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

Jonathan Edwards wrote:-

Notwithstanding Grace2u has allegedly repented of his actions, however keeps singing the same ‘ol song).

I have much to repent of, but this isn't part of it. Anyone who calls me 'Dispensational' still gets called 'Hyper-covenantal' <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Giving people labels and calling them names is actually a very poor way of carrying on a discussion, though it is an easy one.

Blessings,
Steve

I perceive some confusion here on your part:

1) Paedobaptists don't start with Abraham, in regard to the Covenant of Grace (CoG) but with Adam. (Gen 3:15)

2) The CoG was NOT made in eternity, but in time. The "Covenant of Redemption, aka: Covenant of Peace, was established in eternity between the Father and Son (Holy Spirit implied), which was the expression of God's eternal decree to save the elect. The Father predestinates, the Son agrees to atone for those predestined and to send forth the Holy Spirit to apply the benefits of that atonement upon those who the Father predestined. The CoG was the establishment of that eternal covenant with the elect in time, beginning with Adam and all the godly seed.

The hermeneutical issue is inextricably bound to one's Biblical Theology. Historic CT sees the CoG as progressive; beginning with Adam and continuing throughout all history until the last man is redeemed. Throughout that history, until the coming of Christ, God unfolded the specifics of that covenant in various ways, each emphasizing one or more aspects/facets of it and thus unveiling more and more of its "mystery". The "new covenant" simply brought about a fuller expression of that one CoG and with it came a fullness, albeit in part, of it's understanding. In its "old covenant" form, there were various elements which reflected upon the types and shadows of its essence. And likewise, in the "new covenant" form those elements reflect its greater fullness. For example, the looking forward to the shedding of blood was shown in the covenant sign of circumcision of the "old administration" of the covenant, in anticipation. And in the "new administration" of the covenant, its sign of baptism looks back upon what that shedding of blood accomplished from the aspect of completion.

The CoG has to do with the "spiritual seed", i.e., the elect of God. Too many Baptists conflate physical Israel with the seed, the same mistake, albeit not to the same degree, as did the Jews of Jesus' day. There has always been and always will be two lines that exist within the human race. But there is only one covenant of grace from which the promise of salvation was given and is applied to those whom God had eternally predestined to salvation.

In His Grace,

I have to admit that Malone's book confused me at several points. He uses Covenant language and is dogmatic about proclaiming his covenant theology but his interpretation is a unique blending of covenant and dispensational theology.
I have the book highlighted but I will not have access to it for a week or so. I feel bad making the statement without the documentation to back it up but perhaps someone else noticed the same issue.
One think I do remember, and it's what caused me to be on the alert. He mentioned the PCA position on families and their covenant children early in his book. He suggested that their hard line was one reason he couldn't accept the PCA teaching on baptism. The only problem is that he quoted from the first Book of Church Order that the PCA ever had. It has undergone a number of revisions since then and the paragraph he quoted is not even recognizable anymore. That misrepresentation had to be either intentional or completely misinformed. I could have understood if he stated it as a historic position but he presented it as if it were the current views.
Blessings,
M Cannon
http://www.xulonpress.com/bookstore/titles/1597810096.htm

This statement begs the question since there is a New Covenant, then there must have been a “former” covenant—since this one is “new” (I will explain “new” and/or “former” later). Indeed, there were “former” covenants (which are ONE unfolding covenant, which includes the NC) with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David. Should we not begin reading a book, especially “the book” at the beginning? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/read.gif" alt="" />

Ask yourself about God’s divine order of the Holy Scriptures. God could have begun the Bible at Luke 22:20 and then later added, through divine revelation, Gen-Mal, but He didn’t. God began His Word at the beginning. Redemptive History has a history and we are not justified in short circuiting it. Our understanding of it must begin at the same place as God’s revelation to us (at the beginning) or we will “inevitably end up missing the point.” The Bible is the study of the progressive unfolding of the redemptive revelation of God in terms of its consummation in the New Covenant. Just because Jesus came “in the fulness of time,” (Gal 4:4) does not mean we should neglect the study of “the times past,” (Heb 1:1).

The Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic covenants don’t "just" fit in! They are a part of the history of redemption the way God, who is sovereign, designed them! However there is a redemptive end and inauguration in Christ. The OT is quoted in the NT approximately 224 times (Roger Nichole). The New Testament as a whole quotes from 34 books of the OT and Jesus himself quotes 24 different OT books. If we include allusions, the total rises dramatically, with tallies ranging from 442 to 4,105 (Ronald Youngblood). The OT/OCs do MUCH more than just fit in. They are part and parcel of the overall story of redemption. We do a severe injustice to God and His Word by not studying the OT or by putting the NT “above” the OT—it is ALL God’s Word!

It is evident when you speak of the OC and the NC you speak of TWO different covenants (a dispensational hermeneutic), however when a CTer speaks of the OC/NC they see a UNITY and recognize it as ONE unfolding covenant. The difference is immense.

Moreover, the “new” in New Covenant does not mean “brand new.” Normally, readers of the NT use Hebrews 8:13 which states, “In that he saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away,” and say the OC is GONE. However, they fail to read the text: (1) it is in the present tense—thus it is still passing away, why, because it is eternally connected to the NC and can never fully pass away and thus the beautiful use of the Greek present tense (2) moreover, Jesus' own words in the Sermon on the Mount, that He had come not to destroy the Law but to fulfil it (Matt 5:17-18) resound even more here. “New” here has the meaning the fulfilling of the OC, not a brand new covenant! To confuse the two is to make yet another grave hermeneutical error in interpretation.

Merely symbolic? So the OCs accomplished “nothing?” So God was not REAL in the OC? Here in one swift stroke you destroyed everything you lectured us on about the OC. Here once again you SEPARATE the OC and the NC seeing (here is that word again), less continuity in them (a dispensational hermeneutic). While the OT saints looked forward to that which was to come (and indeed it is better and more glorious; Heb 7:22), something actuality happens all the way through redemptive history! God has ONE plan not many as in the dispensational mindset. The OT saints “tasted” what was to come—they had a reality of it, but not its completeness (and may I add, neither do we till glory).

So why not begin with Christ and His eternal redemptive plan as opposed to Luke 22? Why not begin our study of redemptive history at its true beginning—Christ and His redemptive plan and not merely its end (the Cross)? Your method presupposes that Christ’s involvement in the OC was of a (here is that word again) lesser importance. To emphasize the most important historical fact (Jesus) you de-emphasize the Christ of the whole OT. However, Jesus has a history going all the way back to Adam. God was sure to state this history, so we would not miss the significance of His covenant plan (Matt 1:1-17; and the other covenants in Luke 3:23-38). Yes, the genealogies of Jesus have a purpose!

There is a unity in the Bible found in the covenants. There is the same essence throughout in the covenants. There is a formula which is found in every covenant. This formula is seen in the phrase: "I shall be your God and you shall be My people." This is illustrated by Abraham (Gen 17:7-8), where God is described as being “their God.” It is quoted by Paul in 2 Cor 6:16, saying “I will be their God, and they shall be my people." This is clearly seen in the goal of God’s redemptive plan in Rev 21:3, where it says, “He shall dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be among them." When the writer of the book of Hebrews speaks of an "everlasting covenant" (Heb 13:20; compare Gen 17:7) it describes an unbroken covenant that runs continually throughout the ages. (notes from Dr. O. Palmer Robertson’s, Old Testament Biblical Theology which can be accessed partially here).

Hi Steve

Although I am in agreement with you about Baptist CT not being dispensational, I think you are being a little bit over sensitive in this matter.
Apparently I have told you something to that effect before, you can see that here and also from another Baptist (Prestor John ) who holds to CT here
If you look at that thread, you will see neither Prestor John nor I were offended.
Believe me when I say this, I know J_Edwards and he didn’t use “dispensational” as a slam. He just believes that if there is some discontinuity between the Covenants, then it is dispensational, in one way or another.
Can you honestly say that you used the word "Hyper-covenantal" in a way that wasn't meant to be a slam?
If you had used "Hyper-covenantal" in a way that was not meant as a slam, I don't really think there would be a problem, other than perhaps him disagreeing with you.

Tom

Hello Pilgrim,
I will reply more fully to your post and to JE later today, but I just want to clear up a matter of nomenclature which seems to be causing confusion between us. You wrote:-
------------------------------------------------------------
2) The CoG was NOT made in eternity, but in time. The "Covenant of Redemption, aka: Covenant of Peace, was established in eternity between the Father and Son (Holy Spirit implied), which was the expression of God's eternal decree to save the elect.
------------------------------------------------------------
That does not seem to me to be the gist of WGF LC. 31 and the associated proof-texts. In my post, what you call the Covenant of Redemption, I called the Covenant of Grace, and what you called the C of G, I called the Adamic Covenant. That is no problem; I will use your nomenclature henceforth. 'That which we call a rose would smell as sweet by any other name.' <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bravo.gif" alt="" />

Blessings,
Steve

I'm afraid you have succeeded in creating more confusion for me, actually.

