Thanks for the question. I can only say that I have read and heard comments that Covenant Theology is anti-semitic from many in Dispensationalism, including Ryrie, Walvoord, Pentecost and even John MacArthur. This is a common charge against Covenant Theology. I am thankful that your church does not do this and I know that Progressive Dispensationalism has toned it down, although I have watched a panel discussion on youtube with some well known progressives that made these claims, although it was still toned down. I am sure you have heard Dispensationalists use the term Replacement Theology, this in and of itself is a misrepresentation of what we believe and it comes from a misbelief that we are against the Jews or anti-Semitic. Here is a link to Kim Riddlbarger responding to John MacArthur http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/a-reply-to-john-macarthur/

thanks again
Rob

Also, you started with a clip of John MacArthur, who was essentially asking asking for a *Biblical* rationale for the Reformed Covenant approach to Scripture. So far as I can tell, you never got around to providing such a rationale. I think MacArthur is asking a fair question. If you want to read the OT as “types and shadows”, you need more than hand-waving about the book of Hebrews: you need a set of interpretive principles and guidelines that prevent Biblical interpretation devolving into a hopeless morass where anyone can read what he wants into a passage. Ideally the set of interpretive principles and guidelines would come from Scripture itself, preferably by precept or at least by example.

BTW, I am neither Dispensational nor Covenant. My biggest problem with Dispensationalism is that I don’t find its all-important hermeneutic (rightly dividing the Word!) taught or exemplified anywhere in the NT. I have similar problems with the Covenant approach, as expressed above.