Well said.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is "NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY" Valid?
- Thread starter Earth Wind and Fire
- Start date
Well said.
Does this represent a new dispensation from that of the OT prophets?
Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Mat 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mat 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
Mat 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Mat 13:16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
Mat 13:17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.
If these "mysteries of the kingdom" were kept secret from the prophets, perhaps Jesus is revealing a new program dispensationally?
Or...
Perhaps "the mystery" to which Paul referred was not a "parenthesis" in prophecy.
Perhaps it was not an entirely new "program" for an entirely separate people of God with an entirely separate eternal destiny.
Perhaps, like the "mysteries of the kingdom," Paul's "mystery" was simply "that the Gentiles would be fellow-heirs and of the same body," (Eph 3:5-6) which was not clearly revealed to the prophets nor, of course, to the "sons of men" of the Gentiles, but that this "mystery" was still part of the manifestation of the new covenant (1 Cor 11:25-26; 2 Cor 3:5-8).
Perhaps, "the mystery" is that the new covenant with Israel is fulfilled in such a way that many members of national, ethnic Israel are cut off and the Gentiles are grafted in (Rom 11:25-27 c.f. 2 Cor 3:6,14,4:1-4).
Dispensationalism (classic/mid-Acts+) places too much emphasis on "the mystery" as being an entirely separate program, rather than as being the mysterious manner in which the prophecies of the new covenant are fulfilled.
Let me begin with my personal working use of the word. An oxymoron, in my normal use is an idea thought or theory that is in conflict with known truth. These, and there appear to be many variants, New Testament ideologies, all make God a liar. I will take this to my word processor and try to post the rest of this answer in a bit, thanks for asking.
Back to the point I stopped on; We know from Mal. 3:6a that God is the unchanging God and when we look at John 1:1-3 we learn that Jesus is that God! In the Bible that Jesus, Paul, Peter and all the other followers of Jesus taught from, known to us as the Old Testament, Jesus/God promised the Jewish Believer, not the nation of Judah nor the nation of Israel, that they were His Chosen People for a thousand generations. (Due. 7:9, Exo. 20:6 and Psa. 108:5)
(Worthy of note: God did not have, because of the lack of language and writing skills at the time, the ability to highlight or to emphasize by any other means that would be understood, than to repeat Himself. It, therefore, follows that when God says a thing twice, it is important and if He says it three times, we had better pay attention.)
So it is that calling one´s self a New Testament Christian and the idea of New Testament Theoligy are oxymorons. New Testament theology almost always removes the promises of God in the Old
Testament to the Jewish Believer and places the Modern Day Christian follower of the New Testament, exclusively, into their position. So it is, you see, this is just a renaming of Replacement Theology.
Now about, "God has, in all of history made just one covenant with His Creation." It is essential to understand one key point in Christian Theology that is almost, exclusively, never taught because it then requires a very thorough exposition being taught for the entirety of scripture and teachers, like most other people are lazy, including myself. The point is that the first 39 books of the Christian Bible are the Holy Bible! Do not jump the gun, I have not disavowed the New Testament!
The New Testament, inspired by the God of the Old Testament, Jesus, is the very best Life Application Commentary ever written. When we look, even in the four Gospels, the Jewish Bible is referenced for the lessons being taught. When the people of Jesus' hometown tried to kill Him, it was because He told them He was the fulfillment of the scripture He had just read, and that from our Old Testament. When you prayerfully meditate on it the Holy Spirit will testify to the truth of what Isay and teach here.
So it is then that for God to have made the, so called, Old Testament Covenant and then to have had to make a New Covenant can not be true. God does not make mistakes and this would, of necessity, require for God to have been wrong and that is never true. Along this line, also consider when the Jewish Saints of old went to Heaven. (Matt. 27:50-53 I recall) None were and none have ever been saved without Jesus! All were, all have been and all are saved by Faith in Jesus, the Christ. The Law, just as Paul explains in the letter to the Romans is our teacher. From the Law we learn what God expects of us and what God´s heart is like, it is the most beautiful and accurate picture of God in the Bible.
Jesus/God lived among us to illustrate that the religions would never save us, nor have they! There is just one covent of salvation.
