Physical Kingdom Problems
Comments
-
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
The New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant including circumcision, all the ceremonies, unbelievers, and the Ten Commandments.“Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, That I will make a new covenant With the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers In the day that I took them by the hand To bring them out of the land of Egypt; Which my covenant they brake, Although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, And write it in their hearts; And will be their God, And they shall be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)
Even in this vein, did "The New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant"? With a closer look, is just one Covenant and what is called "New" is not a replacement, but an affirmation of the old and an expansion of the Old Covenant? I know this may require a new thread, However, I wanted to plant the seed here. It's interesting when one looks at the "to whom", "the terms", "the promises", and "curses" of the Covenant, etc. Hey, start a new thread: One Covenant or Two. CM
What does scripture plainly say?
-
I answered giving a quote from Logos as requested.
-
You apparently did not read my request or you were perhaps responding to someone else's request??? After all, I did not request 'proof-texting' but rather for exegesis, articles, and commentaries from your logos library that might clear up the misunderstanding you believe I have specifically on Romans 11:28.
-
@Mitchell said:
You apparently did not read my request or you were perhaps responding to someone else's request??? After all, I did not request 'proof-texting' but rather for exegesis, articles, and commentaries from your logos library that might clear up the misunderstanding you believe I have specifically on Romans 11:28.Circumcision should come up in a search of your Logos dictionaries and encyclopedias. Old Covenant replaced by New is too obvious in scripture, but you might research it too. These two searches alone should solve many riddles.
-
I have already searched and studied this issue on Circumcision in depth, but I have not found reference to the theology/point of view that you hold on Romans 11:28.
-
@Mitchell said:
I have already searched and studied this issue on Circumcision in depth, but I have not found reference to the theology/point of view that you hold on Romans 11:28.Paul wrote Romans in a transitional period as the New Covenant replaced the Old. So speaking in the present tense he recognized the two Covenants side by side. But when the last reaming Jew died, nothing remained to make one a physical Jew or physical member of Israel.
-
I am still interested in seeing articles and or commentary that offers exegesis or some clearer explanation of the theology you suggest concerning Romans 11:28.
-
@Mitchell said:
I am still interested in seeing articles and or commentary that offers exegesis or some clearer explanation of the theology you suggest concerning Romans 11:28.I base my claims first on Jeremiah saying the New Covenant would replace the Old. This would abolish the OT Church State. Also on God's threat to Abraham that any uncircumcised would be cut off from his people. Jesus abolished circumcision and Paul warns against it as a religious rite. This means no physical Jews or physical Israel exists.
Also in the NT, Jesus is true Israel (Abraham's seed) and not the physical Jews. Also all the promises made to Abraham are yes in Jesus. Only through him do the land promises apply.
Amillennialism and any other theological system that teaches the church is Israel are excellent resources if you care to study further.
-
@Dave_L said:
@Mitchell said:
I am still interested in seeing articles and or commentary that offers exegesis or some clearer explanation of the theology you suggest concerning Romans 11:28.I base my claims first on Jeremiah saying the New Covenant would replace the Old. This would abolish the OT Church State. Also on God's threat to Abraham that any uncircumcised would be cut off from his people. Jesus abolished circumcision and Paul warns against it as a religious rite. This means no physical Jews or physical Israel exists.
Dave_L,
Mitchell did NOT ask you for your theology and how you arrive at your conclusions ... he asked for you to point out to him articles and or commentary from Logos library that offers exegesis or some clearer explanation of your theology. Why in the world do you not read what he wrote? or refuse to answer?A proper answer to his question could be "I have no such articles or commentary in my Logos library", "I don't care about articles and commentary in my Logos library", "I don't know of any such articles or commentary", etc ...
Your manner of answering others here is something like this:
Question asked: "Since apples are a type of fruit, why do you disagree with that plain definition?" Your answer: "Vegetables grow in the garden." Question again: "Could you please explain why you do not think that apples are fruit?" Answer: "Vegetables are plants often cooked and eaten with meals". ....Also in the NT, Jesus is true Israel (Abraham's seed) and not the physical Jews. Also all the promises made to Abraham are yes in Jesus. Only through him do the land promises apply.
