a radial disontinuity ompared with the

Old Testament hurh (or 7people of God7 for those s1ueamish about using the word

7hurh,7 whih however is used in the !eptuagint to desribe God3s people"# *t may

seem at first glane that the people of God in the Old Testament were national *srael and

that this has hanged in a radial way when the Gentiles were brought in after Penteost#

We an better understand this hange, however, as a minor disontinuity in the onte9t

of a basi ontinuity# !tarting after the flood, %oah3s propheies inlude 78ay God

enlarge +apheth, and may he dwell in the tents of !hem7 (Gen ':;"# The non0shemites

would learn of !hem3s God by dwelling in !hem3s tents# We see the promise to2braham that 7in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed7 (Gen# &:gyptian, so these ethni

groups are brought into *srael in a limited sense# 8ore important perhaps is that during

*srael3s e9odus from >gypt, 7a mi9ed multitude went up with them also7 (>9# &:


3/37

ommanded by God are suitable in worship# !ome Presbyterians allow musial

instruments in the hurh, beause they see it as part of the worship servie in the Old

Testament and therefore ommanded in this dispensation, based on the ontinuity of

worship and not tied to the ult# The Campbellites, trying to be onsistent with the

priniple that only those things ommanded in the %ew Testament, as ontrasted with

the Bible as a whole, are allowed in worship or in the hurh see no e9pliit %ewTestament ommand for using musial instruments# To them it doesn3t matter what the

Old Testament says on the sub5et, but to Calvin it does matter, and re1uires more

thought to see whether the Old Testament priniple arries over or not# *t is possible to

have the same or similar onlusions based on different premises# Calvin3s premise is a

general ontinuity whih sees minor disontinuity# The Campbellites premise is a

radial disontinuity whih is here onsistent#

*ntrodution

Covenant or $ederal Theology has as a basi assumption the unity of the Bible# *t

sees the ontinued story of man/s salvation starting in the garden of >den withthe&rotevangelium ($irst Gospel prolaimed" of Genesis


4/37

everywhere# We learn 5ust as easily from the %T writers that we simply annot read the

OT without seeing +esus7 (aspel,he heology of Fulfillment"# !omeone reading only

the Boo.s of 8oses would ome away with a dotrine of salvation by faith in the

sarifie that God provides, not a salvation by wor.s# But some )ispensationalists and

some adherents of %CT, instead of seeing the obvious basi ontinuity, ma.e statements

suh as these: 7Truths suh as 5ustifiation and santifiation are not learly found in theOld Testament era7 (-ol.er,-n )verview of New Covenant heology"# *f these

e9tremely important truths 7are not learly found in the Old Testament era,7 there an

obviously be little or no ontinuity between that era and the %ew Testament era, and

this implies that the same la. of ontinuity must also logially e9ist between the Old

and %ew Testaments themselves, not 5ust between various ovenants# Heep in mind that

the 8osai ovenant starts in the seond boo. of the Bible and is in effet throughout

the rest of the Old Testament# *f this ovenant (law without grae, they would have us

believe" is regarded as la.ing ontinuity with the other ovenants (grae", it would

seem that the !riptures wherein this ovenant is prominent (most of the Old

Testament" must also be mostly disontinuous with the other parts of !ripture, namely,

Genesis and ertain propheti passages, and of ourse most or all of the %ew Testament#The impression given is that the 8osai ovenant and national *srael are

aparenthesisof some .ind in the 7unity7 of sripture that %CT laims to hold 5ust as the

hurh age is a parenthesis in )ispensationalism# 7Paul3s order of salvation history is

first promise to 2braham and his seed (Gal#


5/37

*t should be noted that the Statement of Faith of race Church at the %CT web page

seems to ontradit these statements when it says 7that the universal Churh is

the continuation and fulfillment of the historial people of God,7 and the!eformation

Statement, written by -ol.er around &''= but still on the web, rightly says, 72ll of

God3s elet who have ever lived, are now living, or ever will live, ma.e up the one true

universal or atholi hurh#7 8i.e Paash, the missionary to 8e9io sent by -ol.er3shurh, informed me of his own position: 7*f you believe that * do not believe in the

ontinuity of the hurh, i#e# old testament saints are part of the same hurh as new

testament saints, then you are mista.en###Kour pereption that we re5et that the hurh

is ontinuous from the first saint till the last is not orret7 (e0mail &A )eember &''"#

Paash apparently does not believe that 7The day of Penteost (2ts " inaugurated the

beginning of the Churh, the %ew Covenant people of God###,7 sine for him the hurh

inludes Old Testament saints# * annot reonile the later statements of -ol.er with his

older ones or with those of Paash, unless one assumes either &" they have different

definitions for 7hurh,7 " this sentene is a misstatementon -ol.er3s part and

therefore he should retrat it, or


6/37

would seem that the e9at same individuals are ontained in both definitions of

7hurh7 (7people of God7 and 7%ew Covenant people of God7",and yet for -ol.er, the

two are not idential sine the one is a 7new ritter7 that didn/t e9ist before Penteost#

e an/t mean that sine gentiles are now being saved, the hurh is 7a new ritter#7 We

have already seen from the !riptures that Gentiles were saved even during the 8osai

ovenant# *f only theformis new, why bother alling the hurh 7a new ritter,7 andsaying 7the day of Penteost (2ts " inaugurated the beginning of the Churh, the %ew

Covenant people of God###7 (he Seminar Notes on New Covenant heology"# The

differene between the two definitions is far too subtle for this writer to see# One would

wish for more larity in -ol.er/s use of terms#

!eiver gives the following as the presuppositions of %CT:

God has only one purpose# That purpose is the revelation of is glory as e

establishes is sovereign rule over is entire redeemed reation#

# The establishment of *srael as a nation was only a means that God used pursuant tois eternal purpose# God has only one spiritual people# e grants the spiritual

inheritane only to those in Christ#


7/37

ontinuity is the more basi issue that drives these other presuppositions# !eiver uses the

e9pression 7radial distintions7 more than one when disussing %CT and admits

that,7we see the basi relationship between the old and new ovenants as one of

disontinuity7 (1E C!)SS( he 1eart of New Covenant heology"# 2nd this is where

the real issue lies, in the radial distintions whih have their root in radial

disontinuity#

)wight Penteost alls the the hurh age 7an entirely new age, whih###is one of our

strongest arguments for the premillennial position# *t is neessary for one who re5ets

that interpretation to prove that the hurh itself is the onsummation of God/s program#

To do so he must prove that there is no new revealed program of God in this present

age7 (hings to Come &


8/37

eformed and Presbyterian Churhes have always affirmed ontinuity in their

onfessions as read in he Scotch Confession of Faith (&A@D":

We maist onstantly beleeve, that God preserved, instruted, multiplied, honoured,

deored, and from death alled to life, his Hir. in all ages fra -dam, till the umming

of Christ 7esusin the flesh###to them he gave his lawes, onstitutions anderemonies###To this same people from time to time he sent prophets, to redue them to

the right way of their God###(2rt# -#"IsiJ

he %elgic Confession (&A@&", 2rtile ;, says:

This hurh has e9isted from the beginning of the world and will last until the end, as

appears from the fat that Christ is eternal Hing who annot be without sub5ets# 2nd

this holy hurh is preserved by God against the rage of the whole world, even though

for a time it may appear very small in the eyes of men00as though it were snuffed out#

$or e9ample, during the very dangerous time of 2hab the ?ord preserved for himself

seven thousand men who did not bend their .nees to Baal#

he Second 1elvetic Confession (&A@@" hapter 9vii on the hurh says,

therefore it is neessary that there always should have been, and should be at this day,

and to the end of the world, a Churh0that is, a ompany of the faithful alled and

gathered out of the world a ommunion (* say" of all the saints, that is of them who

truly .now and rightly worship and serve the true God, in +esus Christ the !aviour, by

the word of the oly !pirit, and who by faith are parta.ers of all those good graes

whih are freely offered through Christ###This 8ilitant Churh was otherwise ordered

and governed before the ?aw, among the patriarhs otherwise under 8oses, by the

?aw, and otherwise of Christ, by the Gospel###Both these sorts of people IOld and %ew

testament believersJ have had, and still have, one fellowship, one salvation, in one and

the same 8essiah, in whom, as members of one body, they are all 5oined together under

one head, and by one faith are all parta.ers of one and the same spiritual meat and drin.

(!haff, -olume ***, @0;D"#

!ee also the5estminster Confession of Faith (&@=@" hapters vii and 9i9#

*t is present in ?utheranism as is evident from the-ugsburg Confession, Chapter

viii, whih alls the hurh 7nothing else than the assembly of all believers and saints,7

and also the use of the Ten Commandments therein and in$uther8s SmallCatechism(but notie that neither ?uther nor 8elanthon were !abbatarians"# *n he

Formula of Concord(&A;@, &A=" we read,

We believe, teah, and onfess that although they who truly believe in Christ, and are

sinerely onverted to God, are through Christ set free from the urse and onstraint of

the ?aw, they are not, nevertheless, on that aount without ?aw, inasmuh as the !on

of God redeemed them for the very reason that they might meditate on the ?aw of God

day and night, and ontinually e9erise themselves in the .eeping thereof (Psa# i#

9i9#& s11#"# $or not even our first parents, even before the fall, lived wholly without

?aw, whih was ertainly at that time graven on their hearts, beause the ?ord had

reated them after his own image (2rt# -*#*#"
http://www.ovnet.com/~mandrson/helvetic.htmhttp://www.wpc.jude3.org/beliefs/confessions/JWM_TWCOF(BPC).htmlhttp://www.wpc.jude3.org/beliefs/confessions/JWM_TWCOF(BPC).htmlhttp://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-boc#achttp://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-boc#achttp://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/little.book/web/book-1.htmlhttp://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/little.book/web/book-1.htmlhttp://www.ovnet.com/~mandrson/helvetic.htmhttp://www.wpc.jude3.org/beliefs/confessions/JWM_TWCOF(BPC).htmlhttp://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-boc#achttp://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/little.book/web/book-1.htmlhttp://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/little.book/web/book-1.html


9/37

2lso see various ?utheran authors of Old Testament ommentaries inluding Heil,

)elit4sh and ?eupold#

The Confession of the Churh of >ngland very e9pliitly says,

The Old Testament is not ontrary to the %ew: for both in the Old and %ew Testamenteverlasting life is offered to 8an.ind by Christ, who is the only 8ediator between God

and 8an, being both God and 8an# Wherefore they are not to be heard, whih feign

that the old $athers did loo. only for transitory promises# 2lthough the ?aw given from

God by 8oses, as touhing Ceremonies and ites, do not bind Christian men, nor the

Civil Preepts thereof ought of neessity to be reeived in any ommonwealth yet

notwithstanding, no Christian man is free from the obediene of the Commandments

whih are alled 8oral (he hirty4nine -rticles of !eligion I&A@


10/37

)ispensationalism arose in Great Britain around &


11/37

Covenant Theology# +ohn eisinger gives the impression (-braham3s Four Seeds; et

al" that he had many disussions with Presbyterians who did not really understand

Covenant Theology, but held to it beause of the reed# One wonders if some eformed

Baptists simply got tired of debating with ertain unread Presbyterians over baptism,

beause they would always refer to the ontinuity of the ovenants as a presupposition

in their arguments# 7%ot a few Baptists have virtually apitulated to infant baptism upona onsideration of the 3one ovenant of grae variously administered#3 That is why it is

absolutely imperative for Calvinisti Baptists to thin. through this matter# *s the

ovenant of wor.s6ovenant of grae theologial strutured e9egetially tenable or notE7

(ens,-n E6amination )f he &resuppositions )f Covenant -nd Dispensational

heology '#="# !ine these 7eformed7 Baptists also did not have a proper

understanding of Covenant Theology, it was easy for them to re5et the whole system

(and more" in their re5etion of ontinuity whih, as we have shown, is not peuliar to

eformed Theology# %ow they ould easily win arguments with the Paedo0 Baptists, at

least in their own minds, beause the Paedo0Baptists were basing their arguments on a

(to them" false assumption# 2 eformed Baptist Pastor, 7ohn iarri++o, in an as yet

unpublished paper noties that 7eformed Baptists and !overeign Grae Baptists whoare not properly grounded in Old Testament Theology are most vulnerable7 to the

influenes of %CT# 2 good e9ample of this is seen in the *n0)epth0!tudies Seminar

Notes on New Covenant heology where one of the headings is 7Why ;th

Commandment is not in fore TO)2K#7

Continuity in the !arifies of the Old Testament

*t is obvious that the dotrine of Continuity is the historial Protestant position and

that the ontraditing view whih may have had its seed in 2nabaptist theology (but

%OT in Baptist theology" is relatively new# But what are the impliations of the

dotrine of Continuity ontrasted with that of )isontinuity, and an it be shown to be

BiblialE One of the ma5or tenets is that 7!alvation is of the ?ord7 (+onah :'"# God

saves sinners and has been doing it sine the fall by the same means, namely by

regeneration whih brings faith to the sinner, whih faith is the means of the imputation

of Christ/s righteousness# 7aving been 5ustified by faith, we have peae with God

through our ?ord +esus Christ7 (om A:& see +ohn 8urray, !edemption(

-ccomplished and -pplied;' f# for the Order of !alvation"# The sinner/s faith is in the

sarifie that God imself has provided, the anti0type of whih is later shown to be

+esus Christ, God in the flesh, the ?amb of God slain before the foundation of the

worldF 7God in no time reeived men to mery without sarifies# 2nd that was to

beto.en that if we will obtain forgiveness of our sins, we must have reourse to the!arifie that was offered up one for all for our redemption# $or so long as +esus Christ

is not the means between God and us, we must ontinue aursed, forlorn and hopeless7

(Calvin, Sermons on 7ob ;=A"#We will start by e9amining the ontinuity of the

sarifies of the Old testament#

The idea of a sarifie permeates !ripture from Genesis to the %ew Testament# *t is

presupposed before the 8osai ?aw ma.es it more e9pliit# The first sarifie or at least

the idea for sarifie was made by God imself after the fall of man in the garden#

!ome of the %CT amp have doubted that this is a real sarifie beause the word

7sarifie7 is not used in the te9t# But although the word 7hyporisy7 is not used in

