Is "NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY" Valid?

[Darrell C]

I do not make you for wanting to fight and discussion results in steel sharpening steel.

Good, as that is my intent, to discuss in a brotherly fashion.

I´m sorry, I just cannot go there.

I do not see why. Does God still perform the ministry of convicting of sin, righteousness, and judgment...through the law?

Did Jesus not say, "I must go...that the Comforter may come?"

Nothing changes concerning God's plan of redemption, however, how He ministers to men does at times change, Christ's coming being the greatest example.

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.

I have not implied that God Himself has changed, but that as revelation has been pogressively revealed to man, meaning, as God has seen fit to give man more understanding, we have seen change in how God ministers to man.

The New Covenant sees several things that differ than that which was found under the First Covenant.

Under the First Covenant, for example, men knew "Messias is coming," as testified by the woman at the well.

Under the New Covenant, Messias has come.

As testified by you and me.

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.

I am not sure how a discussion about the New Covenant has gone to a discussion of the Trinity.

I guess you have been given the impression that I believe that God has changed.

Not so, but rather that man's understanding based upon further revelation given in the New Testament.

Under the First Covenant, men were told of Messiah, yet they did not understand that God would manifest in the flesh, die for the sins of the world, and by His indwelling Spirit teach His people, giving them a better and clearer understanding of the ministry of the law.

Next I´m going to Mal. 3:6a, God is the only thing in all of Creation tat does not change.

It helps to post the verses referred to.

And this verse in particular, if it is believed that God will not change, strengthens the belief that National Israel will, as prophecy states, receive the blessings and promises of God, even as He has said.

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.

This seems to center more on a devaluation of the New Testament than a discussion of the New Covenant.

If we do not look at the revelation provided in the New Covenant as "new," and view this, not as inspired scripture, but commentary only, we find no fulfillment of the promises of God in the Old.

And I would disagree that without the revelation provided in the Old Testament "there would be no Christianity," though I would affirm that without the Old there would be "a more limited understanding of Christianity."

Without the "change" in ministry to man that is found in the revelation of Jesus Christ (and I speak to all aspects, not just the book), man would still be under a tutor that was meant to lead men to Christ.

That would be like looking at a manual of a model tee to figure out how to program a stereo in a modern car. The model tee would not have information available, for this was yet to be a part of automobiles.

Likewise, understanding the death of Christ was next to impossible for those under the First Covenant, and we see this illustrated in even the disciples that walked personally with the Lord, and were told specifically by Him concerning the fact that He would die.

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.

So why did not Christ manifest in the flesh, and die for the sins of Adam?

Why wait approximately 4000 years to do so? It is because God decided to give understanding and for Christ to appear according to His wisdom.

And would you say that there is a difference between how God worked in the lives of Cain and Abel, and how He worked in the lives of Moses and Aaron?

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.

And had you been born in the day of Moses, you would have been as limited in understanding of Christ as Moses.

John the Baptist recognized the "Lamb of God," but while in prison sent disciples to inquire if He was in fact...the Christ. Showing that he, though said to be the greatest among men, did not have a full understanding of Christ or the ministry He would perform among men and for men. And again, even the disciples of Christ, not just the twleve, did not understand clear statements which we can. Such as John 6.

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.

Where to begin would be addressing the scriptural presentation which was given, not a personal testimony as to what is inspired and what is not, or, what scripture takes precedence over another.

Now I am forced to address this, rather than the New Covenant...lol. But that's okay.

The "bible" in the "Christian printing" consists of 66 books. That is my belief.

Now that we have that out of the way...

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.

This is more than a little disturbing, that the "New Testament" is "commentary," which sounds to me like you are saying the the New Testament was given to us by men.

I hope that is not the case, and that I am misreading this.

I will ask you a question that I would really like to have an answer for: why is the New Testament called...the New Testament?

Likewise, why is the Old Testament called...the Old Testament.

Give this some thought before answering.

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.

Who has done that?

If there has been something I have said that states we disregard or do away with any portion of scripture, please let me know.

However, to illustrate that the New Testament writers spoke for God can be seen in the Revelation of Jesus Christ (and this time I speak of the book): John is told he this...


Revelation 10:11

King James Version (KJV)

11And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.


