New Covenant Theology

[Earth Wind and Fire]

:laugh:
It'll all "pan-out in the end"?

I get that. It really is frustrating hearing all the bickering and different "proofs." But at the same time Jesus specifically said He didn't want his disciples deceived when it came to the nature of his return. So I study...

But the theological viewpoints deal with more than just eschatology.

You read Greek Tim..... They are working on overhauling the very thing your evaluating. Tim isnt the only one who has told me that (from a high office level of the Southern Campus.) much has to be considered though....so I choose to wait for it.....I seriously consider NCT as a beta test site & Im not really impressed. Waiting for REV 2. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[FollowTheWay]

I don't understand this entire discussion. Is New Covenant Theology new? Not in my view. In Romans Paul contrasts being under the Law, which in my understanding is under the first covenant, versus being under Grace, the second covenant established by the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. The oulier perspective, in my view, is Dispensationalism which in its most extreme form says that portions of the New Testament do not appy to Christians today. Can someone explain what is new about New Covenant Theology?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I don't understand this entire discussion. Is New Covenant Theology new? Not in my view. In Romans Paul contrasts being under the Law, which in my understanding is under the first covenant, versus being under Grace, the second covenant established by the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. The oulier perspective, in my view, is Dispensationalism which in its most extreme form says that portions of the New Testament do not appy to Christians today. Can someone explain what is new about New Covenant Theology?

I asked that same question.....I got a complicated answer in return ....which leads me to believe its repackaged & not new. The pastor basically told me that if I joined the church that Id get a 3 month course on it & other church doctrine. Huh!:smilewinkgrin:

 

[RLBosley]

I don't understand this entire discussion. Is New Covenant Theology new? Not in my view. In Romans Paul contrasts being under the Law, which in my understanding is under the first covenant, versus being under Grace, the second covenant established by the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. The oulier perspective, in my view, is Dispensationalism which in its most extreme form says that portions of the New Testament do not appy to Christians today. Can someone explain what is new about New Covenant Theology?

(From my understanding - I'm still fairly new to NCT itself, though by my own study I came to the conclusions of NCT before I heard of it)
Basically New Covenant Theology is an attempt to find a middle ground between Dispensational and Covenant Theology. It gets rid of the idea of the two people of God concept from DT recognizing the abolishment of the Old Covenant and the spiritual blessings given to the church, the people of God. It also discards the extra-biblical covenants that define CT (Grace, works and redemption) and has more of an emphasis on the change in covenants.

Here is a simple parable to explain it. http://www.gracemessenger.com/index.php?id=448

 

[Iconoclast]

I don't understand this entire discussion. Is New Covenant Theology new? Not in my view. In Romans Paul contrasts being under the Law, which in my understanding is under the first covenant, versus being under Grace, the second covenant established by the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. The oulier perspective, in my view, is Dispensationalism which in its most extreme form says that portions of the New Testament do not appy to Christians today. Can someone explain what is new about New Covenant Theology?

simple version:
Paul does not contrast law/grace....as you are stating it. There is always grace and law.

NCT are those who want to believe in the 5 pts, but do not want to obey the fourth commandment...see the earlier link s offered to understand the issue

 

[Yeshua1]

I actually think it will work b/c of its emphasis on biblical theology. That discipline is on the rise and increasing in popularity and validity (and usefulness). The gospel project is an example of that as SS material. So instead of viewing eschatology in a vacuum, it presents the kingdom story of Scripture guided by covenants leading to the end. This method has great value and it pays great dividends. The fact is, they are not offering much that is new. But it is fresh and fast becoming the next great theological movement.

As for hermeneutics, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Theological interpretation of Scripture is on the rise as well. The literal ,grammatical, historical method is a product of the post-enlightenment thinking. It is modernity doing hermeneutics. Those advocating for a more figural reading are moving back to a pre-modern hermeneutic. We see the apostles do this with the OT and the early church as well. So it is consistent with church history.

what is main difference from NCT and say Historical pre mil viewpoint as regarding the scriptures?

 

[Iconoclast]

http://www.sermonaudio.com/playpopup.asp?SID=111605162223

 

[Greektim]

what is main difference from NCT and say Historical pre mil viewpoint as regarding the scriptures?

Not much except the latter is an eschatology whereas the former is an inclusive system (lack of a better term) of many categories including eschatology (broadly). One can be a premill or Amill in NCT. The system does not dictate a specific eschatological view.