So, perhaps it would be best to DEFINE THE TERMS! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

The Covenant of Grace
- What is it?
- When was it introduced?
- Who are the parties involved?
- To whom does it apply?

Excuse my ignorance, but I have no idea what this is: "WGF LC. 31" <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Oops! My typo <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />
I meant the Larger Catechism of the Westminster Confession of Faith, which says:-
Q. With whom was the covenant of grace made?
A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as His seed (1Cor 15:22, 45; Eph 1:4; 2Tim 1:9; Isa 53:10-11; Heb 2:10-11, 14 ).

I have taken it that this covenant was made in eternity between Father and Son (and Holy Spirit- Eph 1:13-14 ) and is therefore what you are calling the Covenant of Redemption.

Does that make more sense? It seems to be a trans-Atlantic language problem.

Blessings,
Steve

Hi again Pilgrim,
You wrote:-
------------------------------------------------------------
1) Paedobaptists don't start with Abraham, in regard to the Covenant of Grace (CoG) but with Adam. (Gen 3:15)
------------------------------------------------------------
What I see is PBs imposing Abraham and Moses upon Christ, instead of seeing them in the light of Christ. To start with Adam is better than starting with Abraham but if you bare going to start at the beginning, you must start with Christ (John 1:1, 5:39 ).

The Gen 3:15 covenant is a Covenant of Promise (Eph 2:12 ). God promises a Seed, which is Christ. The Noahic Covenant, the Abrahamic, the Mosaic and the Davidic are all Covenants of Promise. That is, they are announcements to man of the Covenant of Redemption which will come to pass in the New Covenant.

The New Covenant is therefore the outworking in time of the Covenant of Redemption which was made in eternity.

Do you now see more clearly the differences in our hermeneutics? You see a Covenant of Grace beginning with Adam and travelling through the ages until it arrives at Christ. You are therefore imposing Adam, Abraham, Moses and David upon Christ. I see all God's redemptive plans focussed upon Christ, and the previous covenants as promisory. As it is written:-

'For all the promises IN HIM are Yes, and in Him, Amen.'

And again:-
'Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant to the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm THE PROMISES MADE TO THE FATHERS' (Rom 15:8 ).

You wrote:-
------------------------------------------------------------
The CoG has to do with the "spiritual seed", i.e., the elect of God. Too many Baptists conflate physical Israel with the seed, the same mistake, albeit not to the same degree, as did the Jews of Jesus' day. There has always been and always will be two lines that exist within the human race. But there is only one covenant of grace from which the promise of salvation was given and is applied to those whom God had eternally predestined to salvation.
------------------------------------------------------------
Apart from the bit about Baptists, I can agree with this absolutely. No Reformed Baptist conflates Israel with the Seed. I think, however, that we may differ as to who the Seed is.

Every blessing,
Steve

The Westminster standards put the Covenant of Grace (CG) in the context of election.

WCF, 7.3: "... the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein he freely offereth 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."

LC, Answer 30: "God ... of his mere love and mercy delivereth his elect out of it [the estate of sin and misery], and bringeth them into an estate of salvation by the second covenant, commonly called the covenant of grace."

LC, Question/Answer 31: "With whom was the covenant of grace made? The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed."

The Covenant of Grace

Covenant of Redemption in eternity; Covenant of Grace in time ....

"PB's" don't impose anything upon Christ! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> All of the above mentioned biblical men were "types" of Christ. So can one impose them upon Christ? Secondly, John 1:1 does NOT refer to Jesus "Christ", but in truth to the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity. The Son of God was eternally the Saviour of the World since it was so established in the "Covenant of Redemption/Peace" among the members of the Godhead. It is not until John 1:14 that the actual physical Redeemer Christ is introduced. And He was part of the lineage of those whom you say we impose upon Him. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nope.gif" alt="" /> Yes, I realize that it sounds more appealing to say that you begin with Christ and I begin with a moral man. But in fact, as I pointed out before, I do begin with Christ, but in the manner which Scripture itself prescribes. Methinks you should do a bit more study in the area of Biblical Theology. Geerhardus Vos would be probably the best to begin with.