Hi Bill,
Would you agree to the following:
Rom. 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
There are only two kinds of humans between Genesis 1:27 and Revelation 22:
1. Saved versus lost
2. Children of God versus Children of wrath (Satan)
3. "in the flesh" versus "in the Spirit
4. regnerated or unregenerated
5. Elect or non-elect
6. Beleivers or unbelievers
The New Testament promise of indwelling by the Spirit does not have anything to do with INDIVIDUAL indwelling by the Spirit of God but with CORPORATE indwelling (plural "you") as the new "house of God" as an institutional congregational body (1 Cor. 3:16).
The Spirit still comes "upon" the saved and leaves them in the very same sense He did between Genesis and Acts 2:1. Empowerment!
The Spirit has always been "with" indivduals in the sense of personal indwelling, sealing, regeneration, santification, etc. But he has never been "in" a plurality of persons as one institutional body or temple because the temple of God has never before been composed of "lively stones built up a spiritual temple" (1 Pet. 2:5; 1 Cor. 3:16; 12:27).
Man has always had the SAME problem - sin
God has always had the SAME solution - redemption in Christ no redemption outside of Christ for anyone at any time.
Salvation has always been the same - divinely purposed in Christ before the world began - Christ coming and providing for redemption - gospel proclaiming either he is coming or has come - regeneration/conversion/circumcision of the heart - justification/adoption - progressive sanctification by the indwelling Spirit and eventually glorification.
The Law was "ADDED" merely to emphasize the gospel as GOOD news through revealing sin and utter inability to be justified by anything man can do for God.
The Old Testament house of God was the public administration of God's kingdom on earth prior to the coming of Christ. The New Testament house of God is the public administration of the kingdom on earth presently.
The Old Covenant or "do this and live" was established in the Garden (Gen. 2:16) as was the New Covenant (Gen. 3:15) but the institutionalization of it and public confirmation was by Moses whereas the intitutionalization of the New Covenant and public confirmation was by Christ and both were ratified by blood.
The gospel has always been the same (Heb. 4:2) with the exception that prior to the cross it was progressive in revelation looking to the cross whereas now it is prophetic in fulfillment looking back at the cross but the same Christ (Acts 10:43) the same way, the same covenant (Heb. 13:20) and the same salvation (Jn. 14:6; Acts 4;12).
Here is the key to understanding salvation revealed in scripture. There is no salvation OUTSIDE of Christ for anyone at any time between Genesis and Revelation (Jn. 14:6) and all mankind between Genesis and Revelation who do not have the indwelling Spirit of Christ are "none of his."
I´ll tell you what I won do! I´ll not assist you in hijacking this thread. I did read far enough to see that and a fight are your intent. Your gross misapplication of the 3:16 verse is not only out of context but you then corkscrewed it to achieve your desired result. If you wish to start a string on this matter and send me a PM, I´ll address the issue... seek to do more than discuss, in the Christian manor, and I´l ignore you like burnt toast.
Hello Bill, this will be brief as I am about out of time, even now responding when I should get going.
But you raise some points that I have to disagree with, and, I hope that will not mean we cannot discuss this in a brotherly fashion.
I would not disagree with any of this, but, I will point out that the end conclusion is syllogistic in nature, and it is the premises that I hope to discuss with you.
First, I would just point out, as I am sure you are aware, that in the New Testament, "testament" a "covenant" are the same word, being translated different only.
That there was a change in ministry of God in the life of believers can be seen clearly in many passages and on many points.
One would be the distinct difference of ministry concerning the conviction of sin. righteousness, and judgement.
Under the First (or Old) Covenant, this was fufilled by scripture, our tutor which, as all of scripture does, is meant to lead us to Christ...not the law, or, the First Covenant, or, the Old Covenant. We can call it "old" because it has been replaced by the New.
The law is said, as is Moses, to be a servant. But Christ is He Who buildeth all things. Christ is not a servant over God's House, as the law was, but is "a Son over His own House." (c.f. Hebrews 3)
Okay, I said this would be brief, and am making a liar of myself...lol. So onward ho!
No need for that. I agree that we can view there as being only one true covenant, as we can see that all covenants which really have their beginning in Genesis 3:15 (no pun intended), and fulfillment threads its way through scripture utilizing, not distinguishing, or setting apart, all of them.
While there may be those that hold to replacement theology, I am one that affirms that believers are under...the New Covenant. I did a post, and to my knowledge, no-one has responded. Perhaps you might look at it to see a glimpse of my views concerning the New Covenant.
So I have to protest (and not too loudly..lol) that replacement theology is not a position that all those that believe the New Covenant started on the Day of Pentecost in full embrace.
Understanding the New Covenant is really not that difficult. We can in a very short time understand the concept of Christ bringing in the New Covenant, ratified by His blood, as the Covenant of Law was ratified by the blood of animals.
Just the New Covenant...lol.
Be back in a bit...
But you raise some points that I have to disagree with, and, I hope that will not mean we cannot discuss this in a brotherly fashion.
I would not disagree with any of this, but, I will point out that the end conclusion is syllogistic in nature, and it is the premises that I hope to discuss with you.
First, I would just point out, as I am sure you are aware, that in the New Testament, "testament" a "covenant" are the same word, being translated different only.
That there was a change in ministry of God in the life of believers can be seen clearly in many passages and on many points.
One would be the distinct difference of ministry concerning the conviction of sin. righteousness, and judgement.
Under the First (or Old) Covenant, this was fufilled by scripture, our tutor which, as all of scripture does, is meant to lead us to Christ...not the law, or, the First Covenant, or, the Old Covenant. We can call it "old" because it has been replaced by the New.
The law is said, as is Moses, to be a servant. But Christ is He Who buildeth all things. Christ is not a servant over God's House, as the law was, but is "a Son over His own House." (c.f. Hebrews 3)
Okay, I said this would be brief, and am making a liar of myself...lol. So onward ho!
No need for that. I agree that we can view there as being only one true covenant, as we can see that all covenants which really have their beginning in Genesis 3:15 (no pun intended), and fulfillment threads its way through scripture utilizing, not distinguishing, or setting apart, all of them.
While there may be those that hold to replacement theology, I am one that affirms that believers are under...the New Covenant. I did a post, and to my knowledge, no-one has responded. Perhaps you might look at it to see a glimpse of my views concerning the New Covenant.
So I have to protest (and not too loudly..lol) that replacement theology is not a position that all those that believe the New Covenant started on the Day of Pentecost in full embrace.
Understanding the New Covenant is really not that difficult. We can in a very short time understand the concept of Christ bringing in the New Covenant, ratified by His blood, as the Covenant of Law was ratified by the blood of animals.
Just the New Covenant...lol.
Be back in a bit...
We accept the bible as a whole.
But that we have need to recognize that the plan of redemption has, from the beginning of the world, been progressively revealed little by little. When we get to the mystery of God being revealed both in the Living Word and the written word, we can look back at the covenants of God and see how they all are but parts of a whole.
What in the salvation experience can be seen to contradict the promises of God? Not one thing, for what was promised in Genesis, to Noah, To Abraham, to David, to the Houses of Israel and Judah...all find their completion in Christ, who was promised...to the world, to the inclusion of both Jew and Gentile.
It is only reasonable to conclude that Christ quoted the law because...at this time the collective New Testament was not compiled, and would not be, for quite some time.
I would also suggest that the New Testament contains our guide for...the New Covenant. Within the written word is God's revelation of the New Covenant. But as the discussion progresses, we can look at this in...the New Testament.
We can verify that God did in fact make a covenant that was replaced by the New in Hebrews.
It is not "so-called," it is called the First Covenant in Hebrews. Take a look at Hebrews 7-9 with this in mind.
When it comes to understanding the roles of the Two Covenants this is a great place to start. As you said, the New Testament is great Commentary on the Old, and by the direction of the Holy Spirit the writer of Hebrews describes the importance of understanding what we, as Christians...should know.
Not only did God promise to do so, He did so.
Hebrews 8
7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
The question is not "did God promise a New Covenant," we can see that He did. The question is, "are Christians under the New Covenant today, or will this covenant apply and be ushered in for Israel only?"
Here we see that the First Covenant, the Covenant of Law (as is made clear in Hebrews), was not effective, as we see, in regards to man's sin, we see throughout Hebrews and in fact throughout the New Testament.
"For finding fault with...them." Not the Covenant of Law, for if righteousness should have been through anything it should have been through the law. The fault is found in man, in the the law was weak through the flesh.
9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Clearly describes the Covenant of Law.
10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
And here, as we see in Ezekial 36:22-27, we see that the New Covenant will be effective in the life of man...for righteousness. See the link for a great Old Testament description of the New Birth.
Almost done...
