The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Fred Malone a dispensationalist?

Steve while YOU may “suggest” that they are not, the Scripture (i.e. God) says they are! You have already been shown this here.

However, God has ONE covenant plan of redemption which is developed throughout HIS redemptive history. Beginning with Adam we see this covenantal relationship (Hosea 6:7). Although the first Adam fell and came under the sanctions of the Covenant of Works, God in His sovereignty revealed to him, (in embryonic form), a redemptive economy, with the promise of “the seed” (see WCF VII.3). There was even an enjoyment of the covenant-grace before the ratification of the Abrahamic Covenant as seen in Genesis 5:22; 6:8-9.

The Noahic Covenant continues in the vein of grace. Here we actually see the first time “covenant” is used in Scripture (berith; Gen 6:18, etc.). The provisions of this covenant are the results of God’s gracious favour—man did not earn or merit them. The physical salvation of Noah and his family from the flood is a symbol of spiritual redemption from judgment, by faith in God’s divine promise. Calvin states,

This covenant was made with all creation, and the terms of this covenant are still in force today. Steve do you have rainbows in your backyard or have those been “obliterated”? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rainbow.gif" alt="" />

Next the Abrahamic Covenant comes in God’s historic order revealing even more of His redemptive plan. In Genesis 12:1-3 the promises made to Abram are covenantal. The covenant here is ratified by sacrifice (Gen 15) and confirmed by the sign and seal of circumcision (Gen 17). This covenant is referred to in Scripture more than any of the others and the NEW Covenant is clearly an extension of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gal 3:8-9; Gen. 12:3; 18:18; 22:18).

When the NEW Covenant refers to the superiority of the NEW over the OLD, “in context” this NEVER refers to the Old Testament in its entirety (remember the civil, ceremonial, and moral aspects of the law). As matter a fact if you will check “your references” you will discover that each is to the Mosaic Covenant in these instances (i.e. 2 Cor 3; Gal 3; Heb 7-8, etc.) and not the Abrahamic. The NT never states that Abrahamic Covenant passed away in its entirety (though parts have been changed in its administrative aspects; i.e. circumcision to baptism), rather it states that the covenant with Abraham will bless ALL the nations of the earth and that Christian believers of EVERY race are described as the “children of Abraham” (Gen 12:3, Gal 3:29). Did you note that the Abrahamic Covenant is “an everlasting” covenant as well (Gen 17:19)? There is covenant UNITY and EVERLASTINGNESS.

The Mosaic Covenant continues God’s historical redemptive plan. God identifies himself at the burning bush to Moses as the God of Abraham—the God of the covenant (Ex 3:6) though the first express reference to the “covenant” is found later (Ex 19:5-6). The connection between these two covenants is VERY close. As E.J. Young states, ‘a proper understanding of the events at Sinai will make it clear that the covenant of Sinai was only an administration of a covenant that was already in existence.’ As Berkhof comments, ‘the orthodox Reformed view of this covenant has been that it was essentially the same as that established with Abraham, though the form differed somewhat.’ Even at Horeb God reminded the people of the covenant with Abraham (Deut 1:8) and when Moses plead with the LORD in behalf of the golden calf incident in was based upon the covenant (Ex 32:13; the name Abraham is used, not Abram, a covenant name). God also reminded the people that when they repented of their sins, He would be mindful of His covenant with Abraham (Lev 26:42; Deut 4:31).

There is covenant UNITY and EVERLASTINGNESS.

Now, we come to the Davidic Covenant. As Golding states, ‘the formal element in Israel has grown, so the original promise of Genesis 3:15 to Adam, and of Genesis 17 to Abraham, had become progressively obscured, thus almost necessitating reiteration of the covenant. Consequently, 2 Samuel 7 records a further, and yet more specific revelation of the divine promise, given by means of the covenant with David.’ You may observe this covenant in Psalms 89:3-4, 28, 34. Of course, the Davidic Covenant clarified, deepened, and focused on the ONE who will descend from King David. A major point of this covenant is the fact that it is made with David in his kingly office and in this way God establishes how He will reign over His Kingdom—by a King of His own appointing—King Jesus, from the lineage of David (Gen 49; Jer 33:1; Is 11:1, compare Matt 1:1). As O Palmer Robertson states, ‘The Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants do not supplant one another; they supplement one another.’ There is covenant UNITY and EVERLASTINGNESS.