*saiah hapter &, no one doubts the idea is present there# Closer to home is the fat thatthe word 7sin7 is not used in Genesis < at all, but no one would say we ouldn/t have
http://www.cet.com/~dlavoie/solo.christo/theology/nct/Presuppositions/presup.cov.htmlhttp://www.cet.com/~dlavoie/solo.christo/theology/nct/Presuppositions/presup.cov.htmlhttp://www.cet.com/~dlavoie/solo.christo/theology/nct/Presuppositions/presup.cov.htmlhttp://puritanhope.com/lamb/http://www.cet.com/~dlavoie/solo.christo/theology/nct/Presuppositions/presup.cov.htmlhttp://www.cet.com/~dlavoie/solo.christo/theology/nct/Presuppositions/presup.cov.htmlhttp://puritanhope.com/lamb/


12/37

.nown 2dam/s ation was sin until Paul ma.es it lear in omans A# We needn/t have a

partiular word used in order to have the meaning#

Before the ma.ing of lothes for 2dam and >ve, we find in Genesis ve had transgressed the ovenant, the ?ord delared a new ovenant,

a ovenant of grae with the words (of Gen - -ol#


13/37

of kithah and signifies overing of sin, so that in God/s sight it is as though it did not

e9ist7 ()ld estament 1istory of !edemption@"# Compare also Galatians


14/37

We are not given an answer in the Genesis te9t# We are told that Cain/s offering was 7of

the fruit of the ground,7 but 2bel/s was 7of the firstborn of his flo. and of their fat#7

?ater we are told that 2bel/s sarifie is 7more e9ellent#7 That is, the sarifie itself,

was more e9ellent# 7The bloody offering ontains the e9piatory element, whih is

wanting in the vegetable offering, and therefore ta.es the preedene of it but###>very

offering is worthless without the right internal state of the one bringing it7 ()elit4sh


15/37

&:&", he would not have a worship and offering that was not santioned by God# 7e had

the dotrine that ame from God and whih %oah had given unto his hildren7

(Calvin, Sermons on 7ob&&"# *ndeed in hapter =, +ob/s friends are e9pliitly told by

God to 7ta.e for yourselves seven bulls and seven rams###and offer up for yourselves a

burnt offering7 beause God/s wrath was aroused against them (verses ; and "# This is

proof that animal sarifies were ordained by God before the 8osai ?aw for thepurpose of propitiation 7lest * deal with you aording to your folly#7

With regard to 2braham, there are at first only hints about sarifies in the fat that

7he built an altar to the ?ord7 (Gen &:;", and in the ovenantal offering of 7a three0

year0old heifer, a three0year0old female goat, a three0year0old ram, a turtledove, and a

young pigeon,7 whih were ut in two by 2braham (Gen &A:',&D"# But there is nothing

e9pliit until after *saa is born# 2braham is told to 7ta.e now your son, your only son

*saa, whom you love, and go to the land of 8oriah, and offer him there as a burnt

offering###7 (Gen :"# *saa seemed to be 1uite familiar with sarifies, however, even

.nowing what animal should be used, when he says, 7?oo., the fire and wood, but

where is the lamb for a burnt offering7 (:;"# 2braham/s well .nown answer is, 7Godwill provide for imself the lamb for a burnt offering7 (vs "# Kears later, +ohn the

Baptist will say about Christ, 7BeholdF The ?amb of God who ta.es away the sin of the

world7 (+ohn &:'"# There is only an impliation that *saa offered sarifies in the fat

that he built an altar to God (Gen: @:A" # But, 7+aob offered a sarifie on the

mountain,7 after ?aban pursued him# e also 7ereted an altar7 before the ity of

!hehem (Gen


16/37

$irst let us observe that prior to the giving of the ?aw on !inai, God says that

2braham had already 7obeyed 8y voie and .ept 8y harge, 8y ommandments, 8y

statutes, and 8y laws7 (Gen @:A"# *ndeed, 7the wor. of the law IisJ written in their

hearts7 (omans :&A" and 7what may be .nown of God is manifest in them, for God

has shown it to them###so that they are without e9use7 (omans &:&', D"# 8oses was

already ma.ing .nown 7the statutes of God and is law7 before he ame to 8ount!inai# The 7onditions7 of obediene are not new in the ?aw# 2s for sarifies, when

8oses told Pharaoh the people needed to 7serve the ?ord,7 (>9 ;:&@ :&", Pharaoh

rightly understood it to mean ma.e sarifies:

Then Pharaoh alled for 8oses and 2aron, and said, 7Go, sarifie to your God in the

land#7 2nd 8oses said,7 *t is not right to do so, for we would be sarifiing the

abomination of the >gyptians to the ?ord our God# *f we sarifie the abomination of

the >gyptians before their eyes, then will they not stone usE7 (>9 :A, @ >9 A:


17/37

>very sarifie and every lustration prolaimed the priniple of grae# ad it been

otherwise, then the idea of positive, vital ontinuity would have to be abandoned# There

would be onflit and opposition instead# !uh is the Gnosti position, but it is not the

view either of the Old testament itself, or of Paul, or of the Churh theology7 (ibid#

&'"# *n light of the graious gift of the sarifiial system in the 8osai ovenant,

whih shows man3s sin and points to Christ, we annot agree with !eiver who says,7God intended the old ovenant to have a ondemning and .illing effet# *t ould only

grant life to those who .ept it perfetly7 (1E C!)SS( he 1eart of New Covenant

heology"# We agree that the law annot grant life at allsine only God an do that, but

God shows his grae even in the law by means of the propitiation of the sarifies#

The differene between the law and the promise was not one of .ind but of degree# The

law did not demand obediene and righteousness of men to whom obediene and

righteousness were 1uite un.nown as the ondition of blessedness# The $lood, whih

destroyed the whole human rae e9ept for one righteous man and his family, had made

.nown the righteous 5udgments of God enturies before the time of 2braham# Paul tells

us plainly that sin entered into the world 7through the disobediene of one man,7 whiharries us ba. to 2dam and the $all# The differene between the law and the promise

does not, therefore, onsist in this, that under the promise men were saved without

obediene and under the law they are saved beause of obediene###The differene lay in

this, that the law made the will of God more plain by stating it in terms of definite

ommands, 7thou shalt7 and 7thou shalt not7 and that by the very severity of its

re1uirements it e9posed more fully the sinfulness of man/s heart and his alienation from

God# Beause of this the law made elaborate provision for atonement for sins done in

ignorane and frailty, and so by doing pointed forward to the Cross# The great teahing

of the ?evitial law is that, 7without the shedding of blood there is no remission7 (?ev#