Again, the "Covenant of Redemption" is that eternal covenant established between the members of the Godhead, which was then applied beginning with Adam in Gen 3:15, albeit in seed form, which then was progressively unfolded throughout biblical history in the various "covenants of promise" as you would like to term them. ALL who believed in those promises of the coming Redeemer Christ were saved no differently and just as surely as those who believe upon Him looking back on the promise fulfilled in the Lord Christ and His atoning work. It's all the "Covenant of Grace"..... not some fractured (aka: dispensational) composite parts. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

This may be true, however until it is evident what it is you and I hold in regard to the "seed", it is nothing less than conjecture as to whether we agree or not.

In His Grace,

Hello J. Edwards,
Many of the points that you raised I have covered in my answer to Pilgrim, so please have a look at that before you reply.

However, you wrote:-
------------------------------------------------------------
It is evident when you speak of the OC and the NC you speak of TWO different covenants (a dispensational hermeneutic), however when a CTer speaks of the OC/NC they see a UNITY and recognize it as ONE unfolding covenant. The difference is immense.
------------------------------------------------------------
It is indeed immense. It leads you to impose Abraham and Moses upon Christ, which is hyper-covenantal <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/jester.gif" alt="" /> However, if you read my post to Pilgrim, you will see that I see the Old Covenant, not as separate, but promisary and preparatory. 'It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect......' (Heb 9:9 ).

You continued:-
------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the “new” in New Covenant does not mean “brand new.”
------------------------------------------------------------
Prove it. You continued:-
------------------------------------------------------------
Normally, readers of the NT use Hebrews 8:13 which states, “In that he saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away,” and say the OC is GONE. However, they fail to read the text: (1) it is in the present tense—thus it is still passing away, why, because it is eternally connected to the NC and can never fully pass away and thus the beautiful use of the Greek present tense
------------------------------------------------------------
You are wrong in your interpretation. The NKJV says, 'Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.' Hebrews was almost certainly written around 65 AD. The Temple sacrifices were still being offered, but they had no purpose now that the One perfect Sacrifice for sin had been offered. The OC was obsolete, and in AD 70 it vanished in a blaze.

You went on:-
------------------------------------------------------------
(2) moreover, Jesus' own words in the Sermon on the Mount, that He had come not to destroy the Law but to fulfil it (Matt 5:17-18) resound even more here.
------------------------------------------------------------
The law has indeed been fulfilled; it has not been abrogated, but brought to its rightful conclusion. As it is written:-

'The law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor' (Gal 3:24-25 ).

You continued:-
------------------------------------------------------------
“New” here has the meaning the fulfilling of the OC, not a brand new covenant! To confuse the two is to make yet another grave hermeneutical error in interpretation.
------------------------------------------------------------
Listen to what the Holy Spirit says:-

'For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says, "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah- NOT ACCORDING TO THE COVENANT THAT I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS.......' (Heb 8:8-9 ). Why do you keep contradicting God by saying that the two covenants are the same? According to the writer to the Hebrews the New Covenant is a 'better covenant' (7:22 ) with
A better hope (7:19 )
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, a greater and more excellent HIgh Priest (8:1 ). There is also, 'an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness (7:18 ).

To call the New Covenant a 'renewed' covenant as Matt McMahon does, is a travesty. It is the reality of which the OC was the foreshadowing (10:1 ). 'He takes away the first that He may establish the second' (10:9 ).

BTW, I am away for a week as from Monday to hear the excellent ministry of Alastair Begg. There may therefore be a delay in my next post.

Every blessing,
Steve

Thanks J.E.
Could you kindly direct me to where the W.C.F. speaks specifically of the Covenant of Redemption. I have had a quick browse through and I can't seem to find it. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Many thanks,
Steve

Yes, I know and after I I read Pilgrim’s excellent reply, which will make my reply briefer.

Well, first the OC and the NC are eternally linked for they are everlasting covenants.

How does a dispensationalist interpret the term “everlasting?”

Second, though 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) these are the FULFILLMENT of the OC and NOT its replacement. God DOES NOT make errors! Did not Jesus say:


Third, in your comments you have failed to realize that the law is divided into three parts: the (1) civil, (2) ceremonial, and (3) moral:

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!

Fourth, does God still bring men to Christ? If the law is no longer in effect how does man know sin? The Scripture is clear;

Your Dispensationalism rids the Gospel of the very Gospel!

In reality there is only ONE covenant which God makes with His people. The NC is none other than the OC more fully revealed. The law which will be written in the hearts is none other than the law which has already been given. The promise was: "they shall be my people, and I will be their God" (Jer 24:7). Moreover, God's manner of dealing with His people has not changed in the NC. Promises such as recorded in Jer. 31:31-34 demand a response of faith, even as do the promises of Genesis 17 and Exodus 19 (compare Hebrews 11; Eph 2:8-10). In addition, there is a clear progress in the history of the covenant, which is also redemptive history. Jeremiah states, “Behold, the days come (progression prophesied), saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah (Jer 31:31). What was essentially given in the OC is given in fuller and richer measure under the NC. The NC is NOT “brand new” it is the fulfilling of the OC (just because something is fulfilled does not mean it disappears! When a glass is filled with water, the glass does not cease to be a glass <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/idea.gif" alt="" />). The OC is not replaced, but continues on in the fulfillment of the NC! Essentially, the reference in Hebrews 8:13 to the OC vanishing away is to the form and not to the substance. To understand it any different is to make a grave hermeneutical error.

Hello Pilgrim,
You wrote:-
------------------------------------------------------------
"PB's" don't impose anything upon Christ!
------------------------------------------------------------

I'm afraid they do! Because they confuse Abraham's physical seed with his spiritual seed, they insist upon imposing unbelievers upon the New Covenant. 'Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham' (Gal 3:7 ).

You continued:-
------------------------------------------------------------
Methinks you should do a bit more study in the area of Biblical Theology. Geerhardus Vos would be probably the best to begin with.
------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure you do think that. In just the same spirit, may I suggest to you a reading of the works of James Haldane, especially his commentary on Galatians and its various appendices (Particular Baptist Press: ISBN 1-888514-17-5 ). Excellent stuff for understanding the covenants.

You continued:-
------------------------------------------------------------
Again, the "Covenant of Redemption" is that eternal covenant established between the members of the Godhead, which was then applied beginning with Adam in Gen 3:15, albeit in seed form, which then was progressively unfolded throughout biblical history in the various "covenants of promise" as you would like to term them. ALL who believed in those promises of the coming Redeemer Christ were saved no differently and just as surely as those who believe upon Him looking back on the promise fulfilled in the Lord Christ and His atoning work. It's all the "Covenant of Grace"..... not some fractured (aka: dispensational) composite parts.
------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately your hyper-covenantalism <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/coffee2.gif" alt="" /> has led you into a number of non-biblical hypothetical constructs. I asked J.Edwards where I could find the term 'Covenant of Redemption' in the W.C.F. It certainly isn't in the Bible. He hasn't come back to me. Perhaps you can help? What's that? It's in Geerhardus Vos? Oh! Well, that's alright then! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bow.gif" alt="" />

That there was a covenant made in eternity between the Persons of the Trinity is evident from Eph 1:3-14 etc. That it was revealed in figures to Adam, Abraham etc is also evident, 'which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ' (Col 2:17 ). That the OT saints were saved in just the way we are as they looked forward to Christ is also beyond doubt (Heb 11:13ff). But to make Christ just the final step in a series from Adam is to downgrade Him wretchedly. 'He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.' Adam and Abel didn't look to Abraham, Abraham to Moses, Moses to David and David to Christ. Of course not! They all looked to Christ, the Author and Finisher of faith. They were the shadows, and the shadows flee away (Song 4:6 ) when the day breaks and the Sun of Righteousness appears.

Paedo-Baptists seem, like Peter, to want to build one tabernacle for Christ, one for Moses and one for Elijah, imposing the law and the prophets upon the New Covenant. We need to hear God say, 'This is My beloved Son, HEAR HIM!', and then we need to see Jesus only. I'm sure that Peter 'had no doubt of the superiority of Christ to Moses and Elijah, notwithstanding the glory in which they appeared. He had no doubt that Jesus was now to assume the government of His kingdom and reign without a rival; but he imagined that Moses and Elijah were to continue upon the earth, that as His servants they might assist in the administration; hence his proposal to make tents for them. This is the error of the Presbyterians; they admit the supremacy of Jesus, but insist on retaining the observance of the ordinances of Moses (Slightly adapted) for which Elijah had been so zealous.'
[Last paragraph adapted from J. Haldane's commentary on Galatians]