Are all reformed baptists Under "new Covenant theology" then?

Could you clarify what you mean?

you have lumped several terms together....what specific questions are you getting at?

reformed baptists use the 1689
http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html

 

Absolutely not. And as far as I'm concerned Reformed baptists are Reformed strictly. We have taken the Reformation to its logical conclusion by getting rid of the last vestige of Romanism, infant baptism.

Steve

 

Salvation is not about how many points one scores in a theology quiz. So long as they hold to the basics of the faith, they are my dear brothers and sisters in Christ, but IMO they are missing out to some degree by not appreciating the richness of the Reformed faith.

Steve

 

Not I... I hold neither covenantal or dispensational theological positions. Both have fatal flaws. Some of the progressive trends are helpful, but in essence both systems are asking the wrong questions to get at the center of Scripture and the heart of God's plan.

 

Sometimes you seem to be in a hurry when you post.Several issues arise that can only be answered correctly by working through them...not just in half sentences.....for example;

What about saints who were saved before Israel was a nation? Those mentioned in hebrews 11....

While there was no NT church, or assembly in the OT.....what of the faithful remnant that God kept......as in Acts 7:38
37This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.

38This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

[QUOTERejects the three “theological covenants” often espoused (with some variation) in Covenant Theology, viz. the covenants of redemption, works, grace.
][/QUOTE]

No reformed baptist rejects any of the three covenants....the confession mentions the teaching... No christian has any reason to reject any of the three covenants you mention here.
If they do it is only for lack of teaching or lack of understanding of the teaching.

No...RB's are virtually the same as the Covenant theologians on these issues...the difference is more on how much continuity is there between the Ot and the Nt.

 

All true Christians are under the new covenant.
MB

 

So help us all out!

 

There are things called a "church" in different places; however, I would suggest that the concept known as "the church" began at Pentecost. I would suggest, however, that it is also a manifestation of the one people of God throughout all ages. It is primarily a label for the assembly comprising Jew and Gentile under equal standing and all under the New Covenant that fulfills the Law.

Many elements of the Mosaic Law were ordinances that were tied tightly to the land of Canaan. Even for the Israelite nation, there were some things they were not required to observe until they settled the land or if they were in captivity. Some of these include tithing, firstfruits, and Sabbatical years.

Agreed. I would say that both the Old and New covenants reflect the one moral Law of God, but that they are very different in actual practice. The Old covenant was full of outward ordinances that were types and shadows of Christ. The New covenant is void of outward ordinances and either have direct fulfillment in what Christ has done or are observed in the "inner man" of the spirit and not in the letter.

I certainly do. I understand the Presbyterian understanding of the covenants that leads them to their covenant theology. This is one reason that many Reformed Baptists lean more toward NCT even if they do not realize it.

I think most will recognize the possible distinction of how the Holy Spirit worked, although we can also recognize that the Holy Spirit regenerates hearts in all ages. If the New Covenant is different in the God poured out his spirit upon all flesh and writes His laws on the hearts, then it seems that we have an "indwelling" of the Holy Spirit that is somehow different from that before, although the mechanics of how this works will probably always be a mystery.

 

So far, I hold to God's election as the center of Scripture.

 

Yes ....I also agree with that statement......Im also discovering that NC focuses mostly all its energy on NT to the neglect of the old. Im looking for a good historical type theology that thinks holistically and starts in Genesis & ends in revelation....NOT backwards Hermeneutics

 

You have that if you read Jonathan Edwards history of redemption;
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1776_edwards_history-redemption.html

 

Is it not possible for a believer, through study, to recognize what scripture teaches concerning the Covenants...without be termed "this or that?"

Can one not simply be a Christian with a theology that God is teaching him/her?

 

While there are some NCTers who are also Reformed Baptist, most of the reformed Baptists I know are not NCTers, but classically covenantal. I would include myself into the camp who is a reformed baptist and believes in Covenant Theology.

 

Darrell C,
Sooner or later the labels are there and are a good thing to a large extent.While not perfect they are better than the alternative.

You go to the shopping mall and a person you speak to says he is a christian,but god has taught him that jesus is not god....but was michael the archangel who was made into a man.....he says god taught him this from scripture....what do you do? how do you respond to him? do you count him as a brother? do you question him about his ideas?