Lastly, is the Covenant with Christ. This is referred to as the New Covenant and the last covenant. However, “new” does not mean completely different. Yes, Steve you have stressed phases like “not according to” (Jer 31:31) and “obsolete” (Heb 8:13), but out of their overall context. The “new” is new not because it is contrary to the first covenant, but because there is a clearer and fuller manifestation of God’s gracious unfolding plan of redemption. The “new” fulfills the “old” in a way that transcends it, but not “obliterating” it into non-existence (after-all its ONE Covenant). If “obliterated” then the Adamic is GONE, and yet Christ is not called the “first” man Adam, but rather the “last.” See there is still continuity and unity. The OT saints were saved by grace and faith, however, if these OCs are “obliterated” how is the NC saint saved. However, they are not “obliterated” are they (Eph 2:8-9)?

2 Corinthians 3 refers to the NEW Covenant. The NEW Covenant is here explained in its richness and fullness. It is the ministration of the Spirit as the Spirit of life (vss. 6, 8); it is the ministration of righteousness (vs. 9), and of liberty (vs. 17). Furthermore the NC is the dispensation of the forgiveness of sins (Heb 8:12). In all this the covenant is seen a sovereign administration of grace and promise, constituting a relation with God. However, at the center of this relationship is still the OC promise, “I will be your God and ye shall be my people” (Gen 3:8, 17:22, 18:33, 35:13; Lev 26:12; Jer 7:23, 11:4; 30:32; Ezek 14:11, 36:28, 37:23, 27, etc.). There is covenant UNITY and EVERLASTINGNESS.

Thus, as one may see, NOT ACCORDING TO (Jer 31:31) does not mean a complete doing away with. It means in a different manner as demonstrated even in the verse cited:

Here it says that the LORD will put HIS LAW in their inward parts. The tables of stone would be put upon the tables of our heart. This is the primary manner [not only] in which the Old in different from the New. Please note that the NEW Covenant is here contrasted with the Mosaic Covenant, not the Abrahamic. A NEW Covenant was essential as the Mosaic law was given on two tables of stone, thus being outside of man. The NEW Covenant is living, inside of man, as distinct from the ethics outside of him. Yes, the NC is a better covenant (Heb 7:22), has a better hope (7:19), with better promises (8:6), a more excellent ministry (8:6), a greater and more perfect tabernacle (9:11), a better sacrifice (9:23), a new and living way (10:20), and of course, has a greater and more excellent High Priest (8:1), however the NC is the FULFILLMENT of the OC, and NOT its “obliteration” as you would have us believe. The Bible does not condemn the law, rather it condemns the weakness of the flesh to keep it. Jeremiah condemned Israel for not keeping the covenant (Jer 31:32; 2:5, 13, 20, 32, etc.), but did not condemn the law (Rom 7:12; 1 Tim 1:8).

Steve I use to be Baptist and held to its errors. I preached that error for years, for which I humbly asked God to forgive me and He extended immeasurable grace. I became a paedo when actually studying the issue of Baptism and Dispensationalism and seeing the error of the hermeneutic method, etc. Moreover, discussions here at the Highway and other sources helped me see the truth—so I could be free indeed.

Yes, ‘All the promises in [Christ] are Yes, and in Him, Amen.' However, HE gave the promises to Adam, Noah, Abraham, David and thus ‘All the promises in [Christ] are Yes, and in Him, Amen,' to them as well!

As far as understanding the NT with the OT I think one needs to re-read the OT/NT. One should NOT place one part of God's Word ABOVE another--it is all holy, just, and good, besides;

Please note that above I have stressed the continuity of the covenants, since this is the “problem” most have. However, please realize that there is discontinuity as well. An understanding of CT like any other truth will need a person who is diligent in study and a desire to truly learn the reality of Scripture. I apologize for not understanding it better than I do, so I could make it clearer and a reality in other's lives. I need more study so I may be a better servant. LORD help us all to grow in grace and truth.