In this video, I address the question: Do Lutherans believe in covenant theology? This idea is popular in the Reformed tradition, but the Lutheran has not privileged the notion of covenant to the same degree.
As a Calminian Baptist, this video was a joy to watch. Lutheran theology is not as mainstreamed as it should be and I think Bro. Martin would have loved this Dr. Cooper. I needed this for a seminary project! Thanks so much!
I finished Palmer Robertson's The Christ of the Covenants a few months ago and found it quite compelling. I was wondering how Lutherans thought about Covenant Theology and glad I found this video.
Interesting. Thank you. As a guy that is being pulled between Federal Vision lite (Doug Wilson) and 1689 Federalism I found your comment about Calvin not being a full bodied Covenanter worth further research.
Irmão Jordan Cooper, faça também um vídeo a respeito do pré-milenismo (tanto histórico, quanto dispensacionalista), pós-milenismo e amilenismo, por favor. E diga-nos qual é a interpretação luterana dos fatos. Ademais, diga-nos também qual das três teorias tem um "peso teológico" maior entre o consensus patorum e entre a história da igreja. Um abraço! Parabéns pelas lições.
@@izamota4761 que massa, Thiago! Mt obrigado. Vou assistir. Eles tinham q traduzir esses vídeos, cara. O Brasil já é o 4o maior país protestante do mundo, e com um forte apelo missionário. Seria mt útil legendar os vídeos deles pras nossas igrejas.
@@josueinhan8436 realmente irmão, os vídeos dele são muito bons Principalmente pra um país com poucos adeptos das ideias Luteranas.. Seria ótimo mostrar uma visão mais tradicional
It really helps for commenters to do their own research, and put their answers in writing. Here, I desire to share what I have grasped about how Covenant Theology has somehow had to be looked at closely within Lutheranism. Take a look: COVENANT THEOLOGY Covenant Theology is typical of reformed theologians. This includes the Reformed and Christian Reformed, the Presbyterian, the Anglican (or Episcopal), and to some extent, the Lutheran. The Catholics also recognize the same approximate divisions of Scriptural history, while differing on the question of man's responsibility in the covenant of grace. Many Messianic Jews, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Reformed, Anglicans, Methodists, and Lutherans, all subscribe to the "No Millennialism (Amillennialism)" hermeneutics of Christian Eschatology. The Christian church denominations just named, fall either into the "Confessional" or "Rivival" mainstream varieties of Evangelicalism. Confessionalism is the emphasis on historic Protestant orthodoxy represented by conservative Presbyterian churches, certain Baptist churches, and some confessional Lutheran churches. Revivalism (Emphasis on religious experience) is represented by some quarters of Methodism, Wesleyan Holiness, Pentecostal/Charismatic, Anabaptist, Baptist, and Presbyterian. When modern Dispensational Theology, subscribed too by the Plymouth Brethren (JN Darby), in coherence with Dispensational Premillennialism, became popular within Fundamentalism - a strain of Evangelicalism that was adopted within Baptist, Pentecostal, and Charismatic circles, Amillennial Eschatology declined in many Protestant circles. Fundamentalism (Early 20th century), though it is a variety of Evangelicalism, is not with the two mainstream varieties of Evangelicalism. The difference between the two before named theologies, in relation to the two named eschatologies, can be understood and now explained. Covenant Theology is eschatology as it was understood by John Calvin, which was a component to John Calvin's acceptance of Historic Premillennialism. Covenant Theology was not only a component of Historic Premillennialism, but it also has been a component of Amillennial eschatology, and Postmillennialism. Covenant Theology, then, is a Calvinistic conceptual overview for understanding the overall flow of the Bible through the covenants, beginning with the Adamic Covenant of works (Life/obedience), which represents all of mankind as the federal head (Romans 12: 21); this includes Adam's failure (Genesis 3: 15), God's grace of faith in Jesus Christ (Genesis 3: 15/Romans 16: 20), and eternal life (Psalm 2 and 110/Isaiah 53/Philippians 2: 5-11/Revelation 5: 9-11). The Noahic Covenant (Genesis 8: 20-9: 17) has redemption motifs (Saved from the flood), and creation motifs (De-creation to creation). The Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12, 15, 17) is for Abraham and his descendants (Genesi 17: 17); it is everlasting in that it cannot be replaced by any other covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant is accepted by faith, not by works (Genesis 15: 16), and it involves the external sign of circumcision (Genesis 17: 10) matched with circumcision of the heart (Jeremiah 4: 4). The followers of Christ are children of Abraham (Galatians 3: 7), with Baptism as the external sign inherited also by Gentiles (Galatians 3: 6). The Mosaic Covenant (Exodus Chapters 19-24) found in Deuteronomy is God's dwelling in the people's midst (Exodus 6: 7/Leviticus 26: 12), which is a gracious covenant (Redemptive-Exodus 20: 1-2) and mostly viewed as referring too the Old Covenant; it is a re-enactment of the works covenant (Condemnation and death), National (Blessings for obedience-purely legal), which is a sacrificial system that points to the Gospel of salvation through a mediator. The New Covenant is alluded too by Jesus at the Last Supper, as well as Jeremiah 31: 31-33, and Isaiah 49: 8. The New Covenant is spoken of again in Hebrews chapters 7-10. Covenant signs and seals occurr in Matthew 5: 17-18, 12: 41-42/ Luke 1: 32/Hebrews 3: 5-6, 9: 12, and Protestants hold that the Covenant signs and seals are the Lord's Supper and Baptism. John Calvin adopted the position called Historic Premillennialism followed by Justin Martyr. Justin Martyr's eschatological view did have leanings on chiliasm (Literal 1,000). Covenant Theology, along with Historical Premillennialism, is the view which Calvin held, as he rejected the basic tenets of Dispensational Premillennialism, such as pretribulation rapture. Progressive Revelation, otherwise called Dispensational Premillennial Theology, teaches that Biblical eschatology follows the Biblical dispensational periods: Innocence (Genesis 1: 1 to 3: 7), conscience (Genesis 3: 8 to 8: 22), government (Genesis 9: 1 to 11: 32), patriarchal (Genesis 21: 1 to Exodus 19: 25), Mosaic (Exodus 20: 1 to Acts 2: 4), grace (Acts 2: 4 to Revelation 20: 3), and the thousand years yet to come (Revelation 20: 4 to 20: 6). Progressive Revelation is a component of Futurism (Premillennialism). Progressive Revelation holds that Revelation 4-5 are future events, which overlapp with this Messianic Age, Revelation having seven sections: 1: 1-3 to 3: 22/4: 1 to 7: 17/8: 1 to 11: 19/ 12: 1 to 14: 20/15: 1 to 16: 21/17: 1 to 19: 2/20: 1 to 22: 21. Covenant Theology stands in contrast to Dispensationalism, in regard to the relationship between the Old Covenant with National Israel, and the New Covenant with the house of Israel (Jeremiah 31: 31). Covenant Theology is often referred too, by it's detractors, as Supersessionism or Replacement Theology, because, of a mistaken perception, that it teaches the abandonment of God's promises made to the Jews, by replacing Jews with Christians. To the contrary, in fact Covenant Theology holds that God has not abandoned His promises to Israel in the personal work of the Messiah (Jesus of Nazareth) who established the church in organic continuity with Israel. Again, the augsburg Confession (Article XVII) rejects chiliasm. Division should never be an option, within the framework of Historism, which views prophecy as being fulfilled in the past, present, and future, and was the belief held by Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer, John Knox, John Thomas, and Idealism found in Postmilleniallism, which holds that eschatological materials are symbolic (Spiritual), especially if division is ignited by educated degree possessing pastors. These minor views are not grounds for any Christian Church to practice Closed Communion. All of the Biblical eschatological views - Amillennialism, Historic Premillennialism, Dispensational Premillennialism, covered in this thesis, are problematic in some way, and they cannot be fully conclusive.
National Israel in the Bible is not necessarily National Israel of modern day. Many of them are European Ashkenazis, and are not more likely to be descendants of Biblical Jews than anyone else alive.
If you add 490 years to the Ezra 7 decree, you arrive in 33 AD. So Jesus is the one making/confirming the new covenant in the 70th week and because He forgave the sins during his mission and eventually atoned for them, he made the sacrificial system obsolete. "For this is MY blood of the new testament (COVENANT), which is shed for MANY for the remission of sins." (Mat 26:28) I believe that Jesus is referring to Daniel 9:27 here. Daniel 9 is actually the main reason why I am no longer dispensational. I could write a book about all the reasons why the dispensational understanding of the 70 weeks is biblically, logically and historically wrong.
What do you say about Galatians 3:16 Which says that .16. Now the promises were made to Abraham and his seed. He saith not, seeds as of many, but seed, as of one. Which is Christ. The thing is Scofield started to change in his notes that word seed, to descendents. Then other Bibles chang it also. The trouble is if Jesus Christ is the seed then that convanent is fulfilled.
Covenant theology helped me to understand the baptism of infants. Could you elaborate on this too? Do lutherans also view baptism as covenant ? ( maybe it not being the central theme) . I think in some way a lutheran can say that baptism is some form of covenant. Thank you ❤
Lutherans have told me that they see baptism as a presentation of the Gospel to the recipient, and as a means through which God regenerates the recipient. Their confessions say that all who are baptized are regenerated at the moment of their baptism.
This is one area where the lutherans have stayed true to the Reformation, and the Reformed have not. Sixteenth Century reformers, both lutheran and calvinist, did not focus on Covenant. Like you indicate this is not a main theme in Luther or Calvin's writings.
This is actually not accurate , Luther and Calvin did speak on covenant theology. Calvin is much more covenantal than Luther was. Especially with his emphasis on the double graces of the covenant of Grace. (Justification/sanctification) and the conditionality of the covenants.
@@GRNRampaqex Covenant theology firstly federal Calvinism appeared in the Westminster Confession that mentions a covenant of works and a covenant of grace is chapter 7. And covenant theology was subsequently developed further, but covenant theology was not addressed by Luther or Calvin. Nowhere in Calvin’s Institutes is there a mention of covenant theology. Lutherans focus on law and gospel instead of different covenants.
Bill K Now let us examine the arguments by which certain mad beasts ceaselessly assail this holy institution of God. First of all, since they feel that they are immoderately cramped and constrained by the likeness between baptism and circumcision, they strive to set these two things apart by a wide difference so that there may seem to be nothing in common between them. For they say that these two signify different things, that the covenant in each is quite different, and the calling of children under each is not the same… In asserting a difference between the covenants, with what barbarous boldness do they dissipate and corrupt Scripture! And not in one passage only - but so as to leave nothing safe or untouched! For they depict the Jews to us as so carnal that they are more like beasts than men. A covenant with them would not [p. 188] go beyond the temporal life, and the promises given them would rest in present and physical benefits. If this doctrine should obtain, what would remain save that the Jewish nation was satiated for a time with God’s benefits (as men fatten a herd of swine in a sty), only to perish in eternal destruction? (IV. 16. 10) all men adopted by God into the company of his people since the beginning of the world were covenanted to him by the same law and by the bond of the same doctrine as obtains among us. (II. 10. 1) The Lord held to this orderly plan in administering the covenant of his mercy: as the day of full revelation approached with the passing of time, the more he increased each day the brightness of its manifestation. Accordingly, at the beginning when the first promise of salvation was given to Adam it glowed like a feeble spark. Then, as it was added to, the light grew in fullness, breaking forth increasingly and shedding its radiance more widely. At last - when all the clouds were dispersed - Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, fully illumined the whole earth. (II. 10. 20) or the same reason it follows that the Old Testament was established upon the free mercy of God, and was confirmed by Christ’s intercession. For the gospel preaching, too, declares nothing else than that sinners are justified apart from their own merit by God’s fatherly kindness; and the whole of it summed up in Christ. Who, then, dares to separate the Jews from Christ, since with them, we hear, was made the covenant of the gospel, the sole foundation of which is Christ? (II. 10. 4)
Bill K and there are many more references I could make . Stop saying things without really knowing , that’s not right and it shows that you lack scholastic integrity or may just be ignorant . Granted that the covenant theology would not be as developed as the WCF would be , yet there’s still clear covenantal theology and clearly the Westminster divines would have been influenced by Calvin and bullingers covenant theology.
Thank you Dr. Cooper for making these videos. I'm a Reformed Presbyterian, but I'm finding I'm a lot closer to Lutheranism than I ever knew. While what you are saying may be true of most Reformed people, not all Reformed use the term "covenant of works" and the concept of "merit". I'm not sure it's quite fair to say all covenant theology is therefore problematic for that reason. My Reformed church teaches that the covenant with Adam was a covenant of grace as well. Adam was given so many blessings and had to have faith in God to keep the covenant. I think we both agree faith doesn't count as a work because it is a free gift of God. Adam didn't have to "merit" God's favor. He already had it and was sustained in his righteous state by faith in God. In your video about whether Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, you point out that Lutherans don't like to use that term. Similarly I think this is an instance where not all Reformed like to use the terms "covenant of works" and "merit". Thanks again. Your videos have been very helpful to me.
Why do so may churches make the Bible so much more complicated than it is. God reated the heaven and the earth and then us bc he wanted to be known! And he diesnt make something really clear than its bc its not super important, and if its something that is hard to understand than we dont need to understand it just trust that He is God and we can simply trust what He says. It really isnt that hard man.its not. Keep it simple.
"I and many others are of this opinion [premillennialism], and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise." - Justin Martyr (died around 165 ad). That's in additition to the Apostles, of course. No one in their right mind can read apocalyptic literature so literally on that particular issue while ignoring so much else or imagine Jesus spending a 1,000 years as an earthly ruler. His Kingdom is not of this world. Indeed, He reigns above even now. And that's why this world will be dissolved and an entirely new one created upon His return.
Do Lutherans believe in covenant theology, you ask? Do the followers of Luther believe in covenant theology? Does Luther believe in covenant theology? What kind of question is that? Who cares about what Luther or his followers believe? Luther is a man and a Protestant: each man is fallible and each Protestant composes his own gospel message. Ergo: stop posing irrelevant questions, Jordan. I might ask as well whether my neighbour believes in covenant theology. Some men will and other men do not: who cares what man believes what? How is such question related to inquiring after the truth? Rather ask yourself: how come the gospel according to Luther is fully incompatible with the Gospel of the early Church, for example? Such is a question that makes sense. A question that inquires after the opinions and ideas of this or that man regarding his subjective understanding of Scripture is not. It is simply meaningless. Time to face reality, Jordan. Luther is a MAN. You follow a fallible MAN in matters eternity. Next to Luther you find millions of other MEN claiming the Gospel as well, fully different from the Luther one. Who will be saved by means of a gospel message that he composes himself? Who will be saved by a man-made gospel? Nobody, Jordan: nobody! Not now and not ever. Wake up, Jordan!
You are DEAD wrong! Jesus THE CHRIST is the head of every believer in Christ, and the Head of the Church. The scriptures ALONE speak of the headship of Christ. As i type this i think the Roman Catholics listen to much a fallen and sinful man who calls himself pope Francis who is a closet Marxist. Happily, many Roman Catholics don’s follow him nor Mary but worship CHRIST ALONE!
@@BelieveOnlyJesus Thank you, my friend, for sharing your opinions with us regarding the meaning of Scripture. What you write is not true, however. Who told you to go by Scripture alone? Such is a man-made invention, unknown before the 16th century, coined by Luther. Why do you follow Luther in his interpretations and opinions? Based on what do you accept him as your teacher in matter eternity? You follow a man, my friend: come follow Jesus!
@@pierreschiffer3180 I do not follow pope Francis because he is indeed a Marxist at heart and NOT a true believer. I remember when “liberation theology “ was rampant in Latin America during the 70’s of which Francis is a follower. As a former Roman Catholic i know how poorly the scriptures have authority over the individual believer.
@@BelieveOnlyJesus What you write does not make sense, my friend. How would you know whether someone is a "true believer" or not? You would take YOUR understanding of Scripture as the norm, which is meaningless. The intention of Scripture is not for all men to compose their own gospel and truth: Jesus does not call us to compose our own, but rather to accept His. You are to follow Him, my friend: not your own ideas and interpretations and what all. I am not a fan of PF and LT either, but such is irrelevant in matters of truth. You write how Scripture has authority over you: what you mean is how YOUR interpretation of Scripture has authority over you. You are your own authority: you follow yourself. You are to accept the Gospel no matter what and not compose your own.
@@pierreschiffer3180 Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms when asked to recant: “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen." The notion that each Protestant follows his own Gospel is sheer nonsense. Luther quoted scripture and in the Letter to the Romans it clearly states that “ the just shall live by faith”. The Roman Catholic church fell into heresy and created a corrupted Gospel that denied the sufficiency of the grace of the atonement of Jesus ALONE to save. There were MANY reformers PRIOR to Luther who recognized the corruption that Roman Catholicism fell into. Didn’t Jesus say in Matthew 7:16 “you will know them by their fruit...”. It seems you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.