9vii# && f# eb i9 " (2llis,&rophesy and the Church


18/37

something not unli.e this# n5ustified men parta.e of the 7sarifie7 and go their own

way to their destrution, 7sine they ruify again for themselves the !on of God and

put im to an open shame7 (ebrews @:@"#

*n the plae of sound theology it is not unommon to have slogans that on the surfae

sound holy and wonderful# 2 good e9ample is 7Christ is the only aeptable sarifie7to God or for sin# Certainly there is muh truth in this statement, 7for it is not possible

that the blood of bulls and goats ould ta.e away sins7 (ebrews &D:="# But without

larifiation, it misrepresents the truth and even lends itself to the idea of ontraditions

in the !riptures# We have seen over and over again the many sarifies that were

indeed aeptable to God# e ommanded them and was well pleased with them# We

are told to present our bodies as living sarifies to God (om &:&"# The truth

ontained in the above slogan is that all well0pleasing sarifies are only so beause

they point to Christ, the one true sarifie# 7$or if the blood of bulls and goats and the

ashes of a heifer, sprin.ling the unlean, santifies for the purifying of the flesh, how

muh more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal !pirit offered imself

without spot to God, leanse your onsiene from dead wor.s to serve the living GodE7(ebrews ':&


19/37

?i.e earlier dispensationalists, progressive dispensationalists view the hurh as a new

manifestation of grae, a new dispensation in the history of redemption# >arlier

dispensationalists viewed the hurh as a ompletely different .ind of redemption from

that whih had been revealed before or would be revealed in the future# The hurh then

had its own future separate from the redemption promised to +ews and Gentile in the

past and future dispensations# Progressive dispensationalists, however, while seeing thehurh as a new manifestation of grae, believe that this grae is preisely in .eeping

with the promises of the Old Testament, partiularly the promises of the new ovenant

in *saiah, +eremiah, and >4e.iel# The fat that these blessings have been inaugurated in

the hurh distinguishes the hurh from +ews and Gentiles of the past dispensation

(&rogressive Dispensationalism ='"#

2 reent boo.let, however, alled'illions Disappear( fact or fiction0gives the old

shool advie of 7what to do in ase you miss the rapture7 ("# Part two says 7!tart

wor.ing your way to heaven7 (


20/37


21/37

have been good for that man if he had not been born7 (8att @:="# Therefore, the verse

needs some 1ualifiation in order to ma.e sense# The simplest way is to understand that

Paul is tal.ing about all men who are 7in 2dam7 in the one ase (namely all humans

e9ept Christ", and all people who are 7in Christ7 in the other ase (namely all the

elet"# C# H# Barrett puts it this way:

There are two ways of loo.ing at men# They may be onsidered 7in 2dam7 (f# * Cor#

9v#" that is, viewed as independent, self0e9planatory persons, members of a rae

whih has ut itself off from its Creator and wages war against him# This is the natural

way of loo.ing at the rae, and the way in whih it is natural for the rae to onsider

itself# -iewed and understood in these terms it an have one end only# But is is also

possible (by faith, for this is no human possibility" to see man.ind 7in Christ7 (f# * Cor#

9v# ", the new 8an# 8en are then lothed in a righteousness whih is not their own,

and in virtue of it they an and will be 5ustified# (- Commentary on the Epistle to the

!omans&@@,&&;"

2lso of interest is ** Corinthians A:&=0 !tarting at the end of verse &= we read, 7ifOne died for all, then all died and e died for all that those who live should no longer

live for themselves, but for im who died for them and rose again#7 Compare omans

@:;, 7%ow if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with im#7 We

again have the idea of being 7in Christ#7 One died for all who are in im, (his elet", all

who are in im died with im# %o one died with im e9ept those for whom he was

the $ederal (ovenantal" ead# This has been the eformed way of loo.ing at these

passages, but for %CT, it must be abandoned if they ontinue to hold that Old

Testament saints are not 7in Christ#7 There must be another lass of people who are not

7in Christ,7 for whom Christ did not die, but are, nevertheless saved# This thought is

onsistent in older )ispensationalism and this pitfall annot be avoided in any

reasonable way if a radial disontinuity of the hurh is maintained# Perhaps the %CT

e9planation should be to 1ualify what it means for 7the free gift Ito omeJ to all men,

resulting in 5ustifiation of life7 rather than to 1ualify who is meant by using the terms

7all in 2dam7 ontrasted with 7all in Christ#7 They ould agree with the ?utherans or

2rminians and say what determines salvation is whether man re5ets (aording to the

?utherans who say faith is a gift of God, but man an veto it", or aepts (aording to

the 2rminians, who say faith is man/s gift to God", the free gift whih has really ome

to every man (or for the ?utherans, every man in the hurh"# This way the idea of being

7in Christ7 need not be present, at least in this passage, sine the free gift is fully

universal# Perhaps they would also not need to hold on to the idea of immediate

imputation and that ould lear away some of the inonsistenies from their theology,but would also greatly impoverish soteriology for the sa.e of holding on to their radial

disontinuity# We prefer to say, however, that all the elet were bought by Christ/s

blood# They died with im who died for them, and they, and no one else, were all 7in

Christ,7 that is, they are part of is body, whih is the hurh#

2nother problem with eisinger3s dotrine is how it must logially view eletion#

Paul tells us that God

has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly plaes in Christ, 5ust as e

hose us in 1imbefore the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without

blamebefore 1im in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by 7esus Christ to


22/37

1im 9eis auton, not3eauton:, aording to the good pleasure of is Will###(>phesians

&:phesians :&"# %ow being in Christ, the opposite is true# They are no longer 7without

Christ#7 They are no longer 7aliens from the ommonwealth of *srael#7 ow strange it

would be that the Old Testament believers who were not 7aliens from the

ommonwealth of *srael7 should not be 7in Christ7 and 7hosen in Christ7 5ust as the

Gentiles wereF They are also no longer 7strangers from the covenantsof promise#7

%otie he doesn3t say ovenant but covenantsin the plural# Whih ovenants does he

meanE They are no longer 7hopeless and atheists in the world#7 This being 7in Christ7

loo.s the same as being a believer in the Old Testament# aspel points out in regard toomans &&, 7*n .eeping with the tree analogy, we must say that there is a very real

unity between *srael and the hurh# This would be in ontradition to the traditional

dispensational teahing, but the fat remains that there is but one tree# 2nd in this tree

the two are brought together into one, and that with a ommon root7 (7ews, entiles, ;

the oal of !edemptive 1istory"# 7nion with Christ is really the entral truth of the

whole dotrine of salvation not only in its appliation but also in its one0for0all

aomplishment in the finished wor. of Christ7 (+ohn 8urray,!edemption 0

-ccomplished and -pplied &@&"#

-ol.er also maintains that 7Truths suh as 5ustifiation and santifiation are not

learly found in the Old Testament era7 (-n )verview of New Covenant heology"# This

seems to be a very rash statement# We find as early as Genesis &A:@ that 2braham

7believed in the ?ord and e aounted (or imputed" it to im for righteousness#7 What

else is 5ustifiation than the imputation of righteousnessE 2nd whose righteousness was

it, but Christ/s, who also died for 2braham who was 7in im7E 2nd )avid says,

7Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is overed# Blessed is the man

to whom the ?ord does not impute ini1uity7 (Psalm ven those who neglet reading the Old

Testament should .now this sine Paul uses two of these e9amples in omans =# !ee

also )elit4sh, page @ (1uoted earlier in this essay" regarding 2dam/s faith# 2s for

santifiation, if it is not taught in Psalm A&:, 7Wash me thoroughly from my ini1uity,

2nd leanse me from my sin7 (that is, if some insist it refers to 5ustifiation rather than

santifiation", it is most surely and learly prolaimed in verse &D, whih * shall 1uote

for those unfamiliar with the Psalms# 7Create in me a lean heart, O God and renew a

steadfast spirit within me#7


23/37

!ome OT sholars have argued that we should read and study the OT on its own terms#

That is, we should see. to understand it by itself without 7reading ba.7 into it from the

%T# There is a sense, of ourse, where that is right# But what +esus seems to be

emphasi4ing in these passages is that we in this age should be able to read the OT better

than that# There is the matter of 7historial0grammatial7 interpretation, to be sure# But

if 7historial0grammatial7 leaves out the Christologial fous, it is defiient# *n fat,+esus seems to be implying that this is how the OT ould always have been readF

78oses wrote of me # # # 2braham saw my day7 seem to insist that the %T 7revelation7

is preisely the message of the OT (aspel, he heology of Fulfillment"#

One must also wonder at these statements, 7+ustifiation is pitured in the sarifiial

system of the nation of *srael# !antifiation is pitured in the holiness laws of the

nation of *srael7 and the statement that 7*srael IisJ only a piture of the real people of

God that is revealed in the %ew Covenant era7 (Seminar Notes on New Covenant

heology"# This 7piture system7 seems to be dangerously lose to the symboli theory

of atonement whih sees the sarifies as merelypitures of santifiation and favour,

rather than as viarious# -os desribes it thus:

2ording to it Ithe purely symboli theoryJ the sarifiial proess e9hibits in a piture

ertain things that must be done to the offerer, and that an and will be done to him with

the proper effet# The piture as a mere piture, must needs remain within the sphere of

sub5etivity it e9hibits in no way what must ta.e plae outside of man for him, but only

what ta.es plae within him we, therefore, all this the purely symboli theory#

!pea.ing in dogmati language we might say, that on this view of the matter sarifie is

a pitorial representation of suh things as santifiation and return to favour of God#

The utmost that this theory ould possibly onede would be, that the ritual perhaps

depits some ob5etive obligation, that might have been imposed upon man, of whih by

way of a lesson he is reminded in the sarifie, but whih is not further arried out or

enated from man, not even symbolially, in the further proess# This interpretation of

the sarifiial proedure lies on the line of the moral and governmental theories of the

atonement Irather than the symbolio0viariousJ (%iblical heology&A'0&@D"#

There are of ourse differenes namely that the 7purely symboli theory7 has a sarifie

that is to the offerer ertainly not ob*ectivebut at leastsub*ective# But the %CT theory

doesn/t seem to have anything to do with the ontemporary offerer (ob5etive or

sub5etive", sine the sarifie is seen as only a piture, not primarily for the benefit of

the offerer, but for the benefit of %ew Covenant believers#

Continuity of the Covenants

%CT must also re5et the eformed idea of the $ederal eadship of 2dam, whih is

based on omans A# They an only logially and onsistently aept him as our natural

head, although some still want to hold on to the dotrine of immediate imputation of

2dam/s sin (at least for now", beause the imputation of Christ/s righteousness is also

rightly said to be immediate# There is no doubt that 2dam was the natural head# The

idea of 2dam as only a natural head, however, seems to be e9luded sine 7hildren

shall not be put to death for their fathers7 ()eut: =:&@", and if he is the natural head

only, this seems to imply that original sin was imputed in a natural way through the

body, unless the theory of Traduianism is adopted, whih says souls were propagatedby souls# Traduianism has found favor among the ?utherans, and also some eformed


24/37

writers, who still, nevertheless, hold to the immediate imputation of 2dam/s sin#

Gordon Clar. is a reent e9ample, but he is also a $ederalist (he %iblical #iew of

'an=A f#"# Calvin holds to a 7mysti ealism7 (Ber.hof 1uoting Thornwell, &&" in his

view of original sin, but Calvin does %OT ommit himself to Traduianism# 7%o

an9ious disussion is needed to understand this 1uestion###whether the son/s soul

proeeds by derivation Itradu6J from the father/s soul7 (.nstitutes **,&,vii, page ='",7for the ontagion does not ta.e its origin from the substane of the flesh or soul, but

beause it had been so ordained by God that the first man should at one and the same

time have and lose, both for himself and for his desendants, the gifts that God had

bestowed upon him7 (AD"# 2bout omans A:&, Calvin says, 7But to sin in this ase

I7for that all have sinned7J, is to beome orrupt and viious7 (Commentary on !omans,

in lo#", whih shows he did not hold onsistently to the ealist view (whih says

7all have sinned,7 not 7beome orrupt and viious,7 but actuallysinned, in the person

of 2dam If# ebrews ;:'J" but more to a 7sovereign imputation7 view, whih very

naturally leads to $ederal eadship# !ee !hedd/s disussion for a more onsistent view

of ealism (Commentary on !omans &D0 W# +ohnson, who favors ealism", the 1uestion still

e9ists, as to how 2dam represented his people in a way other than as the %atural ead#

The (Post0eformation" eformed way of putting the piture together has been to see

that, sine Christ is the $ederal (ovenantal" ead of all who are 7in Christ,7 it ma.es

sense in light of the parallelism in omans A, that 2dam must be the $ederal

(ovenantal" ead of all who are in 2dam# +ohn Bunyan, no doubt agrees, although he

starts with 2dam# 7$or as the first ovenant was made with the first 2dam, so was the

seond ovenant made with the seond for these are and were the two great publi

persons, or representatives of the whole world, as to the first and seond ovenants7

(he Doctrine of $aw and race


25/37

* define $ederalism as representation# That is the method that God used to save

(omans A:&0&'"# * agree that federalism is generally a basi building blo. of

Covenant Theology, but we .now of ovenant theologians e9# !hedd" who embrae

realism for original sin# (sic# e0mail, &' )eember '"

*t is obvious to anyone who has studied eformed Theology or historial dotrine thatthis definition is very inomplete# $irst, $ederalism is not merely 7representation,7 but

rather, covenantal representation,whih is based on $ederal (Covenant" Theology

(Ber.hof ven eduated people mightthin. the

word means 7representation7 when they thin. about the $ederal Government of the

nited !tates of 2meria# !ine the people are represented, 7federal7 must mean

7representation,7 they falsely onlude# The word 7federal,7 li.e the word7onfederation,7 has nothing to do with representation, but rather both words have to do

with a ompat or agreement, a binding# The )uth word verbondhas these meanings in

>nglish: alliane, oalition, federation, league, union, pat, ovenant# The only

representation federalism allows must be based on the idea of a ompat or ovenant# *t

is very irresponsible for a pastor to use a word so arelessly, espeially when it is a

tehnial term in theology# This is li.e the 2rminian pastor who believes 7one

saved6always saved7 alling himself a CalvinistF *t would be good if those in positions

of authority would be more areful about the language they use, sine teahers 7reeive

a striter 5udgment7 (+ames


26/37

Baptist reeds based on it# *t is also e9pliit in theFormula Consensus 1elveticaand is

seen in the )uth eformed !ystemati Theology of ?ouis Ber.hof# he .rish -rticles

of !eligion(&@&A" say,

8an being at the beginning reated aording to the image of God (whih onsisted

espeially in the wisdom of his mind and the true holiness of his free will", had theovenant of the law ingrafted in his heart, whereby God did promise unto him

everlasting life upon ondition that he performed entire and perfet obediene unto his

Commandments, aording to that measure of strength wherewith he was endued in his

reation, and threatened death unto him if he did not perform the same (2rtile &"#

>ven the ?ondon Confession I&@==J whih was not based on the WC$ hints at the idea

where it says, 7+esus Christ onely is made the 8ediator of the new Covenant, even the

everlasting Covenant of gracebetween God and 8an###7 (2rtile L"# The word

7everlasting7 here must mean eternal beause +esus 7was fore0ordained from

everlasting###7 (2rtile L*"# The Confession is e9pliit about a pre0temporal ovenant

being made between the $ather and !on: 7none ta.es this honour but he that is alled ofGod, as was 2aron, so also Christ, it being an ation espeially of God the $ather,

whereby a speial ovenant being made, hee ordains his !onne to this offie: whih

ovenant is that Christ should be made a !arifie for sinne###7 (2rtile L**"#

The ordaining of 7his !onne to this offie7 is done by means of 7a speial ovenant#7

This is not the same as the 7everlasting Covenant of grae between od and 'an7

whih is based on this speial ovenant between the Father and Son# This is no doubt

the same distintion made between the Covenant of edemption and the Covenant of

Grae in lassial Covenant Theology# This should show that even this onfession has

its roots in Covenant Theology, rather than in 2nabaptist thought# +ohn Bunyan also

held to a 7ovenant whih was made between the $ather and the !on before the world

began7 (he Doctrine of $aw and race


27/37

greater larity to what has been said before# The dotrine of a ovenant of wor.s is in no

sense a novum# *t see.s not to repudiate or abandon the old paths, as does

)ispensationalism, but rather, to advane the age old dotrines of the hurh in a more

onsistent way# *t is the systemati4ing of the history of redemption, in partiular the

need for a !avior#

We an loo. at the relation of God to 2dam as an 7arrangement7 or a 7disposition7

that was sovereignly imposed on 2dam# 2dam being the reature was duty bound to

obey God without any hope of reward or even friendship with God# 7When you have

done all those things whih you are ommanded, say, MWe are unprofitable servants# We

have done what was our duty to do/7 (?u.e &;:&D"# But God the transendent one hose

to ondesend to 2dam# There is little doubt that 2dam had by nature in his onsiene

a sense of the law (om &:&',D :&=, &A"#

Without a doubt 2dam had the most perfet law# %ow the most perfet law is the law of

love, and this is the law of the ten Commandments# 8att# :- vol &,


28/37

wor. is (a" To give a law# (b" To promise bliss and threaten damnation# (" To set up a

3sealing tree3 and a probation tree# 7 & (W# a Bra.el,!edeli*ke odsdienst>erste )eel

'< I>- vol# &, ven

%CT adherents and )ispensationalists use theologial terms not found in sripture:

trinity, limited atonement, irresistible grae, total depravity, unonditional eletion,

perseverane of the saints, federalism, transendene, immanene, hypostatial union,

millennium, traduianism, viarious atonement, et# 8ost of these are based on ideas in

sripture,and some have the e9at words, although not used together# Covenant of Grae

and Covenant of Wor.s are no e9eptions# The individual words are sriptural words,

but more importantly, the ideas are ontained in sripture#

?et/s ta.e a loo. at how man merits anything from God and why salvation must be

by grae alone# We start out with what loo.s li.e a ontradition to the last statement:

!alvation is by wor.s, that is doingperfectlyeverything that the law says# 7Be perfet asyour $ather in heaven is perfet7 (8att A:="#

7God###will render to eah one aording to his deeds7IPsalm @:&, whih is very

7evangelial7J: eternal life to those who by patient ontinuane in doing good see. for

glory, honor and immortality but to those who do not obey the truth, but obey

unrighteousnessindignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of manwho does evil, of the +ew first and also of the Gree. but glory, honor, and peae to

everyone who wor.s what is good, to the +ew first and also to the Gree.# $or there is no

partiality with God# $or as many as have sinned without the law will also perish without

the law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be 5udged by the law (for not the

hearers of the law are 5ust in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be 5ustified"(omans :Ab0&


29/37

This is true even now# But where was this instituted if not in the reation of man and the

7arrangement7 God imposed upon 2damE emember, already 2braham needed to be

5ustified by faith, and even 2bel needed to propitiate God with a 7more e9ellent

sarifie7 (eb &&:="# owever, if you ould onvine God that you have done perfetly

all the things of is law, you would, no doubt be aepted# The hereti Pelagius saw

learly that 7the doers of the law will be 5ustified,7 but he did not see that sine the fallof 2dam no one an .eep the law# *ndeed he did not see that our natures were orrupt

and that we had already bro.en the law in 2dam (omans A" when he sinned in the

Garden of >den (!eeberg, -ol * - vol &,


30/37

The progressive dispensationalism of %ew Testament theology is not antinomian# $or

while it teahes that 8osai ovenant law has ended dispensationally, it also teahes

that it has been replaed by new ovenant law, and it presents this dispensational hange

as integral to God/s plan of redemption whih affirms and fulfills the divine demand for

righteousness and holiness even as it saves and eternally blesses the redeemed

(&rogressive Dispensationalism&''"#

The 7?aw of Christ7 is not against the promises, as they will admit, but there are people

among the Campbellites, and even some Baptists, for e9ample, who strive to be 5ustified

by the %ew Testament laws as a whole or by what they regard as the 7%ew ?aw,7

namely, faith seen as their gift to God# %eonomianism is as dangerous to salvation as

any other form of legalism, perhaps more so beause it is so subtle# What )elit4sh says

about the 8osai ?aw is also appliable to the 7?aw of Christ7:

The law urses all those who do not absolutely fulfil all its ommands, and therefore

leaves man only the threefold possibility, either arnally to ignore it, or to despair, or to

ta.e refuge in mery ()ld estament 1istory of !edemption@"#

2nd mery is in Christ alone who died to seure salvation for his people# 72nd you shall

all is name +esus, for e will save is people from their sins7 (8att &:&"#

2s for the new ovenant, Bunyan is very lear that it is the same ovenant of grae in

Old Testament times#

!o then when he saith, 7The days are ome, in whih * will ma.e a new ovenant,7 it is

rather to be meant a hanging of the administration, a ta.ing away of the type, the

shadow, the eremonies form the house of *srael and +udah, and relieving by the birth of

Christ, and the death of Christ, and the offering of the body of him, whom God the

$ather had given for a ransom by ovenant for the souls of the saints and also to

manifest the truth of the ovenant, whih was made between the $ather and the !on

before the world began# (he Doctrine of $aw and race


31/37

8osai ovenant reahes its ripest fruition in the new ovenant# !o great is the

enhanement that a omparative ontrast an be stated as if it were an absolute7 ( he

Covenant of race"#

Greg Bahnsen, after a hapter on the Continuity %etween the Covenants on the $aw,

gives some good detail on the disontinuity, or newness of the %ew Covenant# 7The%ew Covenant surpasses the Old in glory, power, reali4ation, and finality7 (%y his

