Is "NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY" Valid?

[Darrell C]

Bill my brother, I whole heartedly agree with this statement.....this is why Im leery of NCT......bottom line is I dont see it as complete with a total integration of both old & new testament.

Hello EWF, I would be curious if the view of distinguishing between a "Jewish Bible" and a "Christian Commentary on the Jewish Bible" is in keeping with all scripture being inspired and therefore one work of God?

I am not a NCTer, and do not profess to know their doctrine (perhaps we may get lucky and one will show up), but I am familiar with that which scripture teaches concerning the covenants, and would just like to ask you to give a brief statement as to how you view that which is taught in both Testaments concerning Covenants.

And if the pastor I was talking to makes broad references ( perhaps inferences is the better word) that people who are not associated with NCT are by in large Sabbathtarians then I will have to proceed cautiously

It was wrong for the pastor to assume the understanding or practice of those he does not know.

I would agree that caution is in order, but I would also suggest that it is a great opportunity to learn the beliefs of another, and in doing so better be able to discern the validity of their beliefs and how they align with scripture.

Again, in an attempt to stir this conversation up to a conversation that might help us in our understanding of each other's beliefs, I would just ask as to what understanding you have been brought to through the fellowship which you belong to oncerning the New Covenant.

God bless.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Hello EWF, I would be curious if the view of distinguishing between a "Jewish Bible" and a "Christian Commentary on the Jewish Bible" is in keeping with all scripture being inspired and therefore one work of God?

I am not a NCTer, and do not profess to know their doctrine (perhaps we may get lucky and one will show up), but I am familiar with that which scripture teaches concerning the covenants, and would just like to ask you to give a brief statement as to how you view that which is taught in both Testaments concerning Covenants.




It was wrong for the pastor to assume the understanding or practice of those he does not know.

I would agree that caution is in order, but I would also suggest that it is a great opportunity to learn the beliefs of another, and in doing so better be able to discern the validity of their beliefs and how they align with scripture.

Again, in an attempt to stir this conversation up to a conversation that might help us in our understanding of each other's beliefs, I would just ask as to what understanding you have been brought to through the fellowship which you belong to oncerning the New Covenant.

God bless.

Darrell... the OP is about the validity of NCT & since neither of us is NC Theologian, I feel we have exhausted this thread....if you want to examine the covenants in detail & perhaps debate them then I advise creating a new thread to do so.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell... the OP is about the validity of NCT & since neither of us is NC Theologian, I feel we have exhausted this thread....if you want to examine the covenants in detail & perhaps debate them then I advise creating a new thread to do so.

Would not an examination of doctrine concerning the New Covenant best answer your questions concerning NCT?

Why would one be leery of a group if they do not seek to understand the basis for their belief? As far as the "doctrinal statement" presented for NCT, until the teaching of scripture is examined, all that occurs concerning NCT is to present them in a light which intends to make people be leery of them.

Perhaps the thread was rhetorical only?

God bless.

 

[th1bill]

Darrel,

I tire of the rabitt trails you keep run down but, yes, I read your post and i admit, from anyone calling the name of Christ, it´s rubbish. You did not disagree that this Trash and tickle the ears movement is a wide and muddy river, rather you said that is why you defend it?

Here we go with the First Grade again with metaphor. When I joined the
Army I spent eight weeks learning obedience and fundamental Combat Manuvers. Five years later I was leading men into that endeavor and the things I had to bring out, most often, was that Basic Training to keep my men form being killed.

Christianity is the same! These men of Satan that preach this trash seek to destroy the Base and that is where all the Basics begin. I am presently teaching on one of their forums and all there think me a fool because I stand flat footed on the scriptures, teaching every word as being the anointed and inspired word of God. Do you belong to that camp?

 

[glfredrick]

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.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrel,

I tire of the rabitt trails you keep run down

Hello Bill, I am curious as to how the charge of running down rabbit trails is levied when I have answered every point raised.

In this thread, the original post calls into question a group based upon their beliefs of covenants, with very little given concerning their beliefs, and an acknowledgement of ignorance of their beliefs.

I firmly believe the only way to recognize false doctrine is to be sound in what scripture teaches, and despite whatever group you run into, you will be ready to give an answer.

The implications of your own teaching, though it is possible it is due to an inability to communicate personal beliefs, have been such that they were, by my estimation, in need of clarification.

In an attempt to discuss these statements, I have received condescension, attack, and no response to the points raised.