 

[Jerome]

www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj18j.pdf

New Covenant Theology (NCT) advocates have correctly abandoned the non-biblical covenants of Covenant Theology (CT). However, with few exceptions, they have inconsistently maintained CT’s eschatologies, which usually reject a future premillennial kingdom on earth, ruled over by Christ for 1,000 years in fulfillment of OT unconditional promises made to Abraham and David.

NCT is to be commended for having recognized the absolute lack of biblical evidence for the three covenantal mainstays of CT, i.e., Covenant of Grace, Covenant of Redemption, and Covenant of Works. NCT has advanced the theological discussion by limiting their studies to covenants that are clearly and repeatedly taught in Scripture, e.g., the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants.

We interact here with NCT in that they limit God’s promises for Israel in the future and miss the futuristic aspects of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants. In this, they unnecessarily and erroneously rejoin their CT brothers in proposing that the NT church has replaced OT Israel and thus inherited God’s land, ruler, and kingdom promises from the supposedly disobedient and disinherited Jews. As a result, the eschatological options for NCT are essentially no different from those of CT.

 

[Herald]

NCT may be on the rise in Southern Baptist circles, but then again, most SBC Calvinists are Reformed only in their soteriology. The guards are at the gates among 1689 Reformed Baptists. The reason I say "1689 Reformed Baptists" is because most NCT's will not subscribe to the 1689 LBC. The 1689 articulates the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. NCT's have a problem with the Covenant of Works. You will find them subscribing to the 1644/46 LBC since it is not as detailed and is weak on CT.

 

[RLBosley]

what is main difference from NCT and say Historical pre mil viewpoint as regarding the scriptures?

I'm leaning NCT (at least as I understand it) and have a historic pre-mill eschatology. I don't think the two are exclusive, though from what i've seen alot of NCT are a-mill.

 

[Herald]

Actually, if you could call Kingdom through Covenant NCT, then I'd say it is on the rise in the SBC.

Tim,

I think "Kingdom through Covenant" is a "wannabe". There are quite a few inquiring minds in the SBC who see the shortcomings of dispensationalism and progressive dispensationalism, but they are not Reformed in any sense of the word. Many are not even Calvinists. They are going through a "systematic theology identity crisis". It is another attempt to carve out a niche that will accommodate existing theological presuppositions. That is how NCT came into being.

 

[FollowTheWay]

(From my understanding - I'm still fairly new to NCT itself, though by my own study I came to the conclusions of NCT before I heard of it)
Basically New Covenant Theology is an attempt to find a middle ground between Dispensational and Covenant Theology. It gets rid of the idea of the two people of God concept from DT recognizing the abolishment of the Old Covenant and the spiritual blessings given to the church, the people of God. It also discards the extra-biblical covenants that define CT (Grace, works and redemption) and has more of an emphasis on the change in covenants.

Here is a simple parable to explain it. http://www.gracemessenger.com/index.php?id=448

Can you simply reply to the clear (to me) theology that Paul expressed in Romans and is spread throughout the New Testament? Dispinsationalism is the outlier, unproven belief not the new covenant expressed in the Bible.

 

[RLBosley]

Can you simply reply to the clear (to me) theology that Paul expressed in Romans and is spread throughout the New Testament? Dispinsationalism is the outlier, unproven belief not the new covenant expressed in the Bible.

Honestly I'm not 100% sure of what you mean but I'll take a stab at it.

Basically my view (and from my understanding this is the teaching of NCT) is that with the New Covenant inaugurated by Christ is a better, superior and totally New Covenant compared to the Old Covenant(s) given in the Old Testament. The Old has been abolished and now in the New we have a new law, the Law of Christ which is a higher standard but we are enabled to accomplish that through the Spirit (Though we still of course will fail many times). The believing remnant of the Jews that followed Christ made a transition to the New Covenant and created the "church." Now gentiles have been grafted into that remnant and the unbelieving Jews have been broken off/cast out. So now the Kingdom of God is given to a "new nation", the church. If national Israel (physical Jews) has any future it is solely as a part of the church.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Honestly I'm not 100% sure of what you mean but I'll take a stab at it.

Basically my view (and from my understanding this is the teaching of NCT) is that with the New Covenant inaugurated by Christ is a better, superior and totally New Covenant compared to the Old Covenant(s) given in the Old Testament. The Old has been abolished and now in the New we have a new law, the Law of Christ which is a higher standard but we are enabled to accomplish that through the Spirit (Though we still of course will fail many times). The believing remnant of the Jews that followed Christ made a transition to the New Covenant and created the "church." Now gentiles have been grafted into that remnant and the unbelieving Jews have been broken off/cast out. So now the Kingdom of God is given to a "new nation", the church. If national Israel (physical Jews) has any future it is solely as a part of the church.