I just do not see how this conclusion is reached.
God promised a New Covenant, and God fulfilled that promise.
Well, I am one that does not believe that until the Cross, man's sin as of yet unatoned for in completion, he did not go into the presence of the Lord, but went to sheol, or, hades, to use the term the Lord used in the story of the rich man and Lazarus.
It is a debateable position, admittedly, but I do not believe the Lord would tell this story and use a false concept to convey a truth, and this concerning man's disposition after physical death.
Despite the position held concerning that doctrine, we can know for certain that the salvation of the Old Testament saints was incomplete as Hebrews testifies, after speaking specifically about Old Testament saints:
Hebrews 11
39And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
40God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
Though they were declared just before their sins were atoned for, and that by grace through faith, they were not made complete (the meaning of perfect).
Hebrews 12
1Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
2Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Jesus is literally the Beginning and End of our faith, literally...the completer of our faith. We can see in Hebrews that while the law could not make perfect (complete), and a primary reason because it could not take away sin, Jesus could.
Back in a bit...
Agreed, but until Christ died for the sins of man...man's sin had not been forgiven, thus my belief that they did not go to heaven after death.
They were not made complete, and could not be, through the forgiveness afforded by the law, the shedding of blood of animals, which could not take away sins.
This indictment includes the entirety of the First Covenant, for we, states scripture, have a better covenant, and a better High Priest.
The law...was our teacher.
Galatians 3
24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
What is the faith that has come? Faith in Christ.
We can see that contained in these two verses themselves..."the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ."
The law peformed this ministry and did that which the Comforter performs today: convicted man of sin, righteousness, and judgment.
When Paul states that we are no longer under a schoolteacher, he states that we are no longer under the miinstry of the law, but the direct ministry of God in our lives, which is taught by Christ, and is fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, when the Comforter came.
I would have to respectfully disagree:
John 14:8-9
King James Version (KJV)
8Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
...this is just one verse that shows the superiority of Christ in all things to the law and the intended ministry it played in the revelation of redemptive history.
Keep in mind that the law was the religion of the Jews. The First Covenant is but one of many covenants that culminate in the New Covenant.
And I would agree with that, but for different reasons, I believe.
Thanks for the response, Bill.
God bless.
I do not make you for wanting to fight and discussion results in steel sharpening steel.
Okay, agreed.
I´m sorry, I just cannot go there. I base my position on a couple of scriptures that need not be taken from their context to support it. In the first chapter of John, verses 1-3,Jesus is the creator in Genesis, He is God. Yeah, He is the second person of the Holy Trinity ut it must always be remembered that they are three in one, difficult to fully grasp but essential to grasp but there can be little understanding without it.
Next I´m going to Mal. 3:6a, God is the only thing in all of Creation tat does not change. For me to believe that God changed His ministry to His creation is to discard the entire Jewish Bible and without that there is no Christianity. God created Adam for the purpose of fellowship and God walked in the cool of the evening, talking with him. When Adam was fool enough to love his wife more than God and joined her in sin, that fellowship was severed and Father God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit have moved to restore that fellowship. I am just hard put to ever imagine that God, the Creator that foreknew I would accept his plan of Salvation, some six thousand years later could be frivolous and change.
Where to begin. It is my position that the Bible, in the Christian printing, is 39 books long and that will be what you and I commonly call the Old Testament. The Canonized books we term the New Testament (and I so dislike that terminology we have been stuck with) are the best and the only Life Application Commentary ever written for the Bible.
When Jesus spoke of the Law and the prophets, it was His (God´s) position that not the smallest mark of the Law and the prophets should pass away and to believe otherwise is to disbelieve Jesus.
God, being who He is, knew that no man could ever keep the Mosaic Law and therefore there has only ever been one Covenant of Salvation and therefore it is my position that there is no New Covenant because when these misguided New Theology and New Covenant Christians speak they speak of the Mosaic Law as being the method of Salvation to the preChrist Jew and nobody was ever saved by the Law, that was never Godś purpose, He knew we could never do the Law.
glfredrick
New Member
This thread has gone all over the place, but I don't think that we have actually discussed the OP question, "Is the New Covenant Theology valid?"
So, is it?
I think yes... Not a complete look at the Scriptures, but not an invalid take on what is seen and explained.
So, is it?
I think yes... Not a complete look at the Scriptures, but not an invalid take on what is seen and explained.
