Is "NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY" Valid?

[Darrell C]

Okay dude...

You just spent 3 full thread windows refuting that you attacked me, literally word-by-word and STILL have not brought a POSITIVE statement about your own doctrine. And, you wonder why I said that you have contributed nothing positive to this discussion.

Way to go. :thumbs:

While this may be thought to be a well spoken reply, I would remind you, as I did in the first response: I set out on a course from the start of this thread to avoid anyone from making the mistake that I was attacking.

Let me illustrate that to you from the public record:


My first response to the thread:

Hello EW&F, it would be very difficult to know what exactly this fellowship teaches concerning the New Covenant, and while there may be a general consensus in theology by a particular group, most of us recognize that usually a fellowship is led for the most part by what exactly is preached from the pulpit and taught in the sunday school room.

To think that "New Covenant Theology" is not in keeping with orthodox theology would demand w do not recognize what New Testament revelation has to say about the New Covenant in relation to Christ.

I will address a following post where I will give my views concerning the New Covenant as found in the New Testament.

God bless.

Note the intention to address a post by another member. Note also the specific statement that shows that my views would be expressed.

However, because of what appeared to me to be a dislike for me, I changed my mind concerning directly addressing this person's post (any guesses as to which one?), for the very purpose of avoiding any conflict, which I was sure would come, based upon some other commentary directed at me:

Having read the overview of "New Covenant Theology," I have decided that I will simply post a few passages to consider, and ask if these apply to a sound theology, or, if it does not.

It should be clear my intentions had in view a desire not to turn this into another combat zone, but rather stir up genuine discussion...that is also what theologians do, though perhaps not very often.

You just spent 3 full thread windows refuting that you attacked me,

Make that 4.

I asked to be shown where I attacked you. The first three state my intentions. No attack was implied.

literally word-by-word and STILL have not brought a POSITIVE statement about your own doctrine.

Well, word by word helps to keep down baseless accusations, and deny the superior attitude of some that their questions have not been answered, though in fact they have been...word by word, point by point.

As far as a positive statement about my own doctrine, I am surprised, since my posts have been read at least twice now, that THE DOCTRINE I believe scripture to teach has been posted throughout this thread...beginning with the first.

Of course it would have to be determined what is meant by POSITIVE...lol.

And, you wonder why I said that you have contributed nothing positive to this discussion.

Believe me...there is no wonder at all. I look at it as there is just a...

Way to go. :thumbs:

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Here is the overview of New Covenantal Theology:

New Covenant Theology is a technical term referring to a theological view of redemptive history primarily found in Baptist circles and contrasted with Covenant theology and Dispensationalism. It has been assumed that one has only two primary options in understanding the structure of the Bible in evangelical Christianity — Covenant Theology (coming out of the Reformation) or Dispensationalism. However, proponents see what has come to be called New Covenant Theology as middle ground with a biblical basis of understanding.

Can't say I would disagree with that, though more information concerning specific belief would need to be forthcoming.

A suggestion would be, since one member has stated he knows someone that is actually a Pastor of this group, what would help would be to invite this fellow to the forum, where he can properly defend himself and present a positive view of his beliefs.

Do I think this will be done. No, I do not.

Proponents maintain that the primary thrust of New Covenant Theology is the recognition of a promise-fulfillment understanding of Scripture.

I would agree with that.

They suggest that whereas “Dispensationalism cannot get Israel and the church together in any sense whatsoever, and Covenant Theology cannot get them apart” (Reisinger, 19),

Also agreed. There has always been and always be One People of God, though until the promise of God reaches completion in both the physical as well as the spiritual in the eternal state, we will debate their roles in the temporal.

New Covenant Theology finds the realization of all that the Old Covenant typified in the New Testament church

Also agreed. The question is when this realization occurs.

(Covenant Theology, in contrast, merely levels the playing field and identifies them for all intents and purposes).

I would have to disagree with this statement in that it is doubtful that all that consider "Covenant Theology" only identifies them. This is not true of all those I have spoken with concerning "Covenant Theology."

The Mosaic economy is viewed as a temporal, conditional covenant that has been forever replaced by the glory of the New Covenant (2 Corinthians 3).

I believe this firmly. Not only does scripture present the New Covenant as better, we see severe warning for reversion to the "Mosaic economy" in scripture.

Is there one that disagrees with this? Do NCTers disagree with this?

That is why an attempt to look at hwat scripture has to say has been made.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Perhaps the brother is practicing his rhetoric.... :laugh:

Hahaha..hee hee..hardee har har...sigh...lol.

That was actually funny.

Look, why not invite this pastor to come on here that we can get a firsthand look at his beliefs as a pastor?

I firmly believe that understanding varies in all fellowships, and seldom do we see that all adhere to every belief in a doctrinal statement.

Have to run, but I do hope you will seriously consider it.

God bless.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Hahaha..hee hee..hardee har har...sigh...lol.

That was actually funny.

Yes, it was supposed to be.

Look, why not invite this pastor to come on here that we can get a firsthand look at his beliefs as a pastor?

You must be crazy.... I wouldn't allow anyone I know come into this nut house :laugh:

Have to run, but I do hope you will seriously consider it.

Yea LOL, I will do that when I want to make him an enemy :tongue3:

Seriously, if we cant find anyone in the whole of this BB Forum to come forth & extol the virtues of NCT, then.....well ah...

 

[glfredrick]

Nope, not "Nuance" but rather "Vague" ....not clearly expressed : stated in indefinite terms <vague accusations




Here I agree with you ....& if you find no covenant expressed in Scriptures, your saying you do not see Covenant &/Or NCT as Scriptural, right.

So then we both must conclude NCT doesnt have Scriptural legs to stand on & is purely a theological thought process. Id further concur that any solid theology (to hang ones hat on) must be grounded in scripture & centered around Election. something at least all biblical theologians can agree......now, can that be done (is the question)?

Of the three systems, I find the MOST scriptural basis for NCT over the typical Covenantal or Dispensational theologies. The Bible DOES speak of a New Covenant where God would radically alter the reality that the religious world held as normative.

It does not speak of "dispenations" where only this or that could happen, nor does it speak of a covenant of works and a covenant of grace. (And, for those who don't have a clue about the covenantal system, it is NOT about the actual stated covenants in Scripture, Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic, etc. All of those must be fit into one of the theological pictures presented by covenantalism or dispensationalism, or for that matter, NCT or election theories.)

But, I still prefer an election-based view for the actions of God in Scripture. Covers more bases, in fact, it can be said to cover them all.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

With that said & no New Cov., Theologian to school us through all the points. Id prefer that the moderator close the thread before it becomes a pitched contest like so many others have become.

 

[th1bill]

Well, after reading this entire thread again, I decided that so far NNE HERE really knows much about the OP question because no one here knows much about NCT.

So, I'd venture to say that unless or until someone actually does a bit of investigative work, they are merely shooting darts in the dark, hitting whatever (or whomever) without any firm target in sight.

It boils down to the common Baptist denominator... "We agin' it" (nevermind whether or not "it" is even understood).

Please not that I am not coming out in favor of the doctrine here. I remain neutral, for I have my own doctrine that I have briefly laid out from time to time. What I AM saying is that IF you are going to debate something AT LEAST read it first. To do otherwise is to debate a straw man and that is essentially debating a lie. Debate until the cows come home, but debate the truth of the matter, not impressions, feelings, or other uninformed opinions.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm! You jump up rather suddenly without investigating and charge that what you have made yourself guilty of... so am I? I have done my homework on this one as well as the New Baptist Doctrine in the last week and both are ear tickling, untruths.

Please remember, blanket accusations are big holes to fall into.

 

[glfredrick]

Hmmmmmmmmmmm! You jump up rather suddenly without investigating and charge that what you have made yourself guilty of... so am I? I have done my homework on this one as well as the New Baptist Doctrine in the last week and both are ear tickling, untruths.

Please remember, blanket accusations are big holes to fall into.

No, ACTUALLY, no one has said much of any consequence, and that includes me. Just making the observation.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yea....Monitor, please KILL THE THREAD. Thanks

 

[Darrell C]

Yes, it was supposed to be.

It was...though we might have different reasons for thinking so...lol.

You must be crazy.... I wouldn't allow anyone I know come into this nut house :laugh:

Then this is not a good place to learn?

Yea LOL, I will do that when I want to make him an enemy :tongue3:

You may be right. The man's theology has been put in question, then, without any discussion...condemned.

Anger might be his response, but who knows...might be surprised. But until he has the chance to answer for himself, we will be left with assumptions and unjust judgments.

Seriously, if we cant find anyone in the whole of this BB Forum to come forth & extol the virtues of NCT, then.....well ah...

A plea to close the thread is not necessary. I have given my opinion, though it was brief, of their views.

I cannot find anything in it that would cause me to conclude that it is not a possibility that this man is a brother in Christ. This is why the use of terms and labels will get us into trouble. Our perceptions of what others believe and a belief that we can identify all who are saved and all who are not will lead to correction sometimes.

Understand, I am not saying that the OP in a straightforward manner questions those who might belong to this group, but I do think that if this man read what has been said he would be appalled.

His belief as a Pastor, though he goes by a certain label, can only be known through interaction with the man himself. I would bet that it is very possible that should he come here, this thread would find a balance and actually take on a substance of great interest, should we look beyond winning arguments, and toward understanding others as our Lord teaches us to do.

So, if what I have said seems to be rhetoric, that's okay. However, I have not just made statements and expected them to be taken as truth. I have actively sought to engage in this conversation, and as I have said before, the beliefs of others can best be understood as to their validity according to what scripture has revealed.

No discussion of any real substance will be had with oneline remarks that are expected to be accepted without dispute. Especially if the issue is one as important as this one.

God bless.