Absolutely. This wae beautifully expresses by Jesus when He said:

Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

I call this New Covenant theology. It is very simple. Jesus is the only way.

 

[RLBosley]

Absolutely. This wae beautifully expresses by Jesus when He said:

Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

I call this New Covenant theology. It is very simple. Jesus is the only way.

Well Dispensationalists and Covenantalists (is that a term?) would both agree with that verse also. Christ being the only way of salvation isn't the issue, the relation of the covenants to each other and God's relation to man are the primary differences between these views IMO.

Covenant Theology - One group (Israel/the church), one over-arching covenant with two "administrations" *(called the old/new covenants). The Decalogue is still in effect but the rest of the Law was done away with.

Dispensational - Two groups, Israel as the "Earthly people" and the Church as the "Heavenly People". God still has a final plan specifically for physical Jews and the church was just Plan B that was made when the Jews rejected Christ in 30AD. The Law is only for Jews but still in effect for them and will be the basis for salvation in the tribulation (debatable between some versions but that's the Classic Dispy view)

NCT - One group (believing remnant of Israel transitioned into the "church") that made a transition from Old Covenant to New at Pentecost. All the law, Decalogue included, was abolished. The church is now the Holy Nation of God, and people of His Kingdom.

Again, this is from my limited understanding, pretty new to NCT so I may be not quite accurate on that.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Absolutely. This wae beautifully expresses by Jesus when He said:

Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

I call this New Covenant theology. It is very simple. Jesus is the only way.

Then why not throw the theology nonsence away altogether and then worship the new testiment Christ?

 

[Herald]

Covenant Theology - One group (Israel/the church), one over-arching covenant with two "administrations" *(called the old/new covenants). The Decalogue is still in effect but the rest of the Law was done away with.

You are describing Presbyterian, or paedobaptist, Covenant Theology. There is also a Baptist Covenant Theology that is not NCT. This theology has existed since the 17th Century. Pascal Denault writes:

"However, in studying Baptist theology in its historical context, it becomes evident that this definition of the Covenant of Grace had a meaning that was very specific and fundamentally different from the paedobaptist understanding.

The first particularity is found in the difference between the notion of administration and that of revelation. The Baptists believed that before the arrival of the New Covenant, the Covenant of Grace was not formally given, but only announced and promised (revealed)." - The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, pages 61-62.

He then goes on to say:

"The distinction between the revelation and the administration of the Covenant of Grace finds its whole meaning when the second element of Baptist federalism is added to it, that is to say, the full revelation of the Covenant of Grace in the New Covenant. If the Westminster federalism can be summarized in "one covenant under two administrations," that of the 1689 would be "one covenant revealed progressively and concluded formerly under the New Covenant." ibid. p. 63

At first I read this with a bit of suspicion. Is not the New Covenant a completely new covenant? Hence, discontinuity of the covenants. But Denault employed a unique definition of Baptist discontinuity.

"The Baptists believed that no covenant preceding the New Covenant was the Covenant of Grace. Before the arrival of the New Covenant, the Covenant of Grace was at the stage of promise." ibid. p. 63

This is what Denault means when he says, "One covenant revealed progressively and concluded formerly under the New Covenant." The New Covenant is, indeed, a completely new covenant that was promised in the Old. He takes care to measure terms, and separate promise from realization. So, Baptist Covenant Theology disagrees with the one covenant, two administrations view of paedobaptists. You may want to revisit Baptist Covenant Theology.

 

[RLBosley]

You are describing Presbyterian, or paedobaptist, Covenant Theology. There is also a Baptist Covenant Theology that is not NCT. This theology has existed since the 17th Century.
...snip...
You may want to revisit Baptist Covenant Theology.

You're probably right. All I know of CT is what I've read because I was never a part of a church that believed that view. I've only been in a dispensational church and under dispensational teaching until about 5 months ago. I'll check that out. Thank you!

But what, if any, difference is there between that view (Baptist Covenant Theology) and what is now called New Covenant Theology?

 

[Herald]

Then why not throw the theology nonsence away altogether and then worship the new testiment Christ?

Christ is the substance of both Testaments. While the New Covenant is not enacted until Christ's resurrection, it was promised back in Genesis 3:15. The Old Testament, and theology in general, is of great value since it reveals Christ.