I dont know enough about it to embrace it or trust it as a sound theology that replaces either of the other two (what I consider, man made & flawed Theologies)
Is it being taught at the seminary level? Are churches proudly proclaiming it....or are they slipping it in?
to date I consider it merely a backward hermeneutic.
glfredrick
New Member
First, all of the current theories are "backward hermeneutic." They all strive to lay a gridwork over Scripture in order to derive a center and motivator for the actions of God in the world. None of them succeed, for God's motivation is not some derived covenant (that never exists in Scripture) nor a derived dispensation (that also never exists in Scripture), but rather in God sovereignly speaking a universe into existence ex nihilo, then electing His purpose into the lives of humankind, to whom He also cuts certain covenants that are ratified not through any of our actions by by God, Himself. These events can be seen happening in different times or eras and there is a progressive revelation of God's actions in the world (we can't really speak of "cosmos" because we have no real way of knowing what God may or may not be doing in the broader huge created universe). All points go God enacting His perfect will and that God's will WILL come to pass whether or not we like it, wish to be a part of it, believe it, etc.
Second, yes, the doctrine (like ALL doctrines) is taught at the seminary level. I'm not sure what some folks think is taught at the seminary level, but primarily we are taught how virtually everyone sees the world and God at work in the world, which includes doctrines that are both supported and refuted. We also study the history of God's movement in the world, church history, and Baptist history, plus of course, the languages, the Scriptures, hermeneutics, polity, practicum, preaching, writing, critical thinking (not the same as "higher criticism" which is also studied), pastoral biblical counseling, some sociology, psychology (enough to understand the concepts and bounce them off of a biblical worldview), philosophy, worldview, evangelism, and other more specific course work such as biblical theology, systematic theology, etc.
What is there about the new covenant theology that you disagree with? And with what would you replace it?
QUESTION: What is there about the new covenant theology that you disagree with?
ANSWER: Changing the moral laws of the 10 commandments as established by God.
ANSWER: Changing the moral laws of the 10 commandments as established by God.
glfredrick
New Member
Is that what is happening, or is that your misunderstanding of the NC?
Up until meeting this NC Pastor, I was not even aware this theology was taught. However I have had some bad experiences with the other two. Therefore I have put most of my study into Salvation via Gods Grace & have not emphasized it.
Also since Ive spent allot of time studying 1689 Confessions & am content with what they site as statement of faith, I do not see the need to dismantle that.
So none of this eschatology is of high priority for me......I guess Im just curious. Maybe in 20 years, someone will have worked it out....then I can make it a front burner interest vs a back burner.
Also since Ive spent allot of time studying 1689 Confessions & am content with what they site as statement of faith, I do not see the need to dismantle that.
So none of this eschatology is of high priority for me......I guess Im just curious. Maybe in 20 years, someone will have worked it out....then I can make it a front burner interest vs a back burner.
Last edited by a moderator:
Also, I can be totally wrong but it appears that graduates of the Southern theological Seminary in Louisville are more inclined to be NCT advocates ....is there something to this or am I mistaken. Is this a hybrid creation of SBC Seminaries?
Lastly, what is NCT's acceptance level at this juncture....I assume, not much.
Lastly, what is NCT's acceptance level at this juncture....I assume, not much.
glfredrick
New Member
Not really... And, I've already said that it is not my primary theory and I am a double grad of Southern.
It is just that both of the primary theories, dispensationalism and covenantalism have fatal flaws in that neither can deal with the totality of the revelation of Scripture and so there is yet theological work to do to reconcile a theory with Scripture -- any theory -- and so the debate continues. There are many theories along the continuum of extremes presented by dispensationalism and covenantalism, just like there are many theories along the continuum between hyper-Calvinism and Pelagianism. Such is the nature of theological discourse as men attempt to reconcile the totality of the Scriptures with a formula or network of thought overlaying and trying to make sense from the revelation we were given.
OK.... Im still trying to find out where it comes from & who supports it. I dont want to get my primary inf from the web (too skewed). :thumbs:
It appears to me a Hybrid...taking most of the theology from Reformed types....but I cant find one Reformed Baptist that supports it....at least in totality. Nor do I see our Fundamentalist Brothers embracing it. I don't think I am happy with this new construct that truthfully takes from both Colum A & B (Covenant & Dispensational)
Last edited by a moderator: