Look, it’s one olive tree!

I read somewhere that Covenant Theology needs a new and more robust straw-man.  Perhaps one made out of wet straw, or something else less flammable. I couldn’t agree more…

Anyway, Dr. R. Scott Clark‘s excellent article “Covenant Theology is not Replacement Theology” needs a permanent link here on my blog. I read and hear with some regularity the confusion about this subject among those outside (or new to) Reformed theology. It is very helpful to understand exactly what the Bible teaches regarding the church and Israel, and not to misrepresent the Reformed view of this very important subject.

So with out further adieu, enjoy:

Recently I had a question asking whether “covenant theology” is so-called “replacement theology.” Those dispensational critics of Reformed covenant theology who accuse it of teaching that the New Covenant church has “replaced” Israel do not understand historic Reformed covenant theology. They are imputing to Reformed theology a way of thinking about redemptive history that has more in common with dispensationalism than it does with Reformed theology. (click here to read the full article…)

To quote from one of the better commenters in the ensuing discussion from this relatively old post of Dr. Clark’s (2008), I found this rather true. It was certainly true with me as I happily began to part ways with dispensationalism a few years ago:

“It seems that a Dispensationalist’s attacks on Covenant Theology and an atheist’s attack on Christianity have this in common: the critique only holds up from their presuppositions.” – J. Lim