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

[DaveXR650]

Could you imagine sitting down teaching a child and saying-

"Now Johnny, we need to treat others as we want to be treated. No biting, no poking out eyes, no spitting, no hair pulling, no punching...".

Nowadays about the best you can hope for is that they at least stick to the UFC rules.

 

[JonC]

The question is not that there is anything wrong with the statement. But rather is it truly NEW. Is the idea that there needs to be a thing called New Covenant Theology valid when you consider that the idea that the Old Testament Law could be summed up by loving the Lord with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself was in ..... the Old Testament. There is nothing wrong with coming up with a concept that might appear to be overlooked and then maybe even writing a book or blog on it but is it a valid new theology or a "nothing burger"?

The "New Covenant" part of "New Covenant Theology" actually refers to the "New Covenant". It is more than obeying the Law of Christ

"Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." (Galatians 6:2)

It is the work of Christ and Christ Himself (hence the use of "Christocentric").

The Old Covenant looked to this:

Jeremiah 31:31–34 : Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord.
33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
34 “They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

Hebrews 8 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.

Hebrews 13:20. Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord,


Hebrews 13:20 is also the reason I do not believe Covenant Theology's "covenant of redemption" (the supposed covenant between the Father and Son) is the everlasting covenant. Scripture seems to at least indicate that Christ Himself is the Eternal Covenant.

 

[JonC]

Nowadays about the best you can hope for is that they at least stick to the UFC rules.

I miss that "poke in the eye" emoji.

 

[kyredneck]

is it truly NEW

No. It's always been spiritual, even under the OT. There's actually nothing 'new' about the spiritual tenets of the New Covenant. It's new only in the sense that these things had not been revealed before Christ (Matthew 13:35).

13 In that he saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away. Heb 8

 

[kyredneck]

The question is not that there is anything wrong with the statement. But rather is it truly NEW. Is the idea that there needs to be a thing called New Covenant Theology valid when you consider that the idea that the Old Testament Law could be summed up by loving the Lord with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself was in ..... the Old Testament. There is nothing wrong with coming up with a concept that might appear to be overlooked and then maybe even writing a book or blog on it but is it a valid new theology or a "nothing burger"?

I agree with most of the things @JonC has brought up in defense of NCT. It's been nothing new or strange to me. Truth is truth, facts are facts, AND NOT A NOTHING BURGER, no matter what system espouses them. I also agree with A.W. Pink and my fellow Primitive Baptists concerning the 'Eternal Covenant', whether NCT recognizes it or not:

“....The everlasting covenant or covenant of grace is that mutual agreement into which the Father entered with His Son before the foundation of the world respecting the salvation of His elect, Christ being appointed the mediator, He willingly consenting to be their head and representative. That there is a divine covenant to which Christ stands related, and that the great work which He performed here on earth was the discharge of His covenant office, is very plain from many Scriptures....”

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

The question is not that there is anything wrong with the statement. But rather is it truly NEW. Is the idea that there needs to be a thing called New Covenant Theology valid when you consider that the idea that the Old Testament Law could be summed up by loving the Lord with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself was in ..... the Old Testament. There is nothing wrong with coming up with a concept that might appear to be overlooked and then maybe even writing a book or blog on it but is it a valid new theology or a "nothing burger"?

This was pointed out well before your post asked again, and has been answered since. However, it seems to bear repeating.

New Covenant Theology is decidedly not new. The New Covenant is what was/is new.

Its theology is only new in the sense that it came after the Old Covenant had been established and made clear that it cannot save.

The emphasis is obviously on the fact that only one covenant is needed, and that is the New Covenant in Christ's blood.

 

[kyredneck]

Could you imagine sitting down teaching a child and saying-

"Now Johnny, we need to treat others as we want to be treated. No biting, no poking out eyes, no spitting, no hair pulling, no punching...".

The first sentence was all that was needed to obey.

The following merely showed Johnny his disobedience when he poked out Ben's eye and pulled Cindy's hair.

If the 'golden rule' was taught in America's education system, as it should be, perhaps a lot of the chaos that's happening now wouldn't be.

Someone at work shared with me a copy of Rick Warren's book, 'The Purpose Driven Life' many years ago. I did browse the book, and, to me, he made a profound statement in it: "The essence of the religion of Jesus Christ is agape, 'thinking of others", to which I wholeheartedly agree. But, so it was with the religion of the Old Covenant also. Even the Rabbinism of Christ's day had condensed the law to it's simplest terms:

“…Rabbinism is never weary of quoting as one of the characteristic sayings of its greatest teacher, Hillel (who, of course, lived before this time), that he had summed up the Law, in briefest compass, in these words: ‘What is hateful to thee, that do not to another. This is the whole Law; the rest is only its explanation…..” Life & Times - Edersheim

 

[DaveXR650]

I agree with most of the things @JonC has brought up in defense of NCT. It's been nothing new or strange to me. Truth is truth, facts are facts, AND NOT A NOTHING BURGER, no matter what system espouses them. I also agree with A.W. Pink and my fellow Primitive Baptists concerning the 'Eternal Covenant', whether NCT recognizes it or not:

Covenant theology in all forms is an area I haven't looked into much so it is fairly new to me. I'm just guessing but from what I have read quickly it seems that if you tend to be classic Calvinist in theology you are going to have all kinds of inner alarms go off when you hear of NCT for the following reason.

When you hear someone say the Law does not apply to a Christian any more we immediately associate that with antinomianism. In practical terms we associate it with the "free grace" movement and the "carnal Christian" teaching and with "easy believism". We have seen the harm that does and in my case at least, I came to be a reformed Baptist for those reasons more so than any big change of heart on the doctrines of grace. I know this is true because if you google "what's wrong with New Covenant Theology" the issue of antinomianism comes up immediately.

But, I haven't seen anything that Jon has written that even hints of that and I honestly don't know enough about the covenants to know if this kind of thing is really going on somewhere or if it is an unfair accusation by classical Calvinists. As far as I'm concerned, with what I know now, anyone who doesn't want anything to do with the Law anymore - if the reason for this is that they instead want to focus on imitating and following Christ and doing everything He says then I don't see how that can be a problem. But there may be a history on this that I am not aware of so who knows.

 

[DaveXR650]

This was pointed out well before your post asked again, and has been answered since. However, it seems to bear repeating.

New Covenant Theology is decidedly not new. The New Covenant is what was/is new.

Its theology is only new in the sense that it came after the Old Covenant had been established and made clear that it cannot save.

The emphasis is obviously on the fact that only one covenant is needed, and that is the New Covenant in Christ's blood.

I guess what I'm trying to understand is that I always thought that obedience to the Law and the blood of bulls and goats was never at any time actually able to take away sin. That there was always a looking ahead to Christ, although it was probably true that most people could not clearly see this, who were under the Old Covenant. Now. This I think is part of typical Puritan era teaching. Is that the same as New Covenant Theology? And if so, why was the Law as a "rule of life" taught as important by the same people. (Who were also well aware of the idea of following Christ's teaching of internalizing the Law and examining yourself.) I'm new at this but the New Covenant Theology seems to me like a repackaging of elements of just plain theology and doing what the Young Restless and Reformed did with Calvinism - trying to sell books and be the one that is heard. In that sense they seem to be the one's claiming that it's new.

Does anyone have any dates as for the earliest writings of this written identifiably as "New Covenant Theology"? Because what I'm saying is that elements of it go back to Leviticus but it may have been repackaged and renamed. Which isn't necessarily bad but it would be nice to see some dates.

 

[kyredneck]

Covenant theology in all forms is an area I haven't looked into much so it is fairly new to me. I'm just guessing but from what I have read quickly it seems that if you tend to be classic Calvinist in theology you are going to have all kinds of inner alarms go off when you hear of NCT for the following reason.

When you hear someone say the Law does not apply to a Christian any more we immediately associate that with antinomianism. In practical terms we associate it with the "free grace" movement and the "carnal Christian" teaching and with "easy believism". We have seen the harm that does and in my case at least, I came to be a reformed Baptist for those reasons more so than any big change of heart on the doctrines of grace. I know this is true because if you google "what's wrong with New Covenant Theology" the issue of antinomianism comes up immediately.

But, I haven't seen anything that Jon has written that even hints of that and I honestly don't know enough about the covenants to know if this kind of thing is really going on somewhere or if it is an unfair accusation by classical Calvinists. As far as I'm concerned, with what I know now, anyone who doesn't want anything to do with the Law anymore - if the reason for this is that they instead want to focus on imitating and following Christ and doing everything He says then I don't see how that can be a problem. But there may be a history on this that I am not aware of so who knows.

So, you still agree with @AustinC? That the 'Christocentric Theology of NCT' is a 'nothing burger?:

as much as it kills me to say it, that Austin might be right about it being a "nothing burger". Unless there is more to this still.

Are you able to decide, one way or another?

 

[DaveXR650]

Are you able to decide, one way or another?

Not yet. I still ain't sure what it is. It seems to be fairly benign the way Jon explains it but I can't find any examples of anyone who actually adheres to it. It bothers me that Martin seems to have problems with it. That is not a good sign. I would definitely say that I would agree with Austin on this for sure but on the other hand he might be overstating his case. So yes, definitely; maybe so.

 

[JonC]

Covenant theology in all forms is an area I haven't looked into much so it is fairly new to me. I'm just guessing but from what I have read quickly it seems that if you tend to be classic Calvinist in theology you are going to have all kinds of inner alarms go off when you hear of NCT for the following reason.

When you hear someone say the Law does not apply to a Christian any more we immediately associate that with antinomianism. In practical terms we associate it with the "free grace" movement and the "carnal Christian" teaching and with "easy believism". We have seen the harm that does and in my case at least, I came to be a reformed Baptist for those reasons more so than any big change of heart on the doctrines of grace. I know this is true because if you google "what's wrong with New Covenant Theology" the issue of antinomianism comes up immediately.

But, I haven't seen anything that Jon has written that even hints of that and I honestly don't know enough about the covenants to know if this kind of thing is really going on somewhere or if it is an unfair accusation by classical Calvinists. As far as I'm concerned, with what I know now, anyone who doesn't want anything to do with the Law anymore - if the reason for this is that they instead want to focus on imitating and following Christ and doing everything He says then I don't see how that can be a problem. But there may be a history on this that I am not aware of so who knows.

I can see how that could be an issue. Just saying the "Law was nailed to the tree" isn't enough without pointing out that we are under "a better covenant".

Are we under the yoke of the Old Covenant Law? No. But that doesn't mean we are yokeless. We take Christ's "yoke upon us".

 

[JonC]

Not yet. I still ain't sure what it is. It seems to be fairly benign the way Jon explains it but I can't find any examples of anyone who actually adheres to it. It bothers me that Martin seems to have problems with it. That is not a good sign. I would definitely say that I would agree with Austin on this for sure but on the other hand he might be overstating his case. So yes, definitely; maybe so.

Here is NCT presented in a Reformed Baptist context (I'm not Reformed Baptist....just plain 'ole Baptist).

Maybe looking through a New Covenant Reformed Baptist Church site will help more than I can.

I'm not the most articulate fella.

New Covenant Bible Fellowship

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650 ,

Here are references from that scholarly source called "Wikipedia" (they had what I would have offered plus)

• Lehrer, Steven, New Covenant Theology: Questions Answered (2006)
• Reisinger, John G., Abraham's Four Seeds (Frederick, Maryland: New Covenant Media, 1998).
• Scarborough, C., The New Covenant and the Law of Christ: A Biblical Study Guide. (Published privately and available from New Covenant Media/1-800-376-4146).
• Wells, Tom and Zaspel, Fred. New Covenant Theology: Description, Definition, Defense (Frederick, Maryland: New Covenant Media, 2002).
• Journal of New Covenant Theology, Steven Lehrer, editor
• The Law, the Gospel, and the Modern Christian: Five Views Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993. ISBN 978-0-310-53321-4, (also republished as Five Views on Law and Gospel). One of the authors, Douglas J. Moo, presents what he refers to as a "modified Lutheran View", but it is basically a New Covenant Theology view

 

[DaveXR650]

Here are references from that scholarly source called "Wikipedia" (they had what I would have offered plus)

Thank you very much!

 

[JonC]

Here are a few more churches. I don't know anything about the following churches, except they hold NCT.

https://www.sgfnh.com/

Home

Home - Randolph Street Baptist Church

First Baptist Church

Evangelical Church of Fairport | Church in Rochester, N.Y., Monroe, Wayne, Ontario County, Penfield, Perinton, Pittsford, Victor Area — Evangelical Church of Fairport | ECF

General 6 — Clearcreek Chapel

Christ's Covenant Church

NTRF Small Churches, Big Impact | New Testament Church Practice

Christ's Covenant Church

Grace Reformed Church

Spurgeon Heritage Church

Christ Fellowship Hannibal

Covenant Baptist Church

https://www.killeenbible.org/

 

[JonC]

Here is an explanation from a NCT source:

NCT Statement

 

[DaveXR650]

NCT Statement

That is very helpful. I read those points quickly. Most are just restated reformed Baptist theology. Some seem contradictory (#45) and some might be flat out wrong. One of the churches listed I am familiar with in a secondhand way and it was always known as a really good church although I don't know the timeline for when and how long they adhered to the NCT.

 

[JonC]

That is very helpful. I read those points quickly. Most are just restated reformed Baptist theology. Some seem contradictory (#45) and some might be flat out wrong. One of the churches listed I am familiar with in a secondhand way and it was always known as a really good church although I don't know the timeline for when and how long they adhered to the NCT.

It is Baptist theology. NCT is not new (although it is being defined more than in the past). There is just renewed interest and it is being re-articulated.

Where it stands out is in its approach to Scripture. It is a rejection of Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism, but retains covenants and dispensations as presented in the text of Scripture (interpreted in light of the New Covenant).


This may help with the Law issue you brought up. (I'm reading these sites as well):

Because the Old Covenant law, including the Decalogue, has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ, New Covenant Theology denies that the Old Covenant law, including the Decalogue and its so-called “moral law”, is binding on New Covenant believers today. Yet, as the special revelation of God as fulfilled in Christ, the Old Covenant law, including the Decalogue, continues to inform behavior in the New Covenant.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Thanks. The reason I asked is because we have family serving in a "Bible Church" in SNJ that is 100% baptistic, but the name has been unchanged since the work was founded in 1865. I would refer to it as "high-end medium" in size, perhaps 200 for a typical Sunday morning.

Yea, NW New Jersey is rural, so is Sussex NJ, farther north where my wife is from… on a small farm. We have chickens, horses, motorcycles etc. we lived in harmony till New Yorkers moved in. They call us hillbillies! LOL. In a way they are right. My family are coal miners from Pennsylvania, before that European. The wife are the rugged Germans, Swiss and Scots and they prefer the highlands of Sussex county… being too close to people creeps them out.