Featured Christocentric Theology (New Covenant Theology): The Big Nothing Burger

I disagree. People hold different ways of interpreting Divine Economy, but within every framework is God's Word.

To call New Covenant Theology (or Covenant Theology, or Dispensationalism) "nothing" is to call God's Word "nothing because that is the contents of each of those methods.

You may disagree with New Covenant Theology, and that is perfectly fine. I doubt many would condemn you for disagreeing with any of those methods.

But to condemn New Covenant Theology as "nothing" simply because it views Scripture by centering all of Divine Economy on Christ rather than covenants or ages is rather extreme.

I disagree theologically with Karl Barth, but I would not condemn him for his focus on Christ even if I think there are areas where this focus misleads his theology.

 

Thing is, the meaning of Scripture can change depending on how we frame Scripture as a whole.

If we focus, for example, on placing redemptive history strictly within a set of covenants (some present in the Bible, others derived from interpretation) that focuses on developing an elect people then all of God's actions will be interpreted with that goal. Evangelism is not about Christ but about reaching men who God has chosen as the means God used to develop the target group in question ("the elect").

If we focus on Christ then the goal of evangelism changes to reaching every person we encounter because even the Judgment is Christ centered (rather than centered on the Law).

 

Absolutely. It is up to you and @Martin Marprelate to prove New Covenant Theology is "nothing".

We all know you reject it, but simply ignoring it by calling it "nothing" is not an argument but fleeing the topic by ignoring it exists.

I'd very much like to know at what point you two disagree with NTC (you guys could have valid points) but thus far it appears you don't even know.

Do you two reject the Scripture it frames? Do you reject using the New Covenant as that prime covenant? Do you reject their position on the Mosaic Law? Do you reject their literal approach to the Bible? Do you reject their view that the Old Covenant points to the New Covenant? Do you reject their idea of the Mosaic Law as a "schoolmaster" pointing to Christ? Do you reject their view of Israel (as an OT nation) foreshadowing the people of Christ? Do you reject their view that Judgment is Christ-centered rather than centered on the Law? And what is your arguments against what you reject?

 

I did change the name. I use "New Covenant Theology" it NCT, but it is also known as "Christocentric Theology" because it is centered on Christ in its evaluation of Scripture (Old Testament AND New Testament".

You can use either name, the method is the same.

Just like Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism, the content of NCT is God's Word (what you refer to as "nothing"). The difference is the method used to interpret Scripture.

Christocentric theology (little "t") was European Christians response to liberal theology.

And NCT is the traditional Baptist method of viewing the Bible just as Covenant Theology is the traditional Presbyterian method of understanding Scripture.

I am not sure where you got the idea that New Covenant Theology is unorthodox. What sources are you reading?

NCT, Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism are all very old and very orthodox (although competing) methods.

If you don't mind, please let us know who you listen to that is unaware of New Covenant Theology, or unaware it exists within orthodox Christianity.

Thanks.

 

I'm sure people say silly things to make them sound right ("I'm just being Christocentric", "but the plain meaning", "the normal reading", "that's unorthodox","the orthodox belief").

That is true. And that is when you know they have absolutely no clue about what they are talking about.

Where @AustinC made an error is with NCT the name "Christocentric Theology" was not to make it sound more right but to explain the criteria of focus (the New Covenant) as opposed to the elect or dispensations.

He just saw "Christocentric", made assumptions, and ran with it

 

Christocentric Theology (NCT) is held by people who believe in unconditional election and people who do not.

While we normally associate it with Baptists, at one time it was heavily associated with the Reformed churches. Today NCT is experiencing a resurgence among the Reformed.

The difference is not conditional vs unconditional election but how one views and works through the Bible.

The difference between a child of God who affirms Covenant Theology, a child of God who had lds New Covenant Theology, and a child of God who believes Dispensationalism is each person's belief. They are saved the exact same way (whether they understand that salvation or not) and are equally children of God.

 

No. NCT believes the Mosaic Covenant. But NCT holds it ended when the New Covenant began (that the Law was nailed to the Cross).

So NCT views the saved and the lost through Christ (the saved escape the wrath to come, but the list are condemned - the Light has come into the World and men loved darkness rather than the Light (the Judgment itself is Christ centered rather than centered on man and man's sin).

There are biblical covenants (covenants mentioned as covenants in the Bible). These included the Noahic Covenant, Abrahamic Covenant, Mosaic Covenant, Davidic Covenant, and the New Covenant.

NCT views the Mosaic Covenant as applying to the people to whom it was given (those of "that generation and their descendants . . . not [their] forefathers".

The biggest distinction here is NCT holds that the Law points to Christ and was never intended to save man (instead it is viewed as a "tutor" to teach of our sin and direct us to Christ).

NCT views the biblical covenants as progressing to and being fulfilled by Christ and with the New Covenant.

But NCT rejects derived covenants - like a covenant between God and Adam where God promises everlasting life if Adam does not eat of the Tree, death if he does....NCT views this as a command (don't do it) with a consequence (death) for disobedience. And like the covenant of redemption made in eternity past between God the Father and God the Son.

The main difference is how NCT views Scripture and redemptive history as a whole. NCT views redemptive history as progressing to Christ, glorifying Christ, and the Old Covenant (OT) as fulfilled in Christ. Covenant Theology does not deny Christ (they affirm the same verses) but the focus is on men (on God preparing an elect people).

 

Interesting. But I'm not sure a system we know has been around since the 1640's can be said to be relatively new. It is even expressed in the First London Baptist Confession (1646).

But it is new in that it is post-Reformation (as is Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism).

It was the primary Reformed Baptist view at one time, and spread to become (at one time) the most common Baptist position.

I suspect you are relying on a Calvinist Covenant Theory site. It is common for many of those sites to ignore what it chooses not to see (like you calling Scripture "nothing" if within NCT).

I am in my 50's. Most my age or older who were Baptists (perhaps not Reformed Baptists) at a young age were taught NCT (the 5 primary covenants in the Bible, each increasing towards the New Covenant, the New Covenant as the fulfillment of the Old, ect.).

What we have seen with Reformed Baptists is a progression towards a stronger Presbyterian theology. As the gap widens they become rather inventive.

NCT got its start in churches, not academia. The article is right that there is not as much in terms of published theologies when compared to Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism.

BUT the article is wrong in claiming it hasn't been endorsed by evangelistic scholars. FOR EXAMPLE - Jon Zens (theologian and expert on Anabaptist history), Fred Zaspel (Reformed Baptist theologian and author of The Priority of Jesus Christ), Tom Wells (Reformed Baptist theologian and co author of New Covenant Theology with Fred Zaspel ), Gary Long (author of New Covenant Theology: time for a more accurate way), Geoff Volker (Reformed Baptist, pastor of New Covenant Bible Fellowship) and Steve Lehrer (author of New Covenant Theology).

 

@AustinC

The issue here is you do not actually address New Covenant Theology.

You complain that it is not as old as Covenant Theology. You complain that it is not as published as Covenant Theology. You complain that there are not as many New Covenant Theology theologies. You complain that it is not as structured as Covenant Theology.

It is obvious there is a reason you gravitate to Presbyterian views and scholars.

Truth is truth. None of your complaints matter.

You have not addressed even one point of New Covenant Theology that you find unbiblical. Yet the fact many of the "covenants" you use are not actually biblical covenants is apparent to any who takes the time to read and compare with the Bible.