I am not here to defend myself, but the faith of Christ.

but, yes, I read your post and i admit, from anyone calling the name of Christ, it´s rubbish.

You say this...with no reason given.

If one is involved in "rubbish" and "bull," is the course of action to leave them in that?

Are we not to seek to teach that which is true?

You did not disagree that this Trash and tickle the ears movement is a wide and muddy river, rather you said that is why you defend it?

Correction: I defend the New Covenant.

Which, according to what has been posted, is "bull" and "rubbish," despite the amount of teaching we have in the New Testament concerning this doctrine.

As far as a group called "NCT," I am as ignorant of their beliefs, with the exception of the short doctrinal statement, as anyone else.

I will say this: I did not find one thing in that statement that I would compare to some of the things said in your own posts.

Here we go with the First Grade again with metaphor.

If I am "first grade," then it should be no problem to discuss and debate doctrine...right?

Yet, that has not been done.

When I joined the
Army I spent eight weeks learning obedience and fundamental Combat Manuvers. Five years later I was leading men into that endeavor and the things I had to bring out, most often, was that Basic Training to keep my men form being killed.

For your service to the country, I salute you. However, concerning what has been implied in your posts, I am afraid that I will have some questions.

Christianity is the same!

Agreed, but with far more severe consequences.

These men of Satan that preach this trash seek to destroy the Base and that is where all the Basics begin.

As I have expressed several times in the posts I have presented, it is clear in scripture that while the Law is indeed the basics, we are to move on from them.

Not an abandonment, mind you, but a graduation, so to speak. The Old Testament could be viewed as basic training, The New being active service.

I am presently teaching on one of their forums and all there think me a fool

I would like to have the site link. I would be very intersested in understanding their beliefs.

I have no comment on what they think of you.

because I stand flat footed on the scriptures, teaching every word as being the anointed and inspired word of God.

And this is a point that utterly failed, for that is not how it came across to me, in original statements, or in the attempts to explain those statements. What came across to me implied that "the bible is 39 books," with no further statement to clarify a distinction.

Furthermore, this implies that all scripture is not meant for believers, and I firmly believe that they are, from Genesis to Revelation.

I am not sure how this is being taught when belief in the New Covenant and how that applies to salvation is called into question. As I said before, I can understand a "One Covenant" theology, as I see all of the Covenants working toward one end, which is man redeemed. However, we cannot dismiss or ignore the roles that all Covenants play in the progressive revelation of God to man.

Do you belong to that camp?

I belong to Christ...period.

I do not completely fit in with any group, however, if one is an avid student of that which scripture teaches, they will come to find that they will not, and can not, fit in with any one particular group.

Because temporally speaking, no single group is flawless in their doctrine.

But eternally speaking, there is One Group that stands alone, that is, The Church. And it is more than probable that there are NCTers that belong to Christ, and to make the charge that they belong to Satan goes beyond what authority I personally feel I have been given.

If sincere discussion is sought, great. If animosity is the only result that comes about because our doctrine is questioned, rather than a scripturally based answer, we ought ourselves examine that which we teach.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

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.

Perhaps you would care to join the discussion in the thread "The New Covenant," and share your knowledge and understanding of NCT.

Of course, I am not sure if you are speaking about the group of the OP, or the New Covenant itself, but either way, I would be glad to see your thoughts on both. Here, you can express your thoughts concerning the "doctrinal beliefs" given concerning NCTers.

There, your thoughts on the New Covenant would be appreciated.

God bless.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I agree with Guy ....after 9 pages, no one has stepped up as a champion of the theology, to define it & defend it which leads me to think its NOT a very well supported theological stance.

I am also neutral to it & nobody has detailed this out to my satisfaction. Therefore my position is one of skepticism as to NCT having legs as a strong theological position

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

But if this NCT emanated out of the Reformed Baptists, then why do they downplay the Confessions ....particularly the 1689 Confessions of Faith?

From conversation with this NCT Pastor, he feels if he has to reference any confessions of faith then he will go with 1644-45 the lesser known of the two confessions.

Isnt it a fact, the 1644 was lost for several years and rediscovered years later? While the 1689 is more specific, the 1644 is more broad and not as detailed. Isnt that why New Covenant Theologians hold to the 1644? This is not to say that the 1644 embrace NCT, but that the doctrinal statement is not as specific enough to negate the NCT. So I conclude that for NCT, vagueness is good.

 

[glfredrick]

I agree with Guy ....after 9 pages, no one has stepped up as a champion of the theology, to define it & defend it which leads me to think its NOT a very well supported theological stance.

