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

Earth Wind and Fire · May 7, 2023

The Primitive Baptists believe that Scripture teaches that the subject of justification has various phases (by grace, by blood, by faith, and by works), some of which do not have eternal implications; hence, the word "alone" is misleading. If we were forced to employ the word "alone", we would rather speak of "justification by grace alone" or "justification by blood alone". We believe that the Calvinist errs by assuming the noun "faith" always means "the act of believing the gospel". Further, we interpret justification by faith in terms of the assurance of salvation, not the application of redemption.

Rom 3:24 “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:”

Rom 5:9 “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.”

Rom 5:1 “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:”

James 2:24 “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

JonC · May 7, 2023

Earth Wind and Fire said:
The Primitive Baptists believe that Scripture teaches that the subject of justification has various phases (by grace, by blood, by faith, and by works), some of which do not have eternal implications; hence, the word "alone" is misleading. If we were forced to employ the word "alone", we would rather speak of "justification by grace alone" or "justification by blood alone". We believe that the Calvinist errs by assuming the noun "faith" always means "the act of believing the gospel". Further, we interpret justification by faith in terms of the assurance of salvation, not the application of redemption.

Rom 3:24 “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:”

Rom 5:9 “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.”

Rom 5:1 “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:”

James 2:24 “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

Interesting.

Earth Wind and Fire · May 7, 2023

JonC said:
Interesting.

…Like Smoked beer from Bremen

kyredneck · May 7, 2023

@Earth Wind and Fire

You should cite your source. You don’t want to come across as plagiarizing, do you?

AustinC · May 7, 2023

New Covenant Theology is not a new but old cloaked under a new name. Under “New Covenant Theology” Christians believe that they can glorify and love God, and fellow men without any reference to the Moral Law of God. Naturally, one is left asking “how is such love to God and fellow men to be defined, regulated, and where is the moral compass and reference point to this love”? Having asked these serious theological questions, we immediately discern the danger of the doctrine. One can only begin to imagine that in these days leading up to the Lord's return in judgement, the dire consequences which it shall have left in it’s destructive path...

...The claim that the early Baptists excluded the Law of God, because they held to a form of New Covenant Theology is completely untenable...
To be ‘under the Law’ is to be unsaved, and it is to be under the power and dominion of sin.

Another reason why we can be sure the Moral Law, has not been abrogated is that the Law, is essential for the conversion of a soul. Psalm 19:7 says “The Law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul” and Romans 3:20 says ‘for by the Law is the knowledge of sin’. The Apostle also informs us in Galatians 3:24 that it is the Law, as a schoolmaster which brings us to Christ. If the Law, no longer is, how can a sinner be convicted of sin, by the Spirit Who gave the Word, and be saved by grace through Faith in believing the message of the Gospel?

What is more, meditation on God’s Law is distinctly the mark of all of God’s people.

The Lord Jesus said that He did not come to “abolish the Law” Matthew 5:17 but He came to “fulfil it” and to “magnify the Law and to make it honourable” Is 42:21, and Peter exhorts us that we should walk in the path and example that the Lord Jesus Christ did.

Last but not least, unlike any other of the Ceremonial or Mosiac Judicial Laws, it is surely very striking and noteworthy that the Ten Commandments were placed in the Ark of the Covenant, and written by the very finger of God, and spoken from heaven by the voice of God Himself . Thus confirming their perpetuity!

If our Lord “delighted in the Law” and if Christ’s Spirit is in us, (Romans 8:9) surely this will be our desire also. Paul says in in Romans 7:22 “For I delight in the Law of God after the inward man”.

Romans 3:31 ‘Do we then make void the Law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the Law’.

I close with the words of Samuel Bolton (1601-1654) “The Law sends us to the Gospel for our justification; the Gospel sends us to the Law to frame our way of life”. “If Christ has freed us from the penalties, how ought we to subject ourselves to the precepts! If He has delivered us from the curses, how ought we to study the commands! If He paid our debt of sin, certainly we owe a debt of service.”

https://www.berbc.org/new-covenant-theology-false-gospel

[Post edited for violating BB rules]

JonC · May 7, 2023

@AustinC 's post is an example of what I mean.

There is a small group of Reformed members here that cannot stand to see any view but their own discussed

Instead of engaging NCT they decide to find anti-NCT sources to explain NCT.

With Austin, his first complaint was that it was new and unpublished. Haven been proven wrong he adjusts to say it is old and wrong.

The "problem" with NCT is it did not come from the academic arena but from churches. It is less developed than Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism. It is simply reading Scripture in a linear way with the Old Testament finding its fulfillment in Christ (the New Covenant being the focus of the Old Covenant).

Another important distinction is NCT interprets the Old Testament through the New Testament ( what we see in the Old Testament is explained in the New) which obviously creates disagreements with Covenant Theology.

JonC · May 7, 2023

Here are a few legitimate criticisms of NCT:

NCT criticized Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism because their theological system is centered on the presupposition that the New Testament is defined by the Old Testament. This is not really a fair criticism because with NCT the Old Testament is established by the New Covenant (the Old Testament is understood through the New). So the method is similar, only reversed

NCT is often criticized because it was developed in local churches reading through Scripture rather than by the academia telling churches how to read Scripture.

NCT is criticized for taking a "literal" reading of Scripture. NCT does not seek to develop Theology Proper (theology centered in God the Father) but maintains that we only know the Father through Christ.

NCT is criticized for viewing the Law as being established by the New Covenant and fulfilled in Christ. The World is not viewed as being under the Old Covenant OR the New Covenant. The standard is Christ for all people.

JonC · May 7, 2023

AustinC said:
New Covenant Theology is not a new but old cloaked under a new name. Under “New Covenant Theology” Christians believe that they can glorify and love God, and fellow men without any reference to the Moral Law of God.

The above is a misrepresentation of NCT.

NCT holds that the Law is established in Christ. It holds that the Law came to an end (was nailed to the cross) with the New Covenant.

But this does not mean what @AustinC suggests.

NCT holds that we are under the Law of Christ. The standard of the Law of Christ is much deeper than the Law. Where the Law commands us not to murder the Law of Christ commands us not to hate. Where the Law commands us not to commit adultery the Law of Christ commands us not to lust.

It is impossible to violate the moral aspects of the Old Covenant Law IF we are obeying the Law of Christ (if we are living as New Covenant people).

@AustinC simply leaves it as NCT terminates the Law and does not tell us that NCT views the New Covenant as establishing the Law.

In other words, out actions are determined by our spirit. Sins are manifestations of a sinful nature.

We should examine every doctrine and method. BUT we have to do so with integrity.

Earth Wind and Fire · May 8, 2023

kyredneck said:
@Earth Wind and Fire

You should cite your source. You don’t want to come across as plagiarizing, do you?

No… taken from
Ten Reasons Primitive Baptists Are Not Calvinists

By Elders Michael Gowens and Lonnie Mozingo, Jr.

Earth Wind and Fire · May 8, 2023

JonC said:
The above is a misrepresentation of NCT.

NCT holds that the Law is established in Christ. It holds that the Law came to an end (was nailed to the cross) with the New Covenant.

But this does not mean what @AustinC suggests.

NCT holds that we are under the Law of Christ. The standard of the Law of Christ is much deeper than the Law. Where the Law commands us not to murder the Law of Christ commands us not to hate. Where the Law commands us not to commit adultery the Law of Christ commands us not to lust.

It is impossible to violate the moral aspects of the Old Covenant Law IF we are obeying the Law of Christ (if we are living as New Covenant people).

@AustinC simply leaves it as NCT terminates the Law and does not tell us that NCT views the New Covenant as establishing the Law.

Now I’m confused… don’t we already know this as New Testament Christian’s? I view myself as more a reborn child of God which should eliminate all this nonsense. To be blunt, what is the purpose of identifying as a NCT adherent if not to inflame others who are already practicing NT principles?

Earth Wind and Fire · May 8, 2023

Earth Wind and Fire said:
Now I’m confused… don’t we already know this as New Testament Christian’s? I view myself as more a reborn child of God which should eliminate all this nonsense. To be blunt, what is the purpose of identifying as a NTC adherent if not to inflame others who are already practicing NT principles?

Please adjust (last sentence): NTC … should be NCT

JonC · May 8, 2023

Earth Wind and Fire said:
Now I’m confused… don’t we already know this as New Testament Christian’s? I view myself as more a reborn child of God which should eliminate all this nonsense. To be blunt, what is the purpose of identifying as a NTC adherent if not to inflame others who are already practicing NT principles?

The reason is NCT was not given to us by academic scholars. It was how New Testament Christians in churches read their Bibles.

Referring to NCT isn't to inflame any more than referring to Covenant Theology or Dispensationalism is to inflame.

It is a framework, just like the other two. But it isn't as defined as the other two.

Basically, if you hold to Covenant Theology then you do not affirm New Covenant Theology (but you are still a Christian).

New Covenant Theology uses the Bible to interpret the Bible. It does not look through Scripture and develop covenants through which Scripture is understood. It interprets Scripture with the New Covenant as the primary covenant and Christ as it's focus.

Covenant Theology interprets Scripture with a "covenant" not even in the Bible as a primary covenant and man as it's focus.

DaveXR650 · May 8, 2023

I'm confused too. Does this come down to "What is the Law for?" when it comes to New Testament Christianity? They have been arguing about that since the Puritans and really, even in the book of Galatians. I know Robert Traill wrote a classic on justification and said that he was tired of being called an antinomian because he believe in justification by faith alone. Then he said as long as you believed that the Law was still a "rule of life" you were not antinomian. So do the New Covenant Theology people believe the Law is NOT a rule of life? And if they do, and instead they believe the teachings of Christ are followed as a rule of life, well that doesn't seem so bad to me. "All things whatsoever ye would that men would do to you, do ye also unto them. For this is the Law and the Prophets".

Also, are there churches that teach this in an identifiable way, by naming it, or do you have to figure out what a pastor believes in this area by how they handle the Law and so on?

JonC · May 8, 2023

DaveXR650 said:
I'm confused too. Does this come down to "What is the Law for?" when it comes to New Testament Christianity? They have been arguing about that since the Puritans and really, even in the book of Galatians. I know Robert Traill wrote a classic on justification and said that he was tired of being called an antinomian because he believe in justification by faith alone. Then he said as long as you believed that the Law was still a "rule of life" you were not antinomian. So do the New Covenant Theology people believe the Law is NOT a rule of life? And if they do, and instead they believe the teachings of Christ are followed as a rule of life, well that doesn't seem so bad to me. "All things whatsoever ye would that men would do to you, do ye also unto them. For this is the Law and the Prophets".

Also, are there churches that teach this in an identifiable way, by naming it, or do you have to figure out what a pastor believes in this area by how they handle the Law and so on?

Under NCT the Old Covenant Law was a "schoolmaster" (or "tutor"). It pointed to Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the Law, showed man their sins, and looked towards a new and better covenant.

So the Law ended when the New Covenant began (you will hear NCT people say it was nailed in the tree, or cross).

The Law was established by the New Covenant.

The Law says "don't murder". But the New Covenant says "don't hate". The Law says "don't commit adultery". The New Covenant says "don't lust".

The New Covenant Law is the Law of Christ.

You can still look at God's moral laws in the OC Law. NCT doesn't say we should disobey those. It simply says that that Law is established by the Law of Christ so if you abide by the Law of Christ you will not break God's moral law.

The Old Covenant Law showed man his sinful actions but offered no remedy, only condemnation, while looking towards a Better Way.

The Law of Christ addresses the sinfulness of man. It is the spiritual law - change the spirit, change the actions.

Martin Marprelate · May 8, 2023

I haven't meant to get involved with these multiple threads on NCT, but I will try to shed a bit of light if I can.
Firstly, my support of the term "Nothing Burger" was directed at the use of the term "Christocentric Theology," which seemed, and still seems to me, to be more of an advertising slogan than anything else. I have never heard of the term before applied to NCT.
New Covenant Theology I came across shortly after its inception, maybe 25 years ago. I am more acquainted with John Reisinger' book Tablets of Stone, than any other book. NCT is not the worst theology in the world, but I believe it falls short in its view of the O.T. law. All Bible-based churches have to steer, Like Odysseus, between the Scylla of Legalism and the Charybdis of Antinomianism. I believe that Covenant Theology is the best way to do that. NCT, as I understand it, holds that all OT law is abolished except that which reappears in the NT. Yet all of the 10 Commandments can be found in the Bible before the giving of the Law of Moses in Exodus 20.
To say that the 1644 Baptist Confession was NCT is incorrect Actually the 1644 was found to have faults in it and was quickly supplanted by the enlarged and corrected 1646 Confession. 1646 London Baptist Confession of Faith | The Reformed Reader The only two signatories of the 1646 Confession who survived until 1689 were William Kiffin and Hansard Knollys. They both signed up to the 1689 Confession. Moreover, all the men who wrote and signed the 1644/1646 confessions were covenant theologians as evidenced in their books. They would hardly have signed up to something they didn't believe.
Lastly, the whole purpose of the 1644 confession was to establish that the Baptist churches was to show that they were not Anabaptists, but held to fully Reformed principles. The Confession begins:
'A confession of faith of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London, which are commonly, but unjustly called Anabaptists; published for the vindication of the truth and information of the ignorant; likewise for the taking off those aspersions which are frequently, both in pulpit and print, unjustly cast upon them. Printed at London, Anno 1646.'

The 1644/46 confession contain meaty chunks from two older paedobaptist confessions: the 1596 True Confession of a Separatist church exiled in Holland, and The Marrow of Sacred Divinity produced by William Ames, another Separatist and one of the originators of Covenant Theology. One last thing about the 1644/1646 confessions: they contain an equally robust Calvinism as does the 1689.
eg, Art. III. God had decreed in Himself, before the world was, concerning all things, whether necessary, accidental or voluntary, with all the circumstances of them, to work, dispose, and bring about all things according to the counsel of His own will, to His glory: (Yet without being the author of sin, or having fellowship with any therein) in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, unchangeableness, power, and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree: And God hath before the foundation of the world, foreordained some men to eternal life, through Jesus Christ, to the praise and glory of His grace; leaving the rest in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of His justice. Isa. 46:10; Eph. 1:11, Rom. 11:33, Ps. 115:3; 135:6, 33:15; 1 Sam. 10:9, 26, Prov. 21:6; Exod. 21:13; Prov. 16:33, Ps. 144, Isa. 45:7, Jer. 14:22, Matt. 6:28, 30; Col. 1:16, 17; Num. 23:19, 20; Rom. 3:4; Jer. 10:10; Eph. 1:4,5; Jude 4, 6; Prov. 16:4.

V. God in His infinite power and wisdom, doth dispose all things to the end for which they were created; that neither good nor evil befalls any by chance, or without His providence; and that whatsoever befalls the elect, is by His appointment, for His glory, and their good. Job 38:11; Isa. 46:10,11, Eccles. 3:14, Mark 10:29,30; Exod. 21:13; Prov. 16:33, Rom. 8:28.

VI. All the elect being loved of God with an everlasting love, are redeemed, quickened, and saved, not by themselves, nor their own works, lest any man should boast, but, only and wholly by God, of His own free grace and mercy, through Jesus Christ, who is made unto us by God, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, and all in all, that he that rejoiceth, might rejoice in the Lord. Jer. 31:2; Eph. 1:3, 7, 2:8,9; 1 Thess. 5:9, Acts 13:48; 2 Cor. 5:21; Jer. 9:23,24; 1 Cor. 1:30,31; Jer. 23:6.

I realise that I may have prompted more questions than I've answered, but this is all I have time for. And as I have a short holiday next week, followed by a Prayer meeting to lead and a sermon to give, followed by going into hospital to receive a shiny new titanium hip, I don't know when I shall be back here.

JonC · May 8, 2023

Martin Marprelate said:
I haven't meant to get involved with these multiple threads on NCT, but I will try to shed a bit of light if I can.
Firstly, my support of the term "Nothing Burger" was directed at the use of the term "Christocentric Theology," which seemed, and still seems to me, to be more of an advertising slogan than anything else. I have never heard of the term before applied to NCT.
New Covenant Theology I came across shortly after its inception, maybe 25 years ago. I am more acquainted with John Reisinger' book Tablets of Stone, than any other book. NCT is not the worst theology in the world, but I believe it falls short in its view of the O.T. law. All Bible-based churches have to steer, Like Odysseus, between the Scylla of Legalism and the Charybdis of Antinomianism. I believe that Covenant Theology is the best way to do that. NCT, as I understand it, holds that all OT law is abolished except that which reappears in the NT. Yet all of the 10 Commandments can be found in the Bible before the giving of the Law of Moses in Exodus 20.
To say that the 1644 Baptist Confession was NCT is incorrect Actually the 1644 was found to have faults in it and was quickly supplanted by the enlarged and corrected 1646 Confession. 1646 London Baptist Confession of Faith | The Reformed Reader The only two signatories of the 1646 Confession who survived until 1689 were William Kiffin and Hansard Knollys. They both signed up to the 1689 Confession. Moreover, all the men who wrote and signed the 1644/1646 confessions were covenant theologians as evidenced in their books. They would hardly have signed up to something they didn't believe.
Lastly, the whole purpose of the 1644 confession was to establish that the Baptist churches was to show that they were not Anabaptists, but held to fully Reformed principles. The Confession begins:
'A confession of faith of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London, which are commonly, but unjustly called Anabaptists; published for the vindication of the truth and information of the ignorant; likewise for the taking off those aspersions which are frequently, both in pulpit and print, unjustly cast upon them. Printed at London, Anno 1646.'

The 1644/46 confession contain meaty chunks from two older paedobaptist confessions: the 1596 True Confession of a Separatist church exiled in Holland, and The Marrow of Sacred Divinity produced by William Ames, another Separatist and one of the originators of Covenant Theology. One last thing about the 1644/1646 confessions: they contain an equally robust Calvinism as does the 1689.
eg, Art. III. God had decreed in Himself, before the world was, concerning all things, whether necessary, accidental or voluntary, with all the circumstances of them, to work, dispose, and bring about all things according to the counsel of His own will, to His glory: (Yet without being the author of sin, or having fellowship with any therein) in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, unchangeableness, power, and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree: And God hath before the foundation of the world, foreordained some men to eternal life, through Jesus Christ, to the praise and glory of His grace; leaving the rest in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of His justice. Isa. 46:10; Eph. 1:11, Rom. 11:33, Ps. 115:3; 135:6, 33:15; 1 Sam. 10:9, 26, Prov. 21:6; Exod. 21:13; Prov. 16:33, Ps. 144, Isa. 45:7, Jer. 14:22, Matt. 6:28, 30; Col. 1:16, 17; Num. 23:19, 20; Rom. 3:4; Jer. 10:10; Eph. 1:4,5; Jude 4, 6; Prov. 16:4.

V. God in His infinite power and wisdom, doth dispose all things to the end for which they were created; that neither good nor evil befalls any by chance, or without His providence; and that whatsoever befalls the elect, is by His appointment, for His glory, and their good. Job 38:11; Isa. 46:10,11, Eccles. 3:14, Mark 10:29,30; Exod. 21:13; Prov. 16:33, Rom. 8:28.

VI. All the elect being loved of God with an everlasting love, are redeemed, quickened, and saved, not by themselves, nor their own works, lest any man should boast, but, only and wholly by God, of His own free grace and mercy, through Jesus Christ, who is made unto us by God, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, and all in all, that he that rejoiceth, might rejoice in the Lord. Jer. 31:2; Eph. 1:3, 7, 2:8,9; 1 Thess. 5:9, Acts 13:48; 2 Cor. 5:21; Jer. 9:23,24; 1 Cor. 1:30,31; Jer. 23:6.

I realise that I may have prompted more questions than I've answered, but this is all I have time for. And as I have a short holiday next week, followed by a Prayer meeting to lead and a sermon to give, followed by going into hospital to receive a shiny new titanium hip, I don't know when I shall be back here.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

Like Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism, I think we are all aware that there are different views under NCT (especially as all three are methods of viewing Scripture rather than actual doctrine...but how we view God's Word affects doctrine and interpretation).

There are also differences within all three depending on ones theology. Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, and New Covenant Theology began in its modern form in Calvinist churches (Dispensationalism with the Plymouth Brethren, Covenant Theology with the Presbyterian Church, and New Covenant Theology with Reformed Baptists). But all three have found expressions outside of Calvinistic circles.

New Covenant Theology, at least in its basic form, was probably the easiest to grow out of Calvinistic bounds as it originated in churches rather than the academic realm.

For example, it is the system that we used to view Scripture in a small Baptist church (Shady Grove Baptist Church) outside Marietta Georgia in the 1970's.

I think the most helpful thing you can provide here is to tell us what parts of New Covenant Theology as a method over viewing Scripture you find objectionable.

You mentioned the NCT view of the Mosaic Law (they view the Law as being established by the New Covenant, God's moral law as absolute and eternal, the Old Covenant as fulfilled by Christ and in the New Covenant.

As far as a moral law, we believe the same thing. The difference is the source we choose. Covenant Theology views God's moral law as expressed in the Mosaic Covenant moral commandments while NCT views this moral law as expressed in the Law of Christ.

Where Covenant Theology says "don't commit adultery", NCT goes deeper and says "don't lust" (committing adultery being evidence of a deeper sin).

Earth Wind and Fire · May 8, 2023

DaveXR650 said:
I'm confused too. Does this come down to "What is the Law for?" when it comes to New Testament Christianity? They have been arguing about that since the Puritans and really, even in the book of Galatians. I know Robert Traill wrote a classic on justification and said that he was tired of being called an antinomian because he believe in justification by faith alone. Then he said as long as you believed that the Law was still a "rule of life" you were not antinomian. So do the New Covenant Theology people believe the Law is NOT a rule of life? And if they do, and instead they believe the teachings of Christ are followed as a rule of life, well that doesn't seem so bad to me. "All things whatsoever ye would that men would do to you, do ye also unto them. For this is the Law and the Prophets".

Also, are there churches that teach this in an identifiable way, by naming it, or do you have to figure out what a pastor believes in this area by how they handle the Law and so on?

Well articulated questions Dave

JonC · May 8, 2023

Earth Wind and Fire said:
Well articulated questions Dave

Yep. He is more articulate than me....and no, EW&F, I haven't been drinking smoked beer today.

The difference with their view of the Mosaic Law is simple.

Covenant Theology looks to the Ten Commandments as God's moral law. Thou shalt not murder.

New Covenant Theology views the Law of Christ as establishing the Old Covenant Law. Thou shalt not hate

Martin Marprelate · May 8, 2023

JonC said:
Where Covenant Theology says "don't commit adultery", NCT goes deeper and says "don't lust" (committing adultery being evidence of a deeper sin).

Just very quickly, Covenant Theology takes the whole of the Bible as God's eternal word and therefore says "Don't lust" as well as "don't commit adultery."

But I will make a further post in due course as requested; I just don't know when.

Martin Marprelate · May 8, 2023

JonC said:
Covenant Theology looks to the Ten Commandments as God's moral law. Thou shalt not murder.

New Covenant Theology views the Law of Christ as establishing the Old Covenant Law. Thou shalt not hate

So if I were a hired assassin and killed someone purely for money without even knowing him, much less hating him, would that be OK under NCT? You are being silly.

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

Well-Known Member

Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Moderator

Well-Known Member

Moderator

Well-Known Member

Moderator

Well-Known Member

Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member