(Fred) I would agree with you that a dispensational hermeneutic sees too much discontinuity, however, and once again, discontinuity does not equate a dispensational hermeneutic. Is it your contention then, that CTers can see too much continuity? Say for instance the reconstructionist/theonomy crowd? The reverse is also true in my case: The more proper discontinuity the more proper interpretation of scripture.
Yes, of course “some” can see too much continuity-hyper conventionalism, theonomy and so forth (I have never stated otherwise TMK). However, BCT, unlike HCs drift toward Dispensationalism…. From the CT perspective (the balanced perspective) it looks something like this (con = continuity):
<p align="center">Dispy ****************************************************Covenantal
+--------------------------------------------------------Balance----------------------------+
FD…….……...……......……BCT………….……...….…...……CT……….…………...…..………HC
discon<<<<<<<<<more con<<<<<<<<balance of con/dis>>>>>too much con</p>
Of course, there are positions all along this spectrum (if the chart above does not look correct on your viewer, please look at the attachment). As you can see from our perspective BCT is more dispensational and less covenantal. I wonder where NCT is on this scale? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Ponder.gif" alt="" />
(Fred) You seem to be making the argument that there exists no discontinuity between the OC and the NC. If you think there is discontinuity between the two, please elaborate why that then is not a dispensational hermeneutic.
Read again, I have made no argument of that sort. CT is the proper balance of continuity and discontinuity.
(Fred) O. Palmer Robertson disagrees with you. Re-read his last chapter Christ: The Covenant of Consummation. Through out that chapter he makes statements like, "This uniqueness sets the NC apart from the previous covenantal dealings with his people" and "A 'new' covenant shall replace all of God's previous covenantal dealings" and "Because of the radical incapacity of man to keep God's covenant, no lasting purpose will be served through a future reestablishment of this same covenantal relationship." pp. 276, 281. [emphasis mine]. Robertson's basically argues in the same manner as Malone. So, why is he wrong?
One must wonder about the full context of your isolated quotes. Robertson also said, “When the writer of the book of Hebrews speaks of an "everlasting covenant" (Hebrews 13:20) it describes an unbroken covenant that runs
continually throughout the ages!” Moreover, you ought to be old enough in the faith to know by now that all Reformed theologians do not agree on all issues (i.e. Per Murray, Calvin and Hendriksen are wrong in their interpretation of Roman 5:12-21, and you appear to disagree with Big Mac on NCT, etc.).
The NC is
a continuing of the OC in a better form and only in this way may we properly understand and use the term “abolished.” In your comments you have failed to realize that the law (part of the OC) is divided into three parts: the (1) civil, (2) ceremonial, and (3) moral. What part(s) are totally “abolished” in Christ? As I stated earlier:
The “ceremonial” laws were shadows or types of that which was to come (i.e. the atonement of Christ) and thus are fulfilled in Christ. The book of Hebrews makes this abundantly clear. The “civil” law was given to Israel as a theocracy and they were shadows or types of the New Heavens and New Earth. The “moral” law (which did not originate on Mt. Sinai, but in the beginning), being the very expression of the nature of God cannot be made obsolete by the coming of Christ or your short history lesson above!
Do you believe that the civil and ceremonial laws were “totally abolished”? Do you believe the “moral” laws (part of the OC) were “totally” abolished? If you believe the “moral” laws were “abolished” are you not an antinomian? If you do not believe they were abolished, then do they not
continue on in even a better form, being written upon our hearts, etc.!
John Murray reminds us that the contrast spoken of here "is not expressed in terms of difference between covenant and something else not a covenant. The contrast is within the ambit of covenant" (Covenant of Grace), that is, it is within the covenant itself. That is seen within the prophet’s own description of the new covenant, in which God will put his law in the inward hearts of his people. The newness of the new covenant is not in terms of the features of covenant – the same law is to be upheld and applied – but in terms of its internalisation. The covenant will provide, as it always has done, for a personal relationship between God and his own – "I … will be their God and they shall be my people" (v33), and they will know him, and will know him as a God who forgives sin (v34). As the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it, "there are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations" (vii.6).
1. With each successive era of redemptive revelation, each administration of the covenant built on what went before, substantially developed and added to it, and anticipated a further revelation to come. Each administration constitutes a re-casting and re-forming of the previous administrations, until the covenant is cast in its perfect form with the coming and the work of Jesus Christ.
2. As redemptive history progressed, the arc of OT revelation got wider, and the focus of God’s redemptive purpose became narrower, until at last all the covenant provision of grace focused on Christ.
3. At that point, the interest became wider again, as more and more are brought into the covenant of grace, fulfilling the promise of the covenant of redemption, because of the perfect discharging of the obligations of the covenant of works on the part of the Saviour.
By stating that the OCs are totally “abolished” (in the sense you use the term) you make God a liar! The Abrahamic Covenant is characterized as
everlasting (Gen 17:7; Ps 105:10), as is the Mosaic (Ex 40:15; Lev 16:34, 24:8; Isa 24:5) and the Davidic (2 Sam 7:13, 16; Psa 89:3-4, 132:11-12). The OCs continue on in some sense (as already explained) in the NC. There is a continuity in the covenants, because they are ONE covenant. If you see less continuity in the covenants then you have a dispy hermeneutic! Even Malone says, “The New Testament also describes the
unity between the two testaments in terms of typological promise and
fulfillment.” However, Malone reveals his inconsistency in his interpretative technique when he then states,
For instance, we can study Hebrews and see how the Old Testament sacrificial system was glorious and typological of Christ’s work, thereby understanding His work better. However, the same book declares the abolition of the Old Testament system through a typologically greater fulfillment in Christ (Hebrews 10:1-17). (p 45)
Here Malone affirms “the Old Testament sacrificial system was glorious and typological of Christ’s work,” however then he goes to far when he states the book declares
the abolition of the Old Testament system. Is the OC “abolished” or “fulfilled”? Is there a lesser God in the OC? How many times does the NC quote the OC? Malone with others fail to realize in their exegetical hermeneutic that God has ONE covenant unfolding in redemptive history to the glory of God alone. The NC is a fuller and clearer revelation of God’s ONE covenant as seen in redemptive history, however this does not mean that the OC is passed away in its entirety or that it is without authority. God is the FINAL AUTHORITY in BOTH testaments. Here is a cute illustration (though as we all know they break down):
Suppose, early in 1992, you pulled a "Rip Van Winkle" and fell into a lengthy sleep. You have only now just awakened. When you fell asleep, George H. Bush was President of the United States. Now you awaken to find that a man by the name of George W. Bush is President. What would you conclude? Well, you’d probably make the correct assumption that the elder Bush was no longer president and that his son had been elected sometime during the intervening years. You would also assume that, essentially, the laws of the land were the same—e.g. you’d still send in your taxes (and don’t forget those back taxes for the years you were asleep) to the IRS—but that these laws were now being administered by a new administration and in somewhat different fashion.
Relate this scenario to the covenantal question and you have the view of Covenant Theology regarding a man living first in the Old Covenant age and then in the New. Just like the case in our example, going from the Old Testament age into the New is a fairly homogenous process. A change has occurred at the top, but little has actually changed for the "man on the street." Men are saved the same way, the "church" of the Old Testament now becomes the "church" of the New Testament, and the laws under which we are to live are basically the same, though administered somewhat differently. We have a new and better Administrator of the covenant—Jesus—but it is fundamentally the same covenant.
Now, assume the same scenario as described above–except that, this time, when you awake, a 29 year old German citizen named Fritz Von Somethingoranother is President. What would you conclude? Well, it’s clear that what has transpired is far more than a mere change of administration! Our constitution (and we’re assuming it hasn’t been amended) requires the President to be at least 35 years of age and an American citizen. To discover that a 29 year old German is President means that a fundamental change in the government of the land has taken place. No longer could you just assume that it was "business as usual." You’d know that you owed taxes to somebody (we always do!), but you could no longer assume that the IRS was even operable! The government in place when you fell asleep must have been replaced by another, and you would naturally assume that everything has changed, including even your citizenship. Note the discontinuity. The basic presumption is that all previous laws have been swept away and replaced by new ones.
In addition, how do we deal with these statements of Malone?
Perhaps a better way to view the New Covenant is not in terms of the conditional/unconditional issue but in terms of whether it is breakable or unbreakable. The Sinai Covenant was breakable by covenant members because their weakness (not God’s), and because that covenant contained a blessing-cursing formula within it. … However, the New Covenant is not like the Sinai Covenant in this respect. It is unbreakable simply because God supplies the circumcised heart in every member by which they will keep it (Deut 30:6; Ezek 36:26; Jer 32:40; Joel 2:28). The New Covenant is the Divine unilateral Covenant (p. 85)
Malone assumes the NC cannot be broken. While in both covenants the elect cannot fully fall away, it is also true that in BOTH covenants that sin is a covenant violation? Sin is the cause of the curse! In addition in the NC, as in the old, some are not saved! Besides, Hebrews gives warning about breaking the NC;
Heb 10:21-31 and having a great priest over the house of God;
let us draw near with a true heart in fulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience: and having our body washed with pure water,
let us hold fast the confession of our hope that it waver not; for he is faithful that promised:
and let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works;
not forsaking our own assembling together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting one another; and so much the more, as ye see the day drawing nigh.
For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins,
but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and a fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversaries.
A man that hath set at nought Moses law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses:
of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood <span style="background-color:#FFFF00">of the covenant </span>
wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
For we know him that said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
There is still a visible/invisible church distinction, and people can still break the covenant.
However, Malone should not baptize a single individual until glorification. Here is his formula for choosing whom to baptize. Ask yourself how can he prove his stipulations? I will offer some questions along the way in
bold.
Who then is a member of the present New Covenant administration? New Covenant members are those disciples of Jesus Christ who have the law written on their hearts by the Holy Spirit of God (and we know this how?), who know God experientially by faith (and we know this how?), and who possess in reality the forgiveness of sins (and we know this how?), (Heb 8:8-12). These are the circumcised of heart (and we know this how?), the true (and we know this how?), the faith seed of Abraham (and we know this how?), the seed of Christ (and we know this how?), the people for whom He died (and we know this how?), the sheep whom He will keep from falling and bring safely to the eternal kingdom (and we know this how?). They individually possess all the New Covenant blessings, have Christ as an effectual Mediator, and are the true fulfilled seed of Abraham, the new Israel of God (Gal 6:16). These alone are entitled to the New Covenant sign of baptism, evidenced by their confession of Christ as Lord (p. 91).
In essence, Malone states one knows whom the elect are by their confession alone. However, confession does not prove election. Based on Malone’s assessment one can not baptize a single person this side of heaven, unless one may know they are elect! Yet a Baptist or any other, save our LORD alone, knows whom the elect are! According to Malone’s formula Credos cannot baptize infants or adults! What a hermeneutic
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/rofl7.gif)
