In Proposition 51, George Peters states:
“The relation that the Kingdom sustains to “the covenants of promise,” enables us to appreciate the prophecies pertaining to the Kingdom.”
If the doctrine of the Kingdom hinges on the covenants of promise in their totality, then any prophetic utterances related to the Kingdom should be viewed through the lens of those covenant promises. As Peters rightly notes, understanding the nature of these covenants and how they fit into the overall movement of Scripture and the process of redemption and restoration leading to the Kingdom, helps us grasp what God was declaring through His prophets. Remove one of those essential pieces of the equation and the theological math gets skewed leading to incorrect answers to this topic.
The most notable observation Peters presents in Proposition 51 is the following:
“The rejection of these covenants in their totality, and a resultant spiritualistic conception of the Kingdom, with a consequent mystical treatment of the prophecies, lead some of our most eminent writers to present utterly unwarranted doctrinal constructions.”
Peters is quite correct that many esteemed writers, specifically those who spiritualize the covenant promises as a whole or in how they relate to the doctrine of the Kingdom, come up with some very odd theological premises. As with any theological issue, the foundation must be correctly established before the rest of the structure can be built. If you remove or fail to consider those foundations, the theological building will at some point come crashing down on itself. Some try to prop up their theological structure with additional supports; however, it is mere duct tape that will not last under close scrutiny. The covenants are provided for a reason and they are intimately related to the doctrine of the Kingdom. They cannot be treated as mystical or mere spiritual assertions.