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

[Earth Wind and Fire]

That (accusing), Piper, is @AustinC 's M.O. ( as is with some other 'Reformed robots' on this board).

WOW…..Reformed Robots! Please Larry, don’t candy coat it… tell us what you really think

 

[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

There's nothing 'new' about any of the spiritual tenets of the 'new' covenant, it's new only because the first has been made old. God doesn't change, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever. The Spirit has always blown where He wills, God has never been a respecter of persons, and in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, has been acceptable to him.

The first covenant was ADDED (casting a shadow of the good things of the Everlasting Covenant behind it):

What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made.....Gal 3:19,

And then it was removed:

And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that have been made, that those things which are not shaken may remain. Heb 12:7

These 'new' things of the New Covenant are 'new' only because they were mysteries that had not hitherto before been revealed. The 'new' is actually not 'new', it is revealed mystery.

 

[JonC]

There's nothing 'new' about any of the spiritual tenets of the 'new' covenant, it's new only because the first has been made old. God doesn't change, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever. The Spirit has always blown where He wills, God has never been a respecter of persons, and in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, has been acceptable to him.

The first covenant was ADDED (casting a shadow of the good things of the Everlasting Covenant behind it):

What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made.....Gal 3:19,

And then it was removed:

And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that have been made, that those things which are not shaken may remain. Heb 12:7

These 'new' things of the New Covenant are 'new' only because they were mysteries that had not hitherto before been revealed. The 'new' is actually not 'new', it is revealed mystery.

I'd add.

2 Corinthians 3:4–11 Such confidence we have through Christ toward God.

5 Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God,
6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was,
8 how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory?
9 For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory.
10 For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it.
11 For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650 (and anybody else interested)

Here is an excellent (and very short...abot 5 min) summery of some of the things we spoke about. It is far from detailed but may provide insight into a few distinctions.

 

[DaveXR650]

There's nothing 'new' about any of the spiritual tenets of the 'new' covenant, it's new only because the first has been made old. God doesn't change, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever. The Spirit has always blown where He wills, God has never been a respecter of persons, and in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, has been acceptable to him.

My whole point has been that this is not new in the way you are talking about it. But the question is, is there any reason to reframe our theology and learn NCT or is a a rehash of theology already in place with a few questionable things added in for good measure? And is it important or is it just a way for someone to come up with something and say "listen to me explain it" instead of some guy from the 1700's?

You don't really need any theology when it comes right down to it. A person in 2023, Jew or gentile, has an offer of the gospel, offering him salvation on the condition that he repents and comes by faith. You can call that an offer, a covenant, a new covenant, deny that there is an offer and insist that all the elect come automatically, say it's all up to you and you elect yourself by believing; embellish it any way you want but that is what is really in operation.

From what I've seen so far, it looks like a nothing burger, but not necessarily harmful, and smart pastors should decide how much if any of it to use in their teaching, probably depending on where their congregation happens to be as far as legalism vs antinomianism and so on.

 

[JonC]

My whole point has been that this is not new in the way you are talking about it. But the question is, is there any reason to reframe our theology and learn NCT or is a a rehash of theology already in place with a few questionable things added in for good measure? And is it important or is it just a way for someone to come up with something and say "listen to me explain it" instead of some guy from the 1700's?

You don't really need any theology when it comes right down to it. A person in 2023, Jew or gentile, has an offer of the gospel, offering him salvation on the condition that he repents and comes by faith. You can call that an offer, a covenant, a new covenant, deny that there is an offer and insist that all the elect come automatically, say it's all up to you and you elect yourself by believing; embellish it any way you want but that is what is really in operation.

From what I've seen so far, it looks like a nothing burger, but not necessarily harmful, and smart pastors should decide how much if any of it to use in their teaching, probably depending on where their congregation happens to be as far as legalism vs antinomianism and so on.

I am having a problem understanding why you think NCT (and by implication, Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism) is "nothing".

I don't understand how "nothings" (Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism, and NCT) can have such diverse impacts on the understanding and interpretations of Christians and not be "something".

If you don't mind, will you please expand on your statement?

Thanks

 

[DaveXR650]

I am having a problem understanding why you think NCT is "nothing".

The fellow in the video in the post above said at about the 4:50 mark, that the biggest difference in NCT was in the view of the Law. I think that saying that you now follow Christ instead of the Law is making much of something that really is nothing. For these reasons: 1. Christ himself made much of the Law and his internalization of it is already found in the Old Testament. 2. The reformed writers that I am most familiar with were making much of the internalization of the Law and the more rigorous interpretation of the demands of the Law by Christ before NCT was articulated. So the difference is moot. 3. It is one thing to say the Law is done away with as a way of salvation. But the whole idea of the new man that comes out of salvation is that now, because it no longer condemns you, you can really love it like David did and like Paul describes in Romans 7. A new relationship with the Law occurs, but it is still God's will, which does not change. I strongly disagree with any teaching that even could possibly be interpreted as not fully supporting the rightness or importance of the Law as a rule of life. Now since I don't know of any NCT advocates saying that this means loose living is now acceptable - I don't mean to insinuate that that's where it would head but it could in my opinion. Tullian started dabbling with Lutheran theology and saying that the old Puritans were possibly legalistic and that did not go well for him. And it often doesn't go well for Baptist free grace guys.

I'm a Baptist and I don't buy the use of traditional covenant theology for supporting infant baptism but infant baptism was being refuted just fine before NCT. I also agree with them on Israel not being totally replaced by the church but that goes back to my dispy roots. So that's where I'm coming from. I don't mean to knock it but I don't think it enlightens or enhances our understanding of salvation theology in any unique way - although I fully understand how those who embrace it and study it may derive benefit from it. From what I have seen so far they seem like nice folks.

 

[JonC]

The fellow in the video in the post above said at about the 4:50 mark, that the biggest difference in NCT was in the view of the Law. I think that saying that you now follow Christ instead of the Law is making much of something that really is nothing. For these reasons: 1. Christ himself made much of the Law and his internalization of it is already found in the Old Testament. 2. The reformed writers that I am most familiar with were making much of the internalization of the Law and the more rigorous interpretation of the demands of the Law by Christ before NCT was articulated. So the difference is moot. 3. It is one thing to say the Law is done away with as a way of salvation. But the whole idea of the new man that comes out of salvation is that now, because it no longer condemns you, you can really love it like David did and like Paul describes in Romans 7. A new relationship with the Law occurs, but it is still God's will, which does not change. I strongly disagree with any teaching that even could possibly be interpreted as not fully supporting the rightness or importance of the Law as a rule of life. Now since I don't know of any NCT advocates saying that this means loose living is now acceptable - I don't mean to insinuate that that's where it would head but it could in my opinion. Tullian started dabbling with Lutheran theology and saying that the old Puritans were possibly legalistic and that did not go well for him. And it often doesn't go well for Baptist free grace guys.

I'm a Baptist and I don't buy the use of traditional covenant theology for supporting infant baptism but infant baptism was being refuted just fine before NCT. I also agree with them on Israel not being totally replaced by the church but that goes back to my dispy roots. So that's where I'm coming from. I don't mean to knock it but I don't think it enlightens or enhances our understanding of salvation theology in any unique way - although I fully understand how those who embrace it and study it may derive benefit from it. From what I have seen so far they seem like nice folks.

I think the man is echoing what Paul said about the Old Covenant Law being a ministry of death, that we are no longer the Old Covenant Law but the Law of Christ, that the Old Covenant Law ended, and such.

We need to be careful not to take peoples words (especially such few words) out of context of his position (NCT).

The idea is that we actually establish the Old Covenant Law in Christ as He is its fulfillment.

You also have to remember that NCT has strong roots in Reformed Baptist doctrine (much more so than Covenant Theology, which is rooted in the Reformed Church).

I would expect NCT to have many similarities with Baptist churches as it is a fairly traditional expression of the Baptist view. Again, it originated in churches, particularly churches that rejected what the academic arena was telling them to believe (they found Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology questionable in their treatment of Scripture).

The problem with ignoring NCT by treating it as "nothing" is that you end up also ignoring issues it identifies with the other two "nothings" (Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism).

That said, having read the NCT statement I still cannot comprehend how you can view NCT (even if you find it problematic) as "nothing".

 

[DaveXR650]

That said, having read the NCT statement I still cannot comprehend how you can view NCT (even if you find it problematic) as "nothing".

Well maybe it isn't nothing but I'll change my mind when I start seeing the statement nailed to the door of reformed churches.

 

[JonC]

Well maybe it isn't nothing but I'll change my mind when I start seeing the statement nailed to the door of reformed churches.

Well...you did on Reformed Baptist "doors".

That said, I believe we need to move from the Reformation. God used the Reformers in great ways, but at the same time they carried with them a lot of theological "baggage".

I know that's stating the obvious, but sometimes the obvious needs to be stated. The Reformed were distinctly Roman Catholic before they were Reformers. They identified different aspects of their former tradition that did not align with Scripture, but at the same time they carried with them distinct theological ideologies.

It is easy to say we just need to read the Bible, but it is much harder a task to engage God's Word without it being through our own lenses.

This is where keeping a biblical context of how God works throughout history (Divine Economy) in mind throughout the whole of Scripture helps.

The thing is, which ever way you view Scripture (whether Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism, NCT, or various forms of any), to be very careful about how you view the biblical narrative as a whole.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

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.

I'm not up on the book market deals.

But again, like I said, it bears repeating over and over, the New goes with Covenant.

My grandfather once said he was 90 years young. And this NCT is about 2000 years new.

What is new is that it is in Christ's blood. See, e.g., Matthew 26:28.

"For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

 

[JonC]

Oh....and food for thought -

You will never see Reformed Baptist theology nailed to a the door of a Reformed Church.

 

[DaveXR650]

Oh....and food for thought -

You will never see Reformed Baptist theology nailed to a the door of a Reformed Church.

I thought about that. And then I realized that's because we don't have any theology. There are two kinds of reformed Baptists. One's like me who stumbled upon a book written by a Puritan and thought it was cool. And the others who were satisfied being Baptists but were not willing to be left out of participation in all the new craft beers that were coming out and then when they found out Spurgeon could even enjoy a good cigar - well the rest is history.

 

[JonC]

I thought about that. And then I realized that's because we don't have any theology. There are two kinds of reformed Baptists. One's like me who stumbled upon a book written by a Puritan and thought it was cool. And the others who were satisfied being Baptists but were not willing to be left out of participation in all the new craft beers that were coming out and then when they found out Spurgeon could even enjoy a good cigar - well the rest is history.

I do like a good cigar.

Then again, I like a good pipe (C.S. Lewis smoked a pipe...3 Nuns).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I think we all know that Christ is the primary Subject of Scripture (regardless of what method one used to interpret the Bible).

From your post it didn't appear that you understood this. Focusing on the New Testament only as NCT does will not produce a proper understanding of Christ ''All Scripture is God breathed ......etc."
Oh, and being snarky does not hep the debate. It is no use you being holier than thou and banning people for their posts if you are busy provoking posters with sarcastic responses. As a moderator you are supposed to set an example.

 

[JonC]

From your post it didn't appear that you understood this. Focusing on the New Testament only as NCT does will not produce a proper understanding of Christ ''All Scripture is God breathed ......etc."
Oh, and being snarky does not hep the debate. It is no use you being holier than thou and banning people for their posts if you are busy provoking posters with sarcastic responses. As a moderator you are supposed to set an example.

You misunderstand NCT. We all accept the same passages, the same understanding that the OT is about Jesus.

You misunderstood my remark as "snarky". It was not.

And the NCT does not focus on the NCT only. It interprets Scripture through the New Covenant.

Covenant Theology interprets the Bible through a set of covenants that it derives from Scripture (covenants that are not in the Bible itself but that Presbyterians believe is taught nonetheless).

NCT interprets the Bible (whether right or wrong) through the lens of the New Covenant.


No need to apologize. You simply made a mistake. We are human and dealing across positions mistakes happen.

 

[Piper]

That (accusing), Piper, is @AustinC 's M.O. ( as is with some other 'Reformed robots' on this board).

That is unfortunate.

 

[kyredneck]

That (accusing), Piper, is @AustinC 's M.O. ( as is with some other 'Reformed robots' on this board).

That is unfortunate.

Example:

Oh, and being snarky does not hep the debate.

 

[Piper]

Example:

I have to be very careful with the wickedness that resides in my heart, or I will be snarky and foolish.

 

[kyredneck]

I have to be very careful with the wickedness that resides in my heart, or I will be snarky and foolish.

Ditto