Amillennialism and any other theological system that teaches the church is Israel are excellent resources if you care to study further.
Did Mitchell ask for your opinion on what you are writing in these two paragraphs? No. You give "answers" to questions that were not asked.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
@Mitchell said:
I am still interested in seeing articles and or commentary that offers exegesis or some clearer explanation of the theology you suggest concerning Romans 11:28.I base my claims first on Jeremiah saying the New Covenant would replace the Old. This would abolish the OT Church State. Also on God's threat to Abraham that any uncircumcised would be cut off from his people. Jesus abolished circumcision and Paul warns against it as a religious rite. This means no physical Jews or physical Israel exists.
Dave_L,
Mitchell did NOT ask you for your theology and how you arrive at your conclusions ... he asked for you to point out to him articles and or commentary from Logos library that offers exegesis or some clearer explanation of your theology. Why in the world do you not read what he wrote? or refuse to answer?A proper answer to his question could be "I have no such articles or commentary in my Logos library", "I don't care about articles and commentary in my Logos library", "I don't know of any such articles or commentary", etc ...
Your manner of answering others here is something like this:
Question asked: "Since apples are a type of fruit, why do you disagree with that plain definition?" Your answer: "Vegetables grow in the garden." Question again: "Could you please explain why you do not think that apples are fruit?" Answer: "Vegetables are plants often cooked and eaten with meals". ....Also in the NT, Jesus is true Israel (Abraham's seed) and not the physical Jews. Also all the promises made to Abraham are yes in Jesus. Only through him do the land promises apply.
Amillennialism and any other theological system that teaches the church is Israel are excellent resources if you care to study further.
Did Mitchell ask for your opinion on what you are writing in these two paragraphs? No. You give "answers" to questions that were not asked.
I mentioned any standard Amillennial work or other works that say the Church is Israel. It's all there. That's where I'm coming from.
-
Dave, that still does not answer my question which requested articles, commentaries, exegesis, specifically on your purposed interpretation of Romans 11:28.
-
@Wolfgang said:
Dave_L,
Mitchell did NOT ask you for your theology and how you arrive at your conclusions ... he asked for you to point out to him articles and or commentary from Logos library that offers exegesis or some clearer explanation of your theology. Why in the world do you not read what he wrote? or refuse to answer?A proper answer to his question could be "I have no such articles or commentary in my Logos library", "I don't care about articles and commentary in my Logos library", "I don't know of any such articles or commentary", etc ...
THANK YOU Wolfgang!
-
@Mitchell said:
Dave, that still does not answer my question which requested articles, commentaries, exegesis, specifically on your purposed interpretation of Romans 11:28.If you familiarize yourself with any Lutheran, Reformed, or English Baptist view of Amillennialism, you will read the same works I read.
-
@Dave_L said:
@Mitchell said:
Dave, that still does not answer my question which requested articles, commentaries, exegesis, specifically on your purposed interpretation of Romans 11:28.If you familiarize yourself with any Lutheran, Reformed, or English Baptist view of Amillennialism, you will read the same works I read.
Of course, not all Reformed resources take the Amillenial viewpoint...
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@Mitchell said:
Dave, that still does not answer my question which requested articles, commentaries, exegesis, specifically on your purposed interpretation of Romans 11:28.If you familiarize yourself with any Lutheran, Reformed, or English Baptist view of Amillennialism, you will read the same works I read.
Of course, not all Reformed resources take the Amillenial viewpoint...
Historically the Reformed are Amillennial with several of the Princeton School being Post-millennial which is similar in many respects. Both say the church is Israel.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@Mitchell said:
Dave, that still does not answer my question which requested articles, commentaries, exegesis, specifically on your purposed interpretation of Romans 11:28.If you familiarize yourself with any Lutheran, Reformed, or English Baptist view of Amillennialism, you will read the same works I read.
Of course, not all Reformed resources take the Amillenial viewpoint...
Historically the Reformed are Amillennial with several of the Princeton School being Post-millennial which is similar in many respects. Both say the church is Israel.
But you say all Reformed resources and that is just not correct. In fact, a prominent Reformed theologian of today, Dr. Steven Lawson, who is also a Ligonier Teaching Fellow, is Dispensational and believes in the literal 1,000-year reign.
