I was doing some research for a paper I am writing for a new class at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. The class is "grace theology seminar." This is the first time Central has offered this class, so we are kind of the lab rats. Anyway, my topic involves comparing dispensational and covenantal ideas of grace. This may well be described as a vague topice, because there really is a great deal of overlap in the concepts of grace between the two systems. However, I was told that it may be helpful to look for areas of non-overlap.
Naturally I began doing some reading on the covenant of grace (the primary of the two or three covenants recognized by covenantal theologians), and found that covenantal theology defines the covenant of grace as "That gracious agreement between the offended God and the offending but elect sinner, in which God promises salvation through faith in Christ, and the sinner accepts this believingly, promising a life of faith and obedience." Not too much difficulty there. It seems straightforward and biblical (although some may wonder what "faith in Christ" means, especially as it relates to OT saints).
My difficulty came when I read a little further. As Berkof sees it, the covenant of grace allows for the non-elect to be included. On page 276 of his Systematic Theology, He states, "In both the Old and New Testament, the covenant as a historical phenomenon is perpetuated in successive gernerations and includes many in whom the covenant life is never realized." I have yet to understand exactly what this means, but it seems that he is saying that the kids of the elect (who can very well be non-elect) somehow participate in the covenant of grace. The answer may be in the phrase "historical phenomenon." But initially, it would seem that the non elect share the covenant of grace with the elect.
I do not know all the ramifications of this. Upon further reading in Berkoff I may find that it does not make a large difference at all. My real question is, does the literature of covenant theologians since 1941 (when Berkoff's Systematic was written) fall into line with this? And if so, to what extent, and with what interpretation?
I guess I still have a lot of reading to do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This blog is retarded.
I think what you are seeing in Berkof is consistent with what he believed. Berkof was Presbyterian, and obviously take peado-baptism which also envisions those who are not regenerate as partaking in the blessings of the covenant. This, they would argue, is analogous to Israelites who, though not apart of true Isreal, were nevertheless partaking of God's covenant blessings. The trouble I see is that in this New Covenant period, the covenant benefits we enjoy are primarily spiritual in their essence. Thus, how is it that an unregenerate recieves or partakes in the blessings of union with Christ. My guess is that the covenantal theologian would argue that Romans 2 would be an instance of such a general blessing of unregenerates in association with the covenant (see 3:1; that is assuming they see Rom. 2 as a Jewish Moralist).
covenant baptism vs believer's baptism. I struggle with the scriptural support, although I like the framework of the covenants of grace and redemption
Hi Rob and Julie!
This is Laura (Krause) Scalzitti. I found your blog through Katie B.'s I think. Anyhow, I am very interested in this topic right now since we found a church we love out here in Hawaii. It's a Bible church and they are covenant in their theology. I was never really clear on this topic and am really trying to learn "what's the big deal/difference?" We are also meeting with the Pastor soon and I want to be able to ask some questions. so thanks!
You might find Berkof to be helpful (Systematic Theology). He does a very good job laying out the basics. The only problem is that he is dated (1940's).
Post a Comment