I am also neutral to it & nobody has detailed this out to my satisfaction. Therefore my position is one of skepticism as to NCT having legs as a strong theological position

No one has seriously stepped up for any theology so far...

Just a lot of name calling, red herring arguments, and some straw men to knock down. Move on people... Nothing here to see. No substance in this thread.

That DOESN'T mean that there is nothing to the position, or that it is not either viable or worth a look. It does mean that the PEOPLE HERE have not looked at it. That would be in keeping with a LOT of other doctrines that get treated in the same manner around here.

 

[glfredrick]

But if this NCT emanated out of the Reformed Baptists, then why do they downplay the Confessions ....particularly the 1689 Confessions of Faith?

From conversation with this NCT Pastor, he feels if he has to reference any confessions of faith then he will go with 1644-45 the lesser known of the two confessions.

Isnt it a fact, the 1644 was lost for several years and rediscovered years later? While the 1689 is more specific, the 1644 is more broad and not as detailed. Isnt that why New Covenant Theologians hold to the 1644? This is not to say that the 1644 embrace NCT, but that the doctrinal statement is not as specific enough to negate the NCT. So I conclude that for NCT, vagueness is good.

Perhaps what you consider "vagueness" is in fact nuance? You are still learning doctrine, grasshopper... :smilewinkgrin:

I prefer the 1644 Confession myself. I like the simplicity and Biblical nature. The 1689 Confession is certainly the more popular, however.

I tend to disagree with the covenantal section of the 1689. It tends toward a General Baptist perspective and I find that it gives an out for those seeking to disavow God's sovereignty. Essentially, section VII is speaking about previenient grace, and while it is not stated precisely in that manner, it does leave room for the invention of that doctrine. I find no particular covenant expressed in the Scriptures -- that covenant is purely a work of theological thought -- not that that makes it bad, just that I happen to disagree, and with that, disagree with the entire covenantal doctrine, preferring instead for a doctrine of God's election, which would be more consistent with section III.

 

[Darrell C]

No one has seriously stepped up for any theology so far...

Just a lot of name calling, red herring arguments, and some straw men to knock down. Move on people... Nothing here to see. No substance in this thread.

That DOESN'T mean that there is nothing to the position, or that it is not either viable or worth a look. It does mean that the PEOPLE HERE have not looked at it. That would be in keeping with a LOT of other doctrines that get treated in the same manner around here.

Would an examination of a Theopedia quote qualify as "seriously stepping up for theology?"

And would we assume that the man spoken of in the OP teaches that which Theopedia lists as doctrinal belief?

 

[glfredrick]

Would an examination of a Theopedia quote qualify as "seriously stepping up for theology?"

And would we assume that the man spoken of in the OP teaches that which Theopedia lists as doctrinal belief?

Why are you attacking me? I've seen you bring nothing of substance to this discussion, but you have brought a lot of dissention to the table.

How about YOU make a POSITIVE CASE for what you hold as true in this regard instead of always being on the attack against someone else's viewpoint. That is what theologians do.

And, if you claim that you are not a theologian, then STOP DEBATING as if you are one. :BangHead:

 

[Darrell C]

Why are you attacking me? I've seen you bring nothing of substance to this discussion, but you have brought a lot of dissention to the table.

How about YOU make a POSITIVE CASE for what you hold as true in this regard instead of always being on the attack against someone else's viewpoint. That is what theologians do.

And, if you claim that you are not a theologian, then STOP DEBATING as if you are one. :BangHead:

How are two valid questions...an attack?

If you have read the thread twice now, as you have said, you will see that my response was an effort to avoid conflict, choosing rather to simply look at doctrine.

I've seen you bring nothing of substance to this discussion, but you have brought a lot of dissention to the table.

If that is how you see it, okay.

I guess I will simply wait until you instruct me as to how a discussion needs to be directed.

In the meantime, how about quoting what you feel is "bringing dissention to the table."


Am I to assume that you are in agreement with the things I have found worthy of address and in disagreement with what I have presented as basis for the beliefs I hold?

How about YOU make a POSITIVE CASE for what you hold as true in this regard instead of always being on the attack against someone else's viewpoint. That is what theologians do.

I have done just that.

If you feel I have attacked someone, such as you state I am doing here, then I am willing to discuss even that.

Let me make the reason these questions are posed a little clearer:

Would an examination of a Theopedia quote qualify as "seriously stepping up for theology?"

That is all that has really been given concerning NCTers. Your contribution to "seriously stepping up for theology" (I guess) included the Theopedia quote and brief commentary that I am hard pressed to to understand as a clear statement one way or another.

I chose to present "a POSITIVE CASE for what I hold as true" because I guessed that no matter what I said, if I addressed your quote specifically...a serious discussion would not be in the works.

And this based upon an "out of left field" response in another thread.

And would we assume that the man spoken of in the OP teaches that which Theopedia lists as doctrinal belief?

I include this as part of the question of the OP: we are not just dealing with NCT, but one who is said to represent this theology.

The obvious solution if for the OP to discuss theology personally with this Pastor. Not just call his belief into question and leave it at that.

The only way I see to determine if NCT is in fact "in keeping" with Baptist belief is to understand what the scripture has to say concerning the New Covenant.

No attack was intended, these are serious questions presented to you, and you can answer if you like.

I will address the Theopedia quote, as well as your commentary at this point, as I can see that it matters little what I say or how I see it, it will be viewed as an attack.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

The Quote (which I guess assumes that all NCTers adhere and teach the following statement):

You will have to flesh that out some...

Here is a brief overview of Covenant Theology (from Theopedia):


Quote:
Covenant Theology (or Federal theology) is a prominent feature in Protestant theology, especially in the Presbyterian and Reformed churches, and a similar form is found in Methodism and Reformed Baptist churches.

I would suggest that "Covenant Theology" has it's beginnings in scripture...not specific doctrinal statements of men.

Would we assume that throughout the history of the Church, we must look to a specific period in her history to discover when a belief in the teaching of the Covenants was first understood and believed, and taught.

No, we understand that what scripture teaches was first taught by those that God used to reveal that which He would have us to know.

And when the instruction concerning the Covenants were for the first time penned and put to parchment, particularly the New Covenant, we understand that it was at this time God revealed this knowledge to man. We do not have to wait centuries to find notable men that for the first time made these known to man.

This article primarily concerns Covenant Theology as held by the Presbyterian and Reformed churches,

That's great...perhaps we might use the scripture to measure what the article states?

But we will still be forced to talk to the Pastor to understand the instruction he gives concerning covenants. At the very least, someone who is a member of this group.

which use the covenant concept as an organizing principle for Christian theology

As far as I am concerned, theology which displaces the New Covenant or puts it as a non-essential factor in our understanding fails to understand salvation in general.

I see the teaching of the covenants found in scripture an "organizing principle," rather than a "concept." Would any deny that the covenants work toward the same goal?

and view the history of redemption under the framework of three overarching theological covenants: the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace.

All three terms could be said to be implied, in my view.

As I have said in this thread, I have no problem with seeing "one Covenant" for mankind, despite the fact that there are many mentioned specifically.

Likewise, I cannot say that I view the "concept" of "Three Covenants" as something which would cause me to cast into doubt the salvation of another.

While I would have to know what is held beyond their beliefs concerning "Covenant Theology," I would not be so quick to assume that they are heretical because they use terms which perhaps I would not use.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

These three are called “theological covenants” because although not explicitly presented as covenants, they are, according to covenant theologians, implicit in the Bible.

Which would seem to be agreed with in this statement:

The fatal flaw with this view is that no where in the Bible does it say that God established two covenants with humanity, one of redemption and one of works, which when broken instituted another covenant of grace. All those points are assumed but not directly Scriptural.

Much has to be assumed in this statement, except of course the judgment that there is a "fatal flaw" with this view.

I have seen no such fatal flaw in the doctrinal statement. We could argue that they use terms that are not "directly scriptural," but for one to view God's redemptive work stated as is it in this article is not something I would be ready to take issue with.

However, terms like "bull and rubbish," I will take issue with.

If NCTers look at God's redemptive work as covenantal, I have no problem with that. It does not represent my view, but I can see how they might represent their belief in such a manner.

In brief, Covenant Theology teaches that God has established two great covenants with mankind and a covenant within the Godhead to deal with how the other two relate. The first covenant in logical order, usually called the Covenant of Redemption, is the agreement within the Godhead that the Father would appoint his son Jesus to give up his life for mankind and that Jesus would do so (cf. Titus 1:1–3).

Could we really take issue with this, other than the term applied?

Was not the sacrifice of Christ not known well in advance?

The second, called the Covenant of Works, was made in the Garden of Eden between God and Adam and promised life for obedience and death for disobedience.

This is pushing it, but really, shall we question their salvation because they view God's command for obedience (which is also implied) and the resulting consequences...as a covenant?

Adam disobeyed God and broke the covenant, and so the third covenant was made between God and all of mankind, who also fell with Adam according to Romans 5:12–21.

So far, with the exception of using the term covenant, I cannot disagree that what is stated here is not valid.

Which of these "covenants" are not valid scriptural views, called into question only, because they are called covenants?

This third covenant, the Covenant of Grace, promised eternal blessing for belief in Christ and obedience to God’s word.

While I view this as the New Covenant myself, it seems to me the NCTers, despite coming under fire for the terms they use, or perhaps it is just the name they call themslelves by, have come to a right conclusion concerning this final Covenant.

Does that count for anything?

It is thus seen as the basis for all biblical covenants that God made individually with Noah, Abraham, and David, nationally with O.T. Israel as a people, and universally with man in the New Covenant.

And I agree with this 100%.

I view all covenants (with the exception of the Levitical Priesthood) as working toward this One Covenant. All was revealed according to God's timetable, but all...working toward this one end.

These individual covenants are called the “biblical covenants” because they are explicitly described as such in the Bible.

Can't argue witht that one either. Have argued in this thread against a seeming denial of this, though.

Covenant theology as a refinement of Reformed theology is evident among early Scottish theologians. For example, see The Theology and Theologians of Scotland, Chiefly of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (1872) passage: “The old theology of Scotland might be emphatically described as a covenant theology.”[1]

Ah, now I see the problem. I guess I believe the way I do, not due to personal study...but because my forefathers believed in a similar fashion.

And I thought I was trying to study scripture, when all along, what I should have been doing was discussing what other believers in other centuries believed.


Continued...

 

[glfredrick]

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:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Perhaps what you consider "vagueness" is in fact nuance? You are still learning doctrine, grasshopper...

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

I find no particular covenant expressed in the Scriptures -- that covenant is purely a work of theological thought -- not that that makes it bad, just that I happen to disagree, and with that, disagree with the entire covenantal doctrine, preferring instead for a doctrine of God's election, which would be more consistent with section III.

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)?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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:

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

 

[Darrell C]

The Commentary:

The fatal flaw with this view is that no where in the Bible does it say that God established two covenants with humanity, one of redemption and one of works, which when broken instituted another covenant of grace. All those points are assumed but not directly Scriptural.

So address the reason to take issue with either NCT or the pastor of such a fellowship, rather than simply declare (the theological positions, not the pastor) that they and dispensationalism are fatally flawed.

I view this statement...

All those points are assumed but not directly Scriptural.

...as too vague to be sure what the intent is.

If it were said...

All those points are assumed...they are not directly Scriptural.

...I would know better the meaning, if that is the intent.

But it goes back to whether we can say they are unorthodox in their belief or not, and only by a look at what scripture teaches concerning the New Covenant, do I think we can honestly address their view.

Additionally, Covenantal Theology does not wrap around the covenants in Scripture the way that many think it does. It is about the three (non) covenants listed above, with the actual covenants found in the Word under the Covenant of Grace.

So if you can clearly state why "Covenant Theology" is in error, why not do so?

It is about the three (non) covenants listed above, with the actual covenants found in the Word under the Covenant of Grace.

While I would not perhaps present these "covenants" as they do, neither would I be so quick to dismiss this as a valid way for a believer to look at God's redemptive work, any more than I would dismiss the view that some take that there is "only One Covenant."

I view all covenants working together through progressive revelation working toward one goal...completion concerning man's redemption.

And lest the dispensationalists get all happy and figure that their system wins by default, neither does the Bible mention dispensations of time for this or that, nor does it make the church to be a "parenthesis" in the history of Israel.

Then is the view that revelation has been progressive not held?

Really...what then is the truth? Help me out so I can stop just attacking and spewing spurious nonsense.

Both systems have fatal flaws.

Both systems can, in my view, contribute to a healthy theology. Within both "systems" we can find what may be termed "fatal flaws," but those issues should be approached with more than just a condescending attitude, but should have in view that within all "groups" we will find adherents to a theology system...not faith in Christ.

Should our goal be to mock...or to teach. Are we okay to let those we believe to be in error...remain in that error?

Discussion is the answer. So far, in this thread, I have only seen a few that have been willing to actually discuss what I feel is the only suitable way to understand those who are members of NCT, and while it has been antagonistic at times...at least they have expressed their views.

Rather than sit in judgment of a theology and those that are most probably brothers and sisters in Christ...because of applied terms and names.

Continued...