Dr. R. Scott Clark opens a new series on covenant theology, arguing that the Bible itself teaches covenant theology—and that this framework is ancient, not invented. He responds to the claim that covenant theology is a human construct or replacement theology, showing its deep roots in church history and Scripture.
RESOURCES
- All the Heidelvideos
- Heidelvideo on YouTube
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, & Pastoral Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2025)
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
Heidelblog
The Heidelblog has been in publication since 2007. It is devoted to recovering the Reformed confession and to helping others discover Reformed theology, piety, and practice.
More by Heidelblog ›
Dr. Clark, this is timely, as we have left an 20yr entrenchment in dispy to the reformed view. How firmly dispy framed my outlook can’t be overstated. Pentecost, Ryrie, Constable and Chafer writings shaped my view and I did believe anyone non dispy was an antisemite, I deeply regret this. Yes, I was a “Biblicist”, yes I thought the New covenant wasn’t for the church and that there are 2 sep peoples of God, the earthy and the spiritual. Yes, i thought the whole of scripture was national Israel. It is drilled into our heads that “if God doesn’t keep His promises to Israel, I have no basis to believe He will fuilfill His promises to me”. I look back and see how this theology stripped me of a the joy of my relationship with God. It was stressed the mistake of reformed is to see redemption of the church as the end of God’s plans whereas it is the fulfillment of promises made to Israel that is the object of scripture. One large problem this theology produced is what with an Israelite believer today . they don’t seem to see they are dividing jewish believers from each other. If you ask them where the apostles were…church or Israel, they will say both. As you said, they claim to be the “literal” view that held true to scripture (from school of antioch, where all church fathers were allegedly premill) until the allgegorists of Alexandria took over and corrupted theology. All of this to illustrate I appreciate issues you have raised in your introduction and am familiar with them. In order to maintain the lens, they themselves are not consistently literal. (I.e.) Joshua 21:43-45 doesn’t mean what it says….as you know, the issue is the literal interpretation of some prophetic scriptures.
Now, I will also say the same commitment to scripture these men taught me, is also what the LORD used to open my eyes to its inconsistencies. Reading Hebrews in light of Ezekiel 40-44, Romans and Galatians without the lens. I began to see unity and to recover or rather gain more of an understanding of my own walk with God. I have come to appreciate tradition and church fathers more, as well as puritan writings. However, it is true both are “systems” of good men trying to understand the whole of inspired writings. Which leads me to Two issues that have been almost insurmountable for me re reformed view, (while I am appreciating so many things about what it gleans from scripture most recently the shadow and types in OT) is the “3rd use of the law” and more succinctly “sabbatarianism”. I mean isn’t the “3rd use of the law” just repackaging the Decalogue and placing believers under that? I have read other sites where this is questioned, and the responses are usually to offer a church father or teacher. Then my Biblicist mind takes over, and I wonder if when men submit their minds so heavily to any system, if this is how they can overlook the clear teachings of Galatians and other Pauline Epistles in order to make the sabbath binding. If the shadow/types is applied, Hebrews teaches Christ Himself our sabbath. It is a rest from our works, not a rest from our sin as some teach. Though, OF COURSE we are to live moral lives that honor the LORD. I am praying to grasp this in a way that doesn’t instill in me a sense of putting myself under a yoke that the scripture warns against. I do recognize the tension in scripture (where Paul quotes Decalogue) however the sabbath itself is misunderstood. It wasn’t a day of corporate worship, and yet most christians who connect it to God “resting” have dual thinking about it. In other words “rest” but also “work”.
I hope you will address this further along. I have come to see dispy view led to the reality most of larger evangelicalism is so disconnected from Biblical Truth as handed down from the church fathers that it is a completely different faith. “Love God Love Others” is the mission they live by, which is a result of years of drift. Thank you teaching this, I look forward to future videos.
Hi Jen,
Thanks for this. You’re not alone. I’m glad that you see the issues.
On the Decalogue, this is something with which Dispensationalism struggles. It’s true that the Decalogue was given to and under Moses but the Christian church has always distinguished between the moral law (the decalogue), the religious/ceremonial laws, and the judicial laws. Failure to distinguish between those categories creates chaos.
We see this distinction at work in the New Testament. When the rebuked Peter (Acts 10) regarding foods and Gentiles he did so because the ceremonial and judicial laws had expired with the death of Christ. They were always and only temporary.
That’s not true of the moral law, which was summarized in the Decalogue. Yes, the Decalogue came with some typological and temporary features (e.g., the land promise and the Saturday sabbath) but the core of the decalogue reflects the abiding validity of the creational/natural/moral law, which is binding on all believers whether under the types and shadows or under the new covenant.
The sabbath did not begin under Moses. It began, like marriage, as part of creation. Our Lord himself appealed to the creational pattern re both marriage and the sabbath. He didn’t invalidate marriage or the sabbath principle.
It’s true that we’re not “under the law” in the sense in which you’re using that phrase and the way Paul uses it, i.e., we not under the covenant of works that said “do this and live” but the New Testament repeatedly invokes and applies the moral law to Christians as the standard of conduct. It has abiding validity, not as a covenant of works but as moral norm. We may not be idolaters. We may not abuse God’s name. We rest one day a week (on the first day, the resurrection day, the new creation day!). We don’t steal, lie, commit adultery, or covet. These all binding laws for Christians.
See these resources that might help: