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

[AustinC]

In a short article entitled “A Note on ‘Christocentrism’ and the Imprudent Use of Such Terminology” [WTJ 68 (2006): 253-60], Richard A. Muller registers a number of prudent protests about the contemporary discussions about whether certain kinds of Reformed theology are “truly christocentric” enough. Mostly this has to do with in-house conversations that started in the 20th century about whether there was a major difference between Calvin’s “Christocentric” theology and that of later theologians like Beza and the Post-Reformation Orthodox who followed. Calvin was supposed to be a good, pre-Barthian Christocentric theologian, while the rest of the tradition unfortunately took a wrong turn and based all their theology around God’s predestinarian decree, making things lopsided and decidedly un-Christocentric.

Without getting into all the details of Muller’s article and the Reformational historiography (which has largely put the aforementioned myth to bed), one the main benefits of Muller’s discussion is calling attention to the rhetorical gamesmanship that gets played when people throw the term around as a trump card: “Well, I’m just being Christocentric in my theology.” As if anyone doesn’t want to be “Christocentric”? Indeed, if you cruised through history and asked any major theological figure, especially in the Reformed tradition, “Are you trying to be Christocentric or centered on something else?”, I’ll give you to ten to one that all of them will answer, “Of course, I’m Christocentric. Jesus is everything to me.”

Everybody Wants to be Christocentric, But What Does that Even Mean?

 

[AustinC]

What’s even more helpful, though, is the attention he calls to the equivocation and confusion around the term that muddles things. “Given that such diverse figures as Irenaeus, Bonaventure, Duns Scotus, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Jerome Zanchi, Jacob Arminius, Friedrich Schleiermacher, Ι. Α. Dorner, Gottfried Thomasius, E. V Gerhart, Henry B. Smith, William Adams Brown, and Karl Barth have been described as christocentric thinkers, some distinction is most surely necessary” (254).

And so, in order to clear the ground for a more helpful use of the term, Muller gives a taxonomy or typology of at least three kinds of christocentrism that scholars could be using to describe a theologian.

First, there’s what he calls “soteriological” christocentrism. Basically, on this view, a theologian or theology is Christocentric if it confesses that Jesus Christ is central to the process and work of salvation. At this point, unless you’re essentially a Pelagian, a radical liberal, or something on that order, most traditional, Christian theology qualifies as Christocentric at this foundational level.

Second, he says there is a kind of which places a “systematizing emphasis on the Adam-Christ typology and the priority of Christ over Adam.” He calls this “prototypical” christocentrism in that there is importance given beyond Christ as savior, to Christ as a logically and theologically prior to Adam in the plan of God for history. You can find this in the “incarnation-anyways” line of theology, or in the theology of Irenaeus or Scotus and Fransiscan order.

Third, he dubs “principial” christocentrism in that it makes Christ the “principle” of theology, building on the last two “still more speculatively, that the Christ-idea must be used as the interpretive key to understanding and elucidating all doctrinal topics.” Forms of this can be spotted in the liberal tradition from Schleiermacher onwards, which makes the Christ event a central, often corrective, interpretive grid over Scripture, and the rest of theology. In some cases, Christ is the only revelation. Barth, in a different way, is a chief representative of this type, though he has been (fairly or not) accused of more than christocentrism, but rather, christomonism (on which, I have little bit here).

 

[AustinC]

Given these varieties of “christocentrisms”, it does seem wise to have some handy terms like this and be clear about what we mean when we use them. Especially since Muller notes that it is largely this last, historically-novel form that has been assumed in various discussions, and then used as the standard by which previous theologies have been judged, instead of taken on their own terms.

One more point that ought to be brought out is the way the issue of Scriptural interpretation plays a role in all of this. Muller brings out the various “christocentrisms” with respect to the structure of theological systems. And that’s good, but this also bleeds out into the issue of have a christocentric or “Christ-centered” hermeneutic. In other words, what do we mean when we say we read all of Scripture in light of Christ? How do these three types of christocentrism match up (if at all) with different approaches to typology and so forth? Can you only be christocentric in the first sense and still affirm a “Christ-centered” reading of Scripture, or do you have to buy into the second and third kinds as well?

Are we talking about seeing Christ as the fulfillment of all the prior history of revelation in a way that still acknowledges it as true revelation? Or about all prior revelation as somehow pointing to Christ and therefore legitimately read as testimony to Christ? Do we see all of Scripture pointing to Christ, then, because the eternal Son, through the Spirit, by the will of the Father is actually the active agent of revelation throughout all of redemptive history?

Or are we talking about Christ as a corrective revelation that sort of overlays prior revelation in a way that is disjunctive and discounts earlier portions as lesser, false, and in many ways misguided? Is the event of Christ, then, the only truly true revelation? In other words, we’re back the issue of the Jesus-Lens or the Jesus-Tea-Strainer and the theological presuppositions that go along with them.

Everybody Wants to be Christocentric, But What Does that Even Mean?

 

[AustinC]

Christocentrism: An Asymmetrical Trinitarianism? - The Gospel Coalition

 

[JonC]

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.

 

[37818]

The whole teachings of the New Testament. Now if evey Christain could be in agreement.

 

[JonC]

The whole teachings of the New Testament. Now if evey Christain could be in agreement.

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).

 

[AustinC]

The defense of the nothing burger has begun...

 

[JonC]

The defense of the nothing burger has begun...

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?

 

[AustinC]

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?

Interesting how you've changed the name from Christocentric theology to "New Covenant theology." It's still a nothing burger and I have already provided documentation as to why.
Moreso, as I research it, it's a regurgitation of liberalism via Karl Barth. Any person, allowing the Bible to direct the narrative, will shake their head and walk away from such a meaningless construct.

You do show us how you have waltzed down the liberal pathway away from orthodox Christian traditions so if you wish to keep walking, be my guest. Just realized that any discerning Christian will see the illegitimacy of your views and know that you offer no value to the discussion regarding theology as a whole.

 

[JonC]

Interesting how you've changed the name from Christocentric theology to "New Covenant theology." It's still a nothing burger and I have already provided documentation as to why.
Moreso, as I research it, it's a regurgitation of liberalism via Karl Barth. Any person, allowing the Bible to direct the narrative, will shake their head and walk away from such a meaningless construct.

You do show us how you have waltzed down the liberal pathway away from orthodox Christian traditions so if you wish to keep walking, be my guest. Just realized that any discerning Christian will see the illegitimacy of your views and know that you offer no value to the discussion regarding theology as a whole.

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.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

In a short article entitled “A Note on ‘Christocentrism’ and the Imprudent Use of Such Terminology” [WTJ 68 (2006): 253-60], Richard A. Muller registers a number of prudent protests about the contemporary discussions about whether certain kinds of Reformed theology are “truly christocentric” enough. Mostly this has to do with in-house conversations that started in the 20th century about whether there was a major difference between Calvin’s “Christocentric” theology and that of later theologians like Beza and the Post-Reformation Orthodox who followed. Calvin was supposed to be a good, pre-Barthian Christocentric theologian, while the rest of the tradition unfortunately took a wrong turn and based all their theology around God’s predestinarian decree, making things lopsided and decidedly un-Christocentric.

Without getting into all the details of Muller’s article and the Reformational historiography (which has largely put the aforementioned myth to bed), one the main benefits of Muller’s discussion is calling attention to the rhetorical gamesmanship that gets played when people throw the term around as a trump card: “Well, I’m just being Christocentric in my theology.” As if anyone doesn’t want to be “Christocentric”? Indeed, if you cruised through history and asked any major theological figure, especially in the Reformed tradition, “Are you trying to be Christocentric or centered on something else?”, I’ll give you to ten to one that all of them will answer, “Of course, I’m Christocentric. Jesus is everything to me.”

Everybody Wants to be Christocentric, But What Does that Even Mean?

Yea, of course!

 

[JonC]

Yea, of course!

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

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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

So what is the difference in being a child of God thru election and being Christocentric?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Does NCT reject the Mosaic covenant?

 

[JonC]

So what is the difference in being a child of God thru election and being Christocentric?

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.

 

[JonC]

Does NCT reject the Mosaic covenant?

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).

 

[AustinC]

Dennis M. Swanson Director of the Seminary Library and Director of Israel Studies

New Covenant Theology (NCT) is a relatively new system which, though not yet well defined, attempts to combine strengths of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology and to eliminate the weak points of the two. Its founders have come from Reformed Baptist circles who reacted against key tenets of Covenant Theology in rejecting such doctrines as the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace. The movement has a strong emphasis on study of the Scripture in attempting to derive a biblically based theology. For the most part, NCT’s origins have been local churches rather than academic circles. Though its growth continues to be substantial, it has come about mostly through the channel of the Internet rather thanworks published through major evangelical publising houses. Leaders of NCT include John Zens, John G. Reisinger, Fred G. Zaspel, Tom Wells, and Steve Lehrer. Among various programs promoting NCT are Providence Theological Seminary, Sound of Grace Ministries, The John Bunyan Conference, and In-Depth Studies. The progress of NCT’s grow is most obvious in the number of churches that have adopted the movement’s approach to Scripture, but the impact on mainstream evangelicalism has been minimal because of a lack of exposure through mainstream publishers, a lack of full endorsement by a noted evangelical scholar, its doctrinal differences from well-known historic documents of Covenant Theology, its newness historically, and its failure to produce a published systematic or biblical theology. NCT’s most notable peculiarities include a rejection of Covenant Theology’s superstructure, its granting of priority of the NT over the OT, its rejection of OT ethical standards for Christians, and its rejection of infant baptism and the distinction between the visible and invisible church.

New Covenant Theology (NCT) | Monergism

 

[JonC]

Dennis M. Swanson Director of the Seminary Library and Director of Israel Studies

New Covenant Theology (NCT) is a relatively new system which, though not yet well defined, attempts to combine strengths of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology and to eliminate the weak points of the two. Its founders have come from Reformed Baptist circles who reacted against key tenets of Covenant Theology in rejecting such doctrines as the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace. The movement has a strong emphasis on study of the Scripture in attempting to derive a biblically based theology. For the most part, NCT’s origins have been local churches rather than academic circles. Though its growth continues to be substantial, it has come about mostly through the channel of the Internet rather thanworks published through major evangelical publising houses. Leaders of NCT include John Zens, John G. Reisinger, Fred G. Zaspel, Tom Wells, and Steve Lehrer. Among various programs promoting NCT are Providence Theological Seminary, Sound of Grace Ministries, The John Bunyan Conference, and In-Depth Studies. The progress of NCT’s grow is most obvious in the number of churches that have adopted the movement’s approach to Scripture, but the impact on mainstream evangelicalism has been minimal because of a lack of exposure through mainstream publishers, a lack of full endorsement by a noted evangelical scholar, its doctrinal differences from well-known historic documents of Covenant Theology, its newness historically, and its failure to produce a published systematic or biblical theology. NCT’s most notable peculiarities include a rejection of Covenant Theology’s superstructure, its granting of priority of the NT over the OT, its rejection of OT ethical standards for Christians, and its rejection of infant baptism and the distinction between the visible and invisible church.

New Covenant Theology (NCT) | Monergism

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).

 

[JonC]

@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.