-
@Dave_L said:
@Mitchell said:
Dave, that still does not answer my question which requested articles, commentaries, exegesis, specifically on your purposed interpretation of Romans 11:28.If you familiarize yourself with any Lutheran, Reformed, or English Baptist view of Amillennialism, you will read the same works I read.
And still he continues the "no answer" game ...
IF indeed you do this on purpose in order to dodge giving answers, your approach is totally inappropriate and not needed on a forum where exchange among participants is encouraged.
IF on the other hand, you are so set in your way that you just can't even read other people's questions and therefore are unable to address the question in your answer, then so be it ... -
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
@Mitchell said:
Dave, that still does not answer my question which requested articles, commentaries, exegesis, specifically on your purposed interpretation of Romans 11:28.If you familiarize yourself with any Lutheran, Reformed, or English Baptist view of Amillennialism, you will read the same works I read.
And still he continues the "no answer" game ...
IF indeed you do this on purpose in order to dodge giving answers, your approach is totally inappropriate and not needed on a forum where exchange among participants is encouraged.
IF on the other hand, you are so set in your way that you just can't even read other people's questions and therefore are unable to address the question in your answer, then so be it ...I would need to look up and publish a list of books that anyone can see for themselves simply by studying Reformed Theology.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@Mitchell said:
Dave, that still does not answer my question which requested articles, commentaries, exegesis, specifically on your purposed interpretation of Romans 11:28.If you familiarize yourself with any Lutheran, Reformed, or English Baptist view of Amillennialism, you will read the same works I read.
Of course, not all Reformed resources take the Amillenial viewpoint...
Historically the Reformed are Amillennial with several of the Princeton School being Post-millennial which is similar in many respects. Both say the church is Israel.
But you say all Reformed resources and that is just not correct. In fact, a prominent Reformed theologian of today, Dr. Steven Lawson, who is also a Ligonier Teaching Fellow, is Dispensational and believes in the literal 1,000-year reign.
Not Reformed in the historic sense.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@Mitchell said:
Dave, that still does not answer my question which requested articles, commentaries, exegesis, specifically on your purposed interpretation of Romans 11:28.If you familiarize yourself with any Lutheran, Reformed, or English Baptist view of Amillennialism, you will read the same works I read.
Of course, not all Reformed resources take the Amillenial viewpoint...
Historically the Reformed are Amillennial with several of the Princeton School being Post-millennial which is similar in many respects. Both say the church is Israel.
But you say all Reformed resources and that is just not correct. In fact, a prominent Reformed theologian of today, Dr. Steven Lawson, who is also a Ligonier Teaching Fellow, is Dispensational and believes in the literal 1,000-year reign.
Not Reformed in the historic sense.
I think you are confusing Reformed Theology with Covenental Theology. They are related but not the same thing.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@Mitchell said:
Dave, that still does not answer my question which requested articles, commentaries, exegesis, specifically on your purposed interpretation of Romans 11:28.If you familiarize yourself with any Lutheran, Reformed, or English Baptist view of Amillennialism, you will read the same works I read.
Of course, not all Reformed resources take the Amillenial viewpoint...
Historically the Reformed are Amillennial with several of the Princeton School being Post-millennial which is similar in many respects. Both say the church is Israel.
But you say all Reformed resources and that is just not correct. In fact, a prominent Reformed theologian of today, Dr. Steven Lawson, who is also a Ligonier Teaching Fellow, is Dispensational and believes in the literal 1,000-year reign.
Not Reformed in the historic sense.
I think you are confusing Reformed Theology with Covenental Theology. They are related but not the same thing.
Quote on Dispensationalist in the Reformed camp before Darby.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@Mitchell said:
Dave, that still does not answer my question which requested articles, commentaries, exegesis, specifically on your purposed interpretation of Romans 11:28.If you familiarize yourself with any Lutheran, Reformed, or English Baptist view of Amillennialism, you will read the same works I read.
Of course, not all Reformed resources take the Amillenial viewpoint...
Historically the Reformed are Amillennial with several of the Princeton School being Post-millennial which is similar in many respects. Both say the church is Israel.
But you say all Reformed resources and that is just not correct. In fact, a prominent Reformed theologian of today, Dr. Steven Lawson, who is also a Ligonier Teaching Fellow, is Dispensational and believes in the literal 1,000-year reign.
Not Reformed in the historic sense.
I think you are confusing Reformed Theology with Covenental Theology. They are related but not the same thing.
Quote on Dispensationalist in the Reformed camp before Darby.
That's not the point, though I can find theologians who held to the 1,000 reign but that wasn't the point I was making and yet again you deflect and/or move goalposts. You do it with everyone.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@Mitchell said:
Dave, that still does not answer my question which requested articles, commentaries, exegesis, specifically on your purposed interpretation of Romans 11:28.If you familiarize yourself with any Lutheran, Reformed, or English Baptist view of Amillennialism, you will read the same works I read.
Of course, not all Reformed resources take the Amillenial viewpoint...
Historically the Reformed are Amillennial with several of the Princeton School being Post-millennial which is similar in many respects. Both say the church is Israel.
But you say all Reformed resources and that is just not correct. In fact, a prominent Reformed theologian of today, Dr. Steven Lawson, who is also a Ligonier Teaching Fellow, is Dispensational and believes in the literal 1,000-year reign.
Not Reformed in the historic sense.
I think you are confusing Reformed Theology with Covenental Theology. They are related but not the same thing.
Quote on Dispensationalist in the Reformed camp before Darby.
That's not the point, though I can find theologians who held to the 1,000 reign but that wasn't the point I was making and yet again you deflect and/or move goalposts. You do it with everyone.
No, there are no genuinely Reformed Dispensationalists. They are only quasi Reformed if that.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Historically the Reformed are Amillennial with several of the Princeton School being Post-millennial which is similar in many respects. Both say the church is Israel.But you say all Reformed resources and that is just not correct. In fact, a prominent Reformed theologian of today, Dr. Steven Lawson, who is also a Ligonier Teaching Fellow, is Dispensational and believes in the literal 1,000-year reign.
Postmillennialists believe that Jesus will return after the Church has established the Millennium on earth by the faithful completion of the Great Commission. It will be a period of peace and righteousness and may or may not be a literal one thousand year period but will definitely conclude with the Lord‘s Second Coming.
- Postmillennialists are considered optimists and teach that the kingdom of heaven/God is here and now on earth and things will get better and better until the Church ushers in the Second Coming of Christ.
- This belief started during the Age of Enlightenment (seventeenth century), most probably by Daniel Whitby (1683-1726), a Unitarian (See Van Hoogen below).
- Most Reformed Theology teaches postmillennialism** (which includes the Puritans, founders of the American Church) and it was the majority view of the Church in the late seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
However, after the rise of dispensationalism in the mid-nineteenth century and the turmoil, strife, World Wars, and overall increase in evil and Satan‘s kingdom of the twentieth century, postmillennialism faded into the background and premillennialism once again moved to the forefront.
A little context. CM
SOURCE:
---- Van Hoogen, Joel. “Premillennialism and the Alliance Distinctive”, in Essays on Premillennialism, eds. K. Neil Foster and David E. Fessenden, 113-137. Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications Inc., 2002. -
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@Mitchell said:
Dave, that still does not answer my question which requested articles, commentaries, exegesis, specifically on your purposed interpretation of Romans 11:28.If you familiarize yourself with any Lutheran, Reformed, or English Baptist view of Amillennialism, you will read the same works I read.
Of course, not all Reformed resources take the Amillenial viewpoint...
Historically the Reformed are Amillennial with several of the Princeton School being Post-millennial which is similar in many respects. Both say the church is Israel.
But you say all Reformed resources and that is just not correct. In fact, a prominent Reformed theologian of today, Dr. Steven Lawson, who is also a Ligonier Teaching Fellow, is Dispensational and believes in the literal 1,000-year reign.
Not Reformed in the historic sense.
I think you are confusing Reformed Theology with Covenental Theology. They are related but not the same thing.
Quote on Dispensationalist in the Reformed camp before Darby.
That's not the point, though I can find theologians who held to the 1,000 reign but that wasn't the point I was making and yet again you deflect and/or move goalposts. You do it with everyone.
No, there are no genuinely Reformed Dispensationalists. They are only quasi Reformed if that.
What exactly do you think Reformed Theology is? And who makes you the authority on theology anyway? I'm Reformed and I am also Dispensational.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@Mitchell said:
Dave, that still does not answer my question which requested articles, commentaries, exegesis, specifically on your purposed interpretation of Romans 11:28.If you familiarize yourself with any Lutheran, Reformed, or English Baptist view of Amillennialism, you will read the same works I read.
Of course, not all Reformed resources take the Amillenial viewpoint...
Historically the Reformed are Amillennial with several of the Princeton School being Post-millennial which is similar in many respects. Both say the church is Israel.
But you say all Reformed resources and that is just not correct. In fact, a prominent Reformed theologian of today, Dr. Steven Lawson, who is also a Ligonier Teaching Fellow, is Dispensational and believes in the literal 1,000-year reign.
Not Reformed in the historic sense.
I think you are confusing Reformed Theology with Covenental Theology. They are related but not the same thing.
Quote on Dispensationalist in the Reformed camp before Darby.
That's not the point, though I can find theologians who held to the 1,000 reign but that wasn't the point I was making and yet again you deflect and/or move goalposts. You do it with everyone.
No, there are no genuinely Reformed Dispensationalists. They are only quasi Reformed if that.
What exactly do you think Reformed Theology is? And who makes you the authority on theology anyway? I'm Reformed and I am also Dispensational.
You are not Reformed according to any of the Reformed creeds. You are a Dispensationalists who embraces some of the Reformed doctrines.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@Mitchell said:
Dave, that still does not answer my question which requested articles, commentaries, exegesis, specifically on your purposed interpretation of Romans 11:28.If you familiarize yourself with any Lutheran, Reformed, or English Baptist view of Amillennialism, you will read the same works I read.
Of course, not all Reformed resources take the Amillenial viewpoint...
Historically the Reformed are Amillennial with several of the Princeton School being Post-millennial which is similar in many respects. Both say the church is Israel.
But you say all Reformed resources and that is just not correct. In fact, a prominent Reformed theologian of today, Dr. Steven Lawson, who is also a Ligonier Teaching Fellow, is Dispensational and believes in the literal 1,000-year reign.
Not Reformed in the historic sense.
I think you are confusing Reformed Theology with Covenental Theology. They are related but not the same thing.
Quote on Dispensationalist in the Reformed camp before Darby.
That's not the point, though I can find theologians who held to the 1,000 reign but that wasn't the point I was making and yet again you deflect and/or move goalposts. You do it with everyone.
No, there are no genuinely Reformed Dispensationalists. They are only quasi Reformed if that.
What exactly do you think Reformed Theology is? And who makes you the authority on theology anyway? I'm Reformed and I am also Dispensational.
You are not Reformed according to any of the Reformed creeds. You are a Dispensationalists who embraces some of the Reformed doctrines.
According to any of the Reformed Creeds?
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@Mitchell said:
Dave, that still does not answer my question which requested articles, commentaries, exegesis, specifically on your purposed interpretation of Romans 11:28.If you familiarize yourself with any Lutheran, Reformed, or English Baptist view of Amillennialism, you will read the same works I read.
Of course, not all Reformed resources take the Amillenial viewpoint...
Historically the Reformed are Amillennial with several of the Princeton School being Post-millennial which is similar in many respects. Both say the church is Israel.
But you say all Reformed resources and that is just not correct. In fact, a prominent Reformed theologian of today, Dr. Steven Lawson, who is also a Ligonier Teaching Fellow, is Dispensational and believes in the literal 1,000-year reign.
Not Reformed in the historic sense.
I think you are confusing Reformed Theology with Covenental Theology. They are related but not the same thing.
Quote on Dispensationalist in the Reformed camp before Darby.
That's not the point, though I can find theologians who held to the 1,000 reign but that wasn't the point I was making and yet again you deflect and/or move goalposts. You do it with everyone.
No, there are no genuinely Reformed Dispensationalists. They are only quasi Reformed if that.
What exactly do you think Reformed Theology is? And who makes you the authority on theology anyway? I'm Reformed and I am also Dispensational.
You are not Reformed according to any of the Reformed creeds. You are a Dispensationalists who embraces some of the Reformed doctrines.
According to any of the Reformed Creeds?
None of them would own a Dispensationalist. You violate their view of the Church as Israel. The spiritual kingdom of Christ. And their refutation of millennialism.
-
Information to aid a healthy conversation. Here is a snapshot of Reformed Theology contrasted with Covenant Theology (a.k.a Federal Theology) as mentioned above. Since we're going off topic, let's be informed. CM
Reformed theology focuses foundationally on God’s glory and often emphasizes divine sovereignty as a crucial beginning point for theological reflection. In the development of Reformed theology, especially in John Calvin (1509-1564), the idea of the covenant of grace played a prominent role. Vos states: " The German Reformed tradition saved the old Protestant truth from the hands of deteriorated Lutheranism. Thus, the doctrine of the covenant is sup posed to be German-Protestant, not Reformed. Or rather . . . Melanchton, not Calvin, would be the one who took the lead." (See Vos).
The Covenant of Works is that which God made with Adam as the representative of the whole human race before the Fall. The doctrine of the covenant of works was more extensively unfolded in the classic Reformed theology of the 17th century. The elements of this covenant are:
- (1) Two contracting parties— the triune God and Adam.
- (2) The promise — life in the highest sense.
- (3) The condition— absolute obedience.
- (4) The penalty— death.
Biblical support is to be found in Rom 5:12-21; 9:4; Hos 6:7; Gen 2:17; Gal 4:24.
The Reformed theology sees "man not as being placed in eternal bliss from the beginning, but as being placed in such a way that he might attain to eternal bliss ...He has to develop the divinely given good that lies within him... the meaning of obtaining it is the covenant of works... "The covenant of works," for the Reformed theology...is something more than the natural bond which exists between God and man" (See Vos. 243-244).
In sum, Reformed theology attempted to establish the doctrine of the covenant of works in the first relationship between the Creator and the creature and regarded the Mosaic covenant as a repetition, in some sense, of the features of the first covenant of works.
SOURCES:
-- Vos, Geerhardus. Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos. Edited by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980., 235
-- Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1941., pp 211-217; 298
..................................... VS ..............................
Covenant Theology is sometimes called Federal Theology. This system describes the relationship between God and man in form of covenants. It appeared in the writings of Zwingli, Bullinger, Olevianus, and Calvin and played a dominant role in Reformed theology of the seven teenth century, especially among the Puritans. Johannes Coccejus (1603-1669) [not the inventor of covenant theology], but is regarded as "the most eminent theologian of federal theology" (See McCoy).
Covenant theology was the predominant type of theology underlying most of seventeenth-century Puritan and congregational theology. It sees "_the relation of God to mankind as a compact which God established as a reflection of the relationship existing between the three persons of the Holy Trinity_."
Osterhaven explains three essential covenants— the covenant of works, the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace— in covenant theology. Charles Fred Lincoln considers the covenant theory of the covenant of redemption and the covenant of works before Adam's fall is an assumed theological principle, not an exposition of distinct portions of Scripture, in his article. Its origin can be traced back to the Reformation era. Regarding a historical survey of the covenant idea, see Vos above.
The concept of covenant theology as an undeveloped form appeared in the writings of Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) and Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575). It should be noted that Zwingli concept of the covenant was not prominent because of his defense for infant baptism.
I hope all will be able to share with better understanding. CM
SOURCES:
-- S.J. Grenz, D. Gurentzki & C.F. Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms. Downers Grove, ILL: InterVarsity Press, 1999: 101.
-- Charles S. McCoy, "Johannes Cocceius: Federal Theologian," SJT 16 (1963): 352.
-- M. Eugene Osterhaven, "Covenant Theology," Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 279.
-- Lincoln, Charles Fred. "The Biblical Covenants." Biblio theca Sacra 100 (April-June 1943): 309-323; (July- September 1943): 442-449; (October-December 1943): 565-573.
-- J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger, and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition (Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 1980), xxv.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