Standard &A="# e elaborates further to show the glory of the %ew Covenant is shown

to be greater in righteousness and life as ompared with ondemnation and death# 7The

law is goodindeed ordained unto life7 (ibid# &AA" as Paul says, but it does not have thepower to bring life to the dead# 7The Old Covenant law ommanded good things, but

only the gospel ould fully onfer them the righteousness demanded by the law was

only supplied with the redemptive wor. of Christ7 (ibid# &A@"# There is also a greater

onfidene to approah God and the glory of the %ew Covenant is permanent not

temporary li.e that of the Old# 2s for power, the new provides 7further and stronger

motivation to obey the law7 (ibid# &A'", and that obediene is empowered by God# The

%ew Covenant surpasses the Old in reali4ation# The promised redemption is atuallyseured by Christ/s death# There is no longer any need for the shadows of the Old

Covenant# 2nd beause this reali4ation is universal, the people of God are redefined# %o

longer are God/s people onfined to a ertain land, 7but under the %ew Covenant the

people of God is an international body omprised of those who have faith in Christ7

(ibid# &@A"# The finality of the %ew Covenant is manifested by the larity of the new

revelation and Christ/s life# This new revelation is effiient for every good wor.# There

is no need that anything else be revealed# This leads to a greater responsibility on the

part of %ew Covenant believers (ibid &@;"# There is a 7newness7 in the %ew Covenant,

but it is based on a general ontinuity with the Old#

Conlusion

8ost %CT adherents laim to be reformed beause they believe in the five points of

Calvinism# 7)on/t ever e1uate Covenant Theology with eformed Theology7

(eisinger =@"# This would ma.e the early )ispensationalists suh as the Plymouth

Brethren and # 2# *ronside reformed beause they also believed the five points of

Calvinism# But no one will buy that argument# andy !eiver is a little more thoughtful

when he as.s, 7!hould we all ourselves 3eformed Baptists300 a seeming ontradition

in terms00even though we differ in many of our emphasis from those who use that titleE7

(1E C!)SS( he 1eart of New Covenant heology"# 2s we have seen, muh

eformed Theology inluding $ederal eadship and a onsistent view of both eletionand partiular atonement must be abandoned by the various shools of %CT beause of

their radial disontinuity# We have also notied that not only the eformed view, but

the historial Protestant view of the Churh and *srael, the relationship between the Old

and %ew Testaments, and the meaning of the ?aw have all been modified in the

diretion of Classial )ispensationalism# *n these sub5ets Progressive

)ispensationalism is loser to the historial protestant view than is %CT# %ew Covenant

Theology is no 7reformed7 theology, sine even their supposed Calvinisti dotrines of

anthropology and soteriology have been altered, partiularly the $ederal eadship

of both 2dam and Christ with all the 7old7 impliations# 8y hope is that the proponents

of %CT will see how muh they have to give up of the good old theology in order to

hang on to their new beliefs with any onsisteny#


32/37

Endnotes:

Those who ob5et to %CT being assoiated with )ispensationalism have no 1ualms

about alling 2rminianism 7semi0Pelagianism7 beause, even though the 2rminians

may not a.nowledge it, the relationship is obvious to anyone who has read even a

small amount of Churh history or Theology# 2rminianism is no doubt a modified formof Pelagianism, although it is not derived from Pelagius himself and probably not even

from his followers# But it is the name we give to the dotrine# !ome 2rminians may not

even li.e being alled 72rminians7 either, sine, they tell us, they get their dotrine

from the !riptures not from 2rminiusF *f one were to start with Classial

)ispensationalism with the 7earthly promises for earthly people,7and a parenthesis

around the hurh age, but then reali4ing that the spiritual is more important than the

earthly, and therefore onluding that the 7earthly people7 were not the real people after

all, they would perhaps put a parenthesis around the time of the 8osai (earthly"

ovenant instead of around the hurh, and even apply all the OTpromisesto the

hurh instead of to *srael# The result would loo. very muh li.e %CT# *t is more

diffiult to imagine modifying Covenant Theology to suh an e9tent that the ovenantsare no longer dispensations of grae (some being radially different from others suh as

the 8osai ovenant being law with no grae" and that the hurh did not even e9ist at

some time# %ot only would the presupposition of basi ontinuity have to be re5eted,

but also the traditional definitions of both 7hurh7 and 7ovenant#7

# et >vangelie braht het Oude Testament mede en .on 4onder dit niet aangenomen

en er.end worden# et >vangelie is immers de vervulling van de beloften des Ouden

Testaments en hangt 4onder de4e in de luht, en het Oude Testament is het voetstu.,

waar het >vangelie op rust, de wortel, waaruit het gegroeid is# oodra het >vangelie

ergens ingang vond, werden daarmede en daarin oo. tegeli5. en 4onder eenige

tegenspre.ing de !hriften des Ouden Testaments als het Woord Gods aanvaard# )e

%ieuw0testamentishe gemeente bestond dus geen oogenbli. 4onder Bi5bel van den

beginne af was 4i5 in 3t be4it van de wet, de psalmen en de profeten#

va het verbond der wer.en overtreden hadden,

4oo .ondigte de eere een nieuw verbond, een verbond der genade af onder de

woorden: 7>n i. 4al vi5andshap 4etten tusshen u en tusshen de4e vrouw en tusshen

uw 4aad, en tusshen haar 4aad, dat4elve 4al u den .op vermor4elen, en gi5 4ult het

ver4enen vermor4elen#7### 3t i5n .orte woorden, maar behel4en het groote wer. derverlossing van een 4ondaar, de verbre.ing van het geweld des duivels over de

uitver.orenen, de vi5andshap en stri5d van de .inderen Gods en des duivels, den

Persoon, door wien dit uitgevoerd 4ou worden, onder de benaming van 3t 4aad der

vrouw, niet des mans, wel.e is Christus, het 4aad 2brahams, *4a.s, +a.obs, )avids, van

8aria, dewel.e door 4i5nen dood den duivel heeft te niet gedaan, ebr# :&=# A# )e wet,

die bi5 de belofte is bi5ge.omen, heeft die belofte niet .rahteloos gemaa.t of te niet

gedaan, maar haar opgenomen en aan hare ontwi..eling en vervulling dienst bewe4en#

)e belofte is de hoofd4aa., de wet is ondergeshi.t gene is doel,de4e is middel niet in

de wet, maar in de belofte ligt de .ern van Gods openbaring en het hart van *sraels

godsdienst# @# *t has been mentioned in the *ntrodution that -ol.er/s!eformation

Statementseems to deny this, but the sentene 5ust 1uoted must logially mean that theChurh did not e9ist before Penteost and that the Churh is e1ual to 7the %ew


33/37

Covenant people of God7 as ompared with the Old Covenant people and this sentene

being more reent, seems to show a movement in his theology towards a more

onsistent view of disontinuity whih, however, might allow the OT saints to enter the

hurh at Penteost# ;# But even 8oses was not allowed to enter the land of Canaan

beause of his sin of unbelief# 7Then the ?O) spo.e to 8oses and 2aron, 3Beause

you did not believe 'e, to hallow 8e in the eyes of the hildren of *srael, therefore youshall not bring this assembly into the land whih * have given them37 (%um D:&"# 7The

?O) spo.e to 8oses###saying: MGo###and die on the mountain###beause you

transgressed against 8e among the hildren of *srael at the waters of 8eribah Hadesh in

the Wilderness of in, beause you did not hallow 8e in the midst of the hildren of

*srael/7 ()eut


34/37

dat Christus door 4i5ne dadeli5.e gehoor4aamheid voor de uitver.orenen reht tot het

eeuwige leven verworven heeft geli5. wi5 4ien in versheidene parti5en, die om hunne

dwalingen in het laatste, het eerste ont.ennen, daarom is hi5, die het -erbond der

Wer.en ont.ent, met reht verdaht te houden, dat er oo. wat hapert omtrent het

-erbond der Genade# &=# *t is interesting that -ol.er uses the phrase 7under the law7 to

desribe the believer/s relationship with the law# Biblial language says 7But if you areled by the !pirit, you are %OT under the law7 (Gal# A:&"# &A# *t is not surprising that

Bunyan sees the new ovenant throughout the Old Testament and the old ovenant even

in our age sine for him they are priniples rather than temporal ovenants# 7!ouls being

ignorant of the nature of the old ovenant, do even, by their sub5eting to several

gospel0ordinanes, run themselves under the old ovenant, and fly off from Christ, even

when they thin. they are oming loser to him#7 ( he Doctrine of $aw and race &'D"#

2 failure to understand Bunyan/s definitions of the old and new ovenants will no doubt

lead to misunderstanding many of his statements# #

Bibliography

2le9ander, +# 2# he &rophecies of .saiah I&;AJ# ondervan, Grand apids, &';=#

2llis, O#T#&rophecy and the ChurchI$irst >ditionJ# Presbyterian and eformed,

Philadelphia, &'=A#

2ugustine#City of od2The %iene and Post0%iene $athers of the Christian Churh,

-olume **, edited by Philip !haff, >erdmans, Grand apids, &'< (r"#

Baon, ihard# Personal e0mail disussions, &''

Bahnsen, Greg#%y his Standard( the -uthority of od8s 5ord oday# Tyler, TL: The

*nstitute for Christian >onomis, &'A#

Barrett, C# H#- Commentary on the Epistle to the !omansI&'A;J# endri.son

Publishers, Peabody, 8assahusetts, &';#

Bavin., #'agnalia Dei( )nderwi*+ing in de Christeli*ke !eligie naar

ereformeerde %eli*denis# +# # Ho., Hampen, I%ederlandJ, &'D'#

Ber.hof, ?ouis# Systematic heology, %ew >dition# >erdmans, Grand apids, &''@#

Blaising, Craig and )arrell ?# Bo.#&rogressive Dispensationalism# Bridge Point,

Wheaton, &'' !edeli*ke odsdienst# Three volumes bound in

two# )# )onner, ?eiden, I%ederlandJ,

Bunyan, +ohn# he Doctrine of $aw and race


35/37

Calvin, +ohn#.nstitutes of the Christian !eligion I&A# W# Christology of the )ld estament I&A=0&A;J# Hregel, Grand

apids, &'; (r"#

eppe, einrih#!eformed Dogmatics# Ba.er Boo.s, Grand apids, &'; (r"#

ohner, )onald and G# ihard Gaudreau# - Comparison of hree Systems(

Dispensationalism 4 Covenant heology 4 New Covenant heology#

odge, 2rhibald 2# he -tonement2I&@;J >vangelial Press, ?ondon, &';=#

odge, Charles#- Commentary on !omansI&@=J# The Banner of Truth Trust,

>dinburgh, &'< (r"#

odge, Charles# Systematic heology, -olume **# >erdmans, Grand apids, &''< (r"#

?eith, +ohn, editor# Creeds of the Church, Third >dition# +ohn Hno9 Press, 2tlanta,

&'#

?eupold, # C#E6position of enesis# The Wartburg Press, Columbus, &'=#

?uther, 8artin (eberset4er"#Die %ibel oder die gan+e 1eilige Schrift# Conordia

Publishing ouse, !t# ?ouis, &'A#

$uther, 'artin#?ur+e -uslegung des ?leinen ?atechismus# Conordia Publishing

ouse, !t# ?ouis, n# d#

?uther, 8artin#$ectures on !omans# I&A&A0&A&@J The ?ibrary of Christian

Classis,-olume L-# The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, &'@

8ahen, +# Gresham# Christianity and ?iberalism# Grand apids: >erdmans, &';=, (r"#

8urray, +ohn# Collected 5ritings of 7ohn 'urray# Banner of Truth, >dinburgh, &';;#

8urray, +ohn# he Covenant of raceI&'A


36/37

8urray, +ohn#!edemption4-ccomplished and -ppliedI&'AAJ# >erdmans, Grand apids,

&'A, (r"#

Orr, +ames, editor# he .nternational Standard %ible EncyclopaediaI&''J # >erdmans,

Grand apids, &'= (r"#

Penteost, +# )wight# hings to Come# )unham Publishing Company, Grand apids,

&'@= (r"#

eisinger, +ohn G#-braham8s Four Seeds( -n e6amination of the basic

presuppositionsof covenant theology and dispensationalism222etc2I!ound of Grae,

Webster, %KJ n# d#

!haff, Philip (revised by )avid !# !haff"# he Creeds of Christendom -olume

***#Ba.er Boo.s, Grand apids, &'', (r"

!ofield, C#* (>ditor"# he New Scofield !eference%ible# O9ford niversity Press, %ewKor., &'@;

!eeberg, einhold# e6t4book of the 1istory of DoctrinesItwo volumes in oneJ# Ba.er

Boo.s, Grand apids, &''@ (r"#

!hedd, William G# T# Commentary on !omans I&;'J# Ba.er Boo. ouse, Grand

apids, &'D (r"#

!eiver, andy# I/!andy Sievers/ in some documentsJ1E C!)SS( he 1eart of New

Covenant

heology http(""www2cet2com"@dlavoie"solo2christo"theology"nct"crossAnct2html

!eiver, andy he New Covenant in &romise and

Fulfillment2http(""www2cet2com"@dlavoie"solo2christo"theology"nct"promisefulfill2html

!teele, )avid %# and Curtis C# Thomas#!omans( -n .nterpretive )utline# Presbyterian

and eformed, Phillipsburg, %ew +ersey#

-an ?eeuwen, +# 2# C# en )# +aobs#De %rief aan de !omeinen in Horte -er.laring der

eilige !hrift# +# # Ho., Hampen, I%ederlandJ, &'


37/37

Zaspel, Fred # he heology of

Fulfillment2http(""www2pottsville2infi2net"@tulip"fulfllntB2htm

ens, +on-n E6amination )f he &resuppositions )f Covenant -nd Dispensational

heology2

http(""www2cet2com"@dlavoie"solo2christo"theology"nct"&resuppositions"presup2cov2html

ens, +on#.s here - /Covenant )f race0/ (si"#

http:66www#et#om6dlavoie6solo#hristo6theology6nt6ovenant#html

Iun.nownJ'illions Disappear( Fact or fictionE $at or $ition, P#O# Bo9 ;&

Documents

The Problem With Radical Discontinuity