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

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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."

 

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.

 

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.

 

That is unfortunate.

 

Example:

 

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

 

Ditto