# What is New Covenant Theology?



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 4, 2004)

I have been out of the link of things for more than a few years. A Pastor I discipled years ago told me he was a New Covenant Theologian. I didn't question it. He told me it had to do with the relationship of the Two Covenants. The Old Testament Law is put away and he adheres to a higher law now, the Law of Christ. I felt he was refering to stuff like the Sermon on the Mount. He has also picked up on the New Paul Perspective of N.T. Wright these past few years. I assumed the two might be the associated because he started talking about both around the same time. I have learned a little about the NPP. But, I admit I know nothing about New Covenant Theology. Would I know of any author that is a New Covenant Theologian? What is it? And is it in any way associated with the New Paul Perspective?  Illumine Me! 
For Christ's Crown and Covenant, Randy


----------



## cupotea (Nov 4, 2004)

New Covenant Theology is a last ditch effort on the part of some Baptist theologians to embrace what is supposed to be a consistently biblical appreciation of the covenants without actually becoming Presbyterians.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 4, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Steadfast_
> New Covenant Theology is a last ditch effort on the part of some Baptist theologians to embrace what is supposed to be a consistently biblical appreciation of the covenants without actually becoming Presbyterians.


----------



## cupotea (Nov 4, 2004)

Wocka, wocka!


----------



## SmokingFlax (Nov 4, 2004)

"Wocka, wocka! "...

Is that Latin?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 4, 2004)

You can't be serious! I need a serious answer please. I have been a member of a Reformed Presbyterian and a PCA Church. I am a covenant theologian who is Baptist. I just don't buy into infant baptism. I have always been a Reformed Baptist though. You still haven't answered my questions. Please be helpful. Randy

[Edited on 11-5-2004 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Puddleglum (Nov 4, 2004)

This was discussed a little here: 

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=2262&page=1

Pastor Way has a chart (I think it's linked on the second post of the thread) with some info comparing it to both Covenant Theology & Dispensationalism. 

There's probably some other threads about it, but I'm not sure how to find them.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 4, 2004)

Thank You very much Puddleglum. Chart was very helpful. I know it doesn't have anything to do with NPP now. Blessings upon you and yours.
For Christ's crown and Covenant, Randy
Yes, I am a Covenant Theologian who is a Reformed Baptist. Not a NCT.


----------



## cupotea (Nov 4, 2004)

I'm very sorry about that.

NCT is a fairly recent movement among Reformed baptists. It seems to be an effort to recover that covenantalism common to Baptists before their churches were ruined by Dispensationalism. It still maintains that there is a strict distinction between Israel and the Church and a few other ideas common to Dispensationalism, but appears to be a distinct movement away from Dispensationalism inasmuch as it rejects any idea of a secret rapture and most of it's adherents are, in fact, amillennial.

It's been a while since I've read up on it, but here is a website which might be helpful:

http://www.ids.org/

It is to be distinguished from Progressive Dispensationalism (which seems to be indistinguishable from a particularly baptist form of Historical Premillennialism) on the one hand and the fairly 'pure' pre-dispensational covenantalism of such Baptist theologians as Fred Malone and Paul K. Jewett.

Note: I can fairly well endorse Fred Malone, but I am only dropping Jewetts name out of courtesy...I have not read him, I haven't heard anything particularly bad about him, but I can't give him a first hand reference.

Again, please forgive my levity earlier in the thread; just mark it up to typical Presbyterian arrogance and a certain heavy boorishness peculiar just to me.

[Edited on 5-11-2004 by Steadfast]

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 4, 2004)

> Yes, I am a Covenant Theologian who is a Reformed Baptist. Not a NCT.



You may want to check out this link:

*What does it mean to be Reformed Really?*

Also, for lots on NCT check here:

*New Covenant Theology Links at Monergism.com*

[Edited on 11-5-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## openairboy (Nov 4, 2004)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I have been out of the link of things for more than a few years. A Pastor I discipled years ago told me he was a New Covenant Theologian. I didn't question it. He told me it had to do with the relationship of the Two Covenants. The Old Testament Law is put away and he adheres to a higher law now, the Law of Christ. I felt he was refering to stuff like the Sermon on the Mount. He has also picked up on the New Paul Perspective of N.T. Wright these past few years. I assumed the two might be the associated because he started talking about both around the same time. I have learned a little about the NPP. But, I admit I know nothing about New Covenant Theology. Would I know of any author that is a New Covenant Theologian? What is it? And is it in any way associated with the New Paul Perspective?  Illumine Me!
> For Christ's Crown and Covenant, Randy



I don't know how much I can help, but check out www.soundofgrace.net/jgr and he has a four part series on "What is NCT?" A little bit beneath this series you can see his critic of the New Perspective. No, the two aren't related in any way, shape or form.

John Reisinger is probably THE voice of NCT, so that is straight from the horses mouth.

openairboy


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 5, 2004)

Thanks for the Link to your article Dr. McMahon. I also understand there were no Baptist's invited to the Westