Dear Kelle,

Please forgive me for not making explicit that the presupposition for the exhortations to (a) Israel in the wilderness (3:7-11) and (b) the church in the wilderness (4:11) is that both administrations (Mosaic and New) of the one covenant of grace to the one covenantal household of God (3:6) contain a mixed community of believers and unbelievers. Additionally, the admonitions in both administrations apply to both the believer and the unbeliever alike. That is an entailment from all I said in the episode. I should always aim to be more, not less, explicit.

That pinpoints where we differ from the New Covenant theologians, I believe. At least that might be a good starting point to clarify your own understanding of the issues. If you work through that paragraph above, particularly in light of the podcast, you will at least be clear on what Vos and Gaffin (and, by extension, I) teach. Then you can compare and contrast what we teach to what other theologians, whether New Covenant or Dispensational, have to say on the same topic.

Warmly in Christ,
Lane Tipton

It’s funny you attribute those in his camp with being in line with Disp. Inso far as he does Allow the New Covenant to supersead the old administration(s) in the economy of the OT. However, Dr. Wellum attributes CT with the same dispensationalism hermenetic, in the sense that Disp. Treats the promises of the land and to Israel as continuing through the NC; CT, while not doing this with the land, does this with the covenant sign. In transferring circumcision to baptism. What do you guys make of this?

I’m currently working on a paper defending CT while working through some of his proposals and the hermeneutics that go along with his system.

Dr. Wellum in no way wants to deny the union with Christ in the OT, but thinks we are being inconsistent with inaugurated eschatology, in the sense that the NC promises a regenerate people, and to attribute a partly mixed community in the already, is not quite how this functions. I can elaborate further on what he means by this, but what are your guys’ initial thoughts? The main problem I’m having, is that the way he’s displayed his hermeneutics, across the 3 horizons (textual, epochal, and canonical) is really convincing and while In my paper I am showing how CT is able to withstand his criticism and is similar in some respects, I have not seen a very good ourworking of hermeneutics from a CT perspective, in response to his work. I’m not quite sure that this episode expands on the type of detail I’m looking for, but it’s a place to start. And I wonder what Wellum would say in response. I definitely think the way we look at the function of the NC is the key. The question is what are it’s promises here and now.

Thanks a lot for always producing great content. I’ve learnes so much over the years, especially from Vos group!