Covenant Theology vs Dispensationalism

[wwalkeriv]

Is there a label given to an alternative to these two theological constructs? I've been researching both of these belief systems and can't decide where I fall. I actually think that I may be neither. Anyone feel like discussing?

[Paidion]

I was once a dispensationalist as well as Calvinist, but I now reject dispensationalism as well as Calvinism and covenant theology.

May I suggest you look into Historic Premillenialism?

[wwalkeriv]

Thanks Paidon. I wasn't really studying the two systems from an eschatological approach, but more from the approach of learning what the systems teach about how God deals with man. Whether it be through one covenant, multiple covenants, dispensations, etc.

By the way, I was brought up in a pre-trib, pre-millennial church. I never knew that there was another system. I've decided this system is wrong, and now lean toward amillennialism.

[Paidion]

Yes, several of those who post here are amillenialists, including Steve Gregg. But isn't "Covenant Theology" simply Calvinistic amillenialism?

Perhaps what you are looking for is a theology of providence. I found that John Sanders does an excellent and thorough job in his book The God Who Risks — A Theology of Providence, Intervarsity Christian Press, © 1998.

He approaches providence from a divine-human relationality point of view, with a smattering of open theism. In my opinion, an outstanding work.

[wwalkeriv]

Thanks! I'll definitely check that out. I think I agree with many aspects of covenant theology, but I don't agree with some of Calvin's views (or 5 points). For example, I don't think there is good scriptural evidence that grace is irresistible. I would line up more with John Wesley's teaching of prevenient grace. Another issue I constantly struggle with is that of paedobaptism. Every time I think I have this issue figured out something else comes up in my research that brings me back to a state of confusion.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to find a mold to fit into. I'm really just using these molds to help me work through thoughts and ideas and then come to my own conclusions.

[Paidion]

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (ESV)

An infant or a child less than 2 cannot "believe" in the sense that a person believes when he becomes a disciple of Christ. So an infant or very young child cannot be spiritually helped by undergoing some sort of "baptism". Oh yes, some who baptize infants say the process has efficacy because the parents promise to lead the child aright. But that can be done by simple dedication of the child to God. You will not find a single instance in the New Testament of infants being baptized.

But I go even further. I believe true baptism must be by immersion, because that is the very meaning of the word. "Baptise" is simply an English transliteration of the Greek "baptizō". There is also another Greek word for "immerse" or "dip", namely baptō. The two should not be confused:

The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizō is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (baptō) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizō) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.

[darinhouston]

Note my new post on New Covenant Theology. It seems to be characterized by some as a sort of middle ground though leaning towards Reformed Covenant Theology (with at least one foot planted firmly therein), and has implications for paedobaptism.

[wwalkeriv]

As it relates to paedobaptism, I've heard the following argument: Children, as well as all members of the household, were always included as part of the covenant (eg: Noah's family, Abraham's household, when the covenant was renewed in Deut 29 the little ones were also gathered, when Joel calls the congregation he includes the nursing babes (Joel 2)). Therefore, in Act 2 when the Jews heard the preaching at Pentecost they understood this a repeat of the promise made to Abraham. So when you hear of households being baptized you could easily understand this to mean households including babes. The argument goes that if children were not included there would have been more time spent explaining why they are no longer part of the covenant and can only enter at an age when they can demonstrate their own faith. A further argument is that faith always precedes baptism in the NT because the NT only discusses charter members of the new covenant.

Sorry if I haven't articulated this point very well, but I'm a bit rushed at the moment.

[Paidion]

One could argue that the apostles practised household salvation including infants:

Acts 16:15 ... and when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, if ye have judged me to be faithful to the lord, come into my house, and abide there. and she constrained us.
1 Corinthians 1:16 and I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

However, this doesn't prove it. For these particular households may not have had any babies or very young children.

[Homer]

Here would appear to be a more conclusive case:

Acts 16:29-34
New King James Version (NKJV)

29. Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30. And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31. So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32. Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34. Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.

We see that all were preached to, all were baptized, all were baptized upon having believed.

wwalkeriv wrote:

The argument goes that if children were not included there would have been more time spent explaining why they are no longer part of the covenant and can only enter at an age when they can demonstrate their own faith.

But this would only be true if John's baptism, a baptism of repentance, had been practiced upon infants. What evidence is there that John baptized infants? Christian baptism also has the meaning of repentance with the additional meaning of faith in Christ. Infants neither repent nor do they have faith. They have nothing to repent of and no need to be baptized.