Not write commentaries, but to speak that which God would reveal to man through a chosen prophet.

We see also in the writings of Paul that he claims to speak for God, and within that we find Paul teaching mystery, previously unrevealed truth given to man, through a divinely chosen prophet, one who speaks for God.

God, being who He is, knew that no man could ever keep the Mosaic Law

Agreed, in that it was weak through the flesh.

Which is why He promised a New Covenant. The New Covenant was not God changing His mind, or His nature (I feel compelled to add), but the New Covenant flows from Genesis to Revelation where we see God's plan of redemption culminate in a new heaven and earth, and a people of God cleansed of sin, and in relationship with God.

We see fulfillment of promise to Abraham and the covenant made in the New Covenant, for examle.

We see in the Millennial Kingdom fulfillment of the New Covenant to Israel, for example.

But we see fulfillment of the New Covenant specifically in the work of Christ, that man might be brought into relationship with God. And until He died, it was necessary that the law remain in place.

The law is euphemistic in Hebrews for the First, or, Mosaic Covenant.


I will have to post this in two parts,


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

and therefore there has only ever been one Covenant of Salvation and therefore it is my position that there is no New Covenant

Then you deny that God covenanted with mankind through Noah? With Abraham (and subsequently with all peoples, nations, tribes and tongues)? With Moses? With David?

That He promised those that were enjoying (and sometimes, most of the time...not) the benefits of these previous covenants that He would make a New Covenant?

We have this promise found under the Old Covenant, meaning...in the Old Testament writings.

And that clearer understanding is given in the New Testament cannot be escaped...it is more than just commentary.

It is the inspired word of God given to men under the New Covenant.

because when these misguided New Theology and New Covenant Christians speak

So far, I have only seen a small prtion of the beliefs of "NCT" given, so whether they are "misguided" or not remains to be seen.

I have yet to see one speak here.

they speak of the Mosaic Law as being the method of Salvation to the preChrist Jew

Anyone that ascribes the law, the First Covenant, or the keeping of the law the power to grant eternal life is in error.

I am aware of no-one but Judaizers that err in such a way.

My understanding of the New Covenant (the covenant itself) in the New Testament (the collective writings) proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is not true.

If it were true, much of the New Testament comes into contradiction.

and nobody was ever saved by the Law,

True. The law did, though, show man his sin and his need for a Savior.

that was never Godś purpose, He knew we could never do the Law.

True again.

God bless.

 

[Jerome]

EWF, here is a seminary journal article on New Covenant Theology:

http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj18f.pdf

at its theological core NCT began within the Reformed Baptist movement. Although NCT rejects the key distinctive of the Reformed Baptist position, namely the cardinal features of Covenant Theology, all the foundational or first-generation contributors to NCT and many who have since identified with it have their roots in Reformed Baptist circles. It is a reactionary movement against the key aspects of Covenant Theology, that is, the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace. Seemingly, it also is a reaction against a real or perceived dilution of traditional Baptist distinctives that the adoption of Covenant Theology has brought into Reformed Baptist circles

 

[Jerome]

I cant find one Reformed Baptist that supports it

New Covenant Bible Fellowship (Tempe AZ):

http://ncbf.net/pdf/NCBF_Constitution.pdf

New Covenant Bible Fellowship. . .is a NEW COVENANT REFORMED BAPTIST CHURCH

New Covenant Confession of Faith:

http://ncbf.net/pdf/confession.pdf

 

[Jerome]

http://www.challies.com/church/the-reformed-baptist-renewal

Looking at the landscape of Reformed Baptists, [former Professor of New Testament at Toronto Baptist Seminary Clint Humphries] identifies five streams and suggests that most contemporary Reformed Baptists will fit into one of them. They are:

1.The Neo-Evangelical Stream.
Leading Example: John Piper
Characteristics: Calvinistic convictions arrived at from within the broad mainstream Neo-evangelical ethos.

2.The Dispensational Stream.
Leading Example: John Macarthur
Characteristics: Calvinistic conclusions arrived at out of the generally ‘3-4 point Calvinist’ circles of ‘Dallas’ dispensationalism.

3.The Fundamentalist Stream.
Leading Example: Spiritual heirs of TT Shields
Characteristics: Distinguished from other Fundamentalists by Calvinism and at times non-Premillenial eschatology. Yet still Fundamental in ethos and association (cf. Paisley in N. Ireland, Bob Jones University, etc.)

4.The Reformed Baptist Stream.
Leading Example: Al Martin, Tom Ascol
Characteristics: Often connected with Presbyterians, possessing the same view of the Law’s implication for Christian living, particularly in the form of Sabbatarianism, and 10 commandments as normative for Christians.

5.The New Covenant Reformed Baptist Stream.
Leading Example: John Reisinger
Characteristics: Derived from the Reformed Baptist stream, but broke away from those circles over disagreement about Sabbatarianism and the relation of the Law to theChristian. Tended to emphasize a more Christocentric view of the Law (i.e. Law is fulfilled in Christ entirely, therefore the idea of Sunday as equivalent to a Jewish Sabbath is incorrect). Can draw from Progressive Dispensational circles as well as other eschatological perspectives.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

http://www.challies.com/church/the-reformed-baptist-renewal

I know Al Martin & he would be a Sabbatherian

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

EWF, here is a seminary journal article on New Covenant Theology:

http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj18f.pdf

THanks... Will read it when I have time!:thumbs:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Didnt someone on BB once mention that there is a New Theology (of Election)?

If what I read about NCT is correct, its reactionary & it also cherry picks from the existing grid work. Anyone......anyone..... (Bueler)....couldnt resist!:smilewinkgrin:

 

[th1bill]

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.

Well, You must not have read my earliest reply because I did, from scripture, prove it is not valid and every post to contrary has been, like yours, opinion and opinion does not override what God has put down for us to follow.

 

[glfredrick]

Well, You must not have read my earliest reply because I did, from scripture, prove it is not valid and every post to contrary has been, like yours, opinion and opinion does not override what God has put down for us to follow.

So, you can prove either a dispensational theory or a covenantal theory from the actual exegesis of Scripture?

Good luck with that (use of the word luck is intentional).

Where is the Covenant of Works or the Covenant of Grace listed?

Where is the Church a parenthesis to the Jews?

 

[th1bill]

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.

I am sorry but the rest of your post here matters not because thew foundation, quoted, is, in no manner true! Within the Baptist Christian Religion there is a core membership, of whom I am a member that does not lay a grid-work over the scriptures but rather we take the scripture at face value, just the way it was given from God. That is why you and others always have such a problem with my posts, they are Holy Spirit led, not man made.

 

[glfredrick]

Didnt someone on BB once mention that there is a New Theology (of Election)?

If what I read about NCT is correct, its reactionary & it also cherry picks from the existing grid work. Anyone......anyone..... (Bueler)....couldnt resist!:smilewinkgrin:

That would be me... And the theology is still underway. If you want some of the flavor of what is to come, check out the ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) papers. That is where the cutting edge biblical theology gets sorted out (for the most part).

http://www.etsjets.org/

 

[th1bill]

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.

And I say AMEN!!

 

[Darrell C]

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.

Could you expand on this? How are the moral laws of the 10 commandments "changed?"

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Could you expand on this? How are the moral laws of the 10 commandments "changed?"

OK basically, NCT folks are saying that the Law of Christ replaces the Law of God, as though God's law was in some sense inadequate and the Lord Jesus had to improve it. I don't believe that to be so.

Also if you argue from the New Testament backwards then you have begun with a wrong hermeneutic.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

That would be me... And the theology is still underway. If you want some of the flavor of what is to come, check out the ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) papers. That is where the cutting edge biblical theology gets sorted out (for the most part).

http://www.etsjets.org/

Well thank ya kindly Sir.

 

[Darrell C]

OK basically, NCT folks are saying that the Law of Christ replaces the Law of God,

Can you quote a "New Covenant Theology" "folk" actually stating as you have here?

The New Covenant is a large part of my own beliefs, yet this statement makes little sense to me. Unless one believes that The Son of God had no existence, or at least no part in the Old Testament, they might make a statement to this effect as you put it forth.

But, the statements hereafter are easier to respond to.

as though God's law was in some sense inadequate and the Lord Jesus had to improve it.

Hate to say it, but that is just a basic bible fact presented in scripture, though first it has to be made clear what exactly one considers "the law" to be.

If "the law" is considered to be a general term for God's will, which a case could be made, perhaps, but, if "the law" is taken in context in many passages, the reference is to the First Covenant, or, the Covenant of Law, or, the Mosaic Covenant.

As far as Jesus "improving the law," that is evident easily enough: man was given the law, with a built in clue toward the intent of the heart in the law, "Thou shalt not covet."

Christ made clear the spiritual intent of law by several times saying, "Ye have heard that it was said," followed by "But I say unto you..."

So if by making the law more clear and actually exacting a stricter measure by which the law of God was to be followed...then yes, Jesus Christ very much "improved the law," but only in the sense that He made clear His intentions when giving this law.

as though God's law was in some sense inadequate and the Lord Jesus had to improve it.

Not of itself was it inadequate, however, that it was inadequate to bring completion in atonement and forgiveness is also clear in scripture:


Romans 8

3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.


The law did not need improvement, but it was clearly, apart from the work of Christ, inadequate.

Another example would be found here:


Hebrews 10

1For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Did Jesus improve the law? No, He fulfilled it, He did that which it could not do, and concerning the Covenant of Law...He replaced it with the New.


Hebrews 7

11If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

12For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

There was a change in Priests (we have a Better one than that found under the Law) and we have a changing of the Law, His Preistly duties far superior to the "shadow work" of the Levitical Priesthood.


Okay, I will stop there in hopes that a conversation concerning the New Covenant might be desired, as well as a discussion concerning Perfection as found in Hebrews.

I don't believe that to be so.

But have you spent much time in study concerning the subject? At least take a look.

Also if you argue from the New Testament backwards then you have begun with a wrong hermeneutic.

Well, we each have our beliefs. But as we see the writers often say "therefore," even so we can begin our journey toward understanding in the New Testament, and then see what it is "there for"...lol.

We do not give man the law to lead him to Christ, we can take him directly to Christ, and then show him the shadow and picture of Christ in the law.

God bless.

 

[th1bill]

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.

Let me begin with I am SBC. Now, theory, in relation to Christianity, an exercise in futility and nothing more and yes, that includes the most popular ones. I am not, nor will I ever be, a Calvinist nor any other ist unless we can call a strict follower of scripture a Biblicist. All of these theories elevate man, the finite, up to the level of God, the Infinite and that is nonsense!

 

[th1bill]

Quote:
Originally Posted by th1bill View Post

I´m sorry, I just cannot go there.

I do not see why. Does God still perform the ministry of convicting of sin, righteousness, and judgment...through the law?[/quote]
Yes, without the Law there is no sin! The Law has never and will never save any of us, all are saved by faith in Jesus, even the Jew. The Law was and is our teacher. You might want to spend a couple of months in daily study of the letter to the Romans by Paul.

Did Jesus not say, "I must go...that the Comforter may come?"

Yes and Iḿ so grateful that He has come but I cannot see how that affects the Law.

Nothing changes concerning God's plan of redemption, however, how He ministers to men does at times change, Christ's coming being the greatest example.

Jesus, the Christ taught us that not one stroke or title of the Law and the prophets would pass until all was completed and it can only be concluded, after much study, that Jesus came, not only to die but, teach us the proper application of the Law and the word of the prophets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by th1bill View Post
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.

I have not implied that God Himself has changed, but that as revelation has been pogressively revealed to man, meaning, as God has seen fit to give man more understanding, we have seen change in how God ministers to man.

In Mal. 3:6a we find the truth of the matter and all we think and conclude must be reconciled with it. Since God never changes, your thought are incorrect and violate the Word of God and we must never teach such a thing.

The New Covenant sees several things that differ than that which was found under the First Covenant.[/quote
Let me straighten one point out. There is and in all eternity has only ever been one Covenant of Salvation, that is the reason Iso reject this whole new covenant idea as completely errant. The Law, again, saved no man! Abraham was saved by the same Christ that forgives us all and the Law was never more than a teacher of sin.

Under the First Covenant, for example, men knew "Messias is coming," as testified by the woman at the well.

Under the New Covenant, Messias has come.

As testified by you and me.

As you have stated, the revelation of God to us is progressive and, indeed, it always has been, so it is with the Covenant of Salvation! Any other idea makes God a liar and we certainly know better than that and we know that God is the only constant, as testified, by God, in Mal. 3:6a. All of this New Testament bull comes from man´s attempt to separate God into easily managed portions to demonstrate that God is more like man, making Him manageable for our limited abilities. The truth is that God can and must be believed and believed in but He is infinite and cannot be explained by finite man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by th1bill View Post
Yeah, He is the second person of the Holy Trinity but 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.

I am not sure how a discussion about the New Covenant has gone to a discussion of the Trinity.

I guess you have been given the impression that I believe that God has changed.

Without God changing, your position makes no sense.

Not so, but rather that man's understanding based upon further revelation given in the New Testament.

I´m sorry, there is no new revelation given in the ew Testament. The New Testament, absent in the Jewish Bible, is the Life Application Commentary given to us by the author.

Under the First Covenant, men were told of Messiah, yet they did not understand that God would manifest in the flesh, die for the sins of the world, and by His indwelling Spirit teach His people, giving them a better and clearer understanding of the ministry of the law.

And, of course, I, respectfully, disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by th1bill View Post
Next I´m going to Mal. 3:6a, God is the only thing in all of Creation tat does not change.
It helps to post the verses referred to.

And this verse in particular, if it is believed that God will not change, strengthens the belief that National Israel will, as prophecy states, receive the blessings and promises of God, even as He has said.

This statement, left so open ended leads me to believe that you believe God can change? Heresy! Men, myself being a very good example, do change, but not God! Your idea (theory) is irreconcilable! From before the beginning of time God knew everything that will ever happen. (Pas. 147:4,5; Acts 15:18) Iǘe given you two but the study can be located in the Nave´s Topical and should be of intert to allo for understanding God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by th1bill View Post
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.

This seems to center more on a devaluation of the New Testament than a discussion of the New Covenant.

No, quite incorrect. At this moment, in Church and on the web I am teaching through the Book of the Revelation and next I will teach through the Book of the Acts of the Apostles. A Christian, a sect of Judaism, does not exist without the New Testament. On the other hand, without the first 39 books of the Christian Bible, there can be no faith because the New Testament will have nothing to reference from.

If we do not look at the revelation provided in the New Covenant as "new," and view this, not as inspired scripture, but commentary only, we find no fulfillment of the promises of God in the Old.

Nasty habit, that! Try not to put words never spoken into my mouth, it upsets me to no end and that is how fights begin. This is not, nor has it ever been Christian. I do state and have always stated that God inspired the New Testament and that it is worthy of inclusion and of study, in the correct light, the light of all scripture.

And I would disagree that without the revelation provided in the Old Testament "there would be no Christianity," though I would affirm that without the Old there would be "a more limited understanding of Christianity."

Then there is no point in further discussion. The Old Testament, the Bible, is the foundation of the Christian faith and it is the foundation our Personal Relationship is built upon on! And if I could wrap the foundation of your home with C4 and blow it, the whole house would collapse, the same is true of our faith, without itś foundation, which we can see, there is no faith!

 

[glfredrick]

I am sorry but the rest of your post here matters not because thew foundation, quoted, is, in no manner true! Within the Baptist Christian Religion there is a core membership, of whom I am a member that does not lay a grid-work over the scriptures but rather we take the scripture at face value, just the way it was given from God. That is why you and others always have such a problem with my posts, they are Holy Spirit led, not man made.

I'm of a mind that you are wrong, but I also know that I will never convince you...

You have indeed laid down a theological framework when you make the statement that "we take the Scriptures at their face value just the way it was given from God," even if you don't realize it. Yours is but one of the several theological positions that congregations have taken down through the ages.

And, though I admire your zeal and faithfulness, I doubt that every word you post here on the board is purely driven by the Holy Spirit. If SO MANY have problems with your posts, you are in essence saying that only you have the Holy Spirit to guide you while all the rest of the people here do not. I hardly think that is true, especially when so many of us are involved with vital church minsitries where we walk with the Spirit on a daily basis in order to do what God revealed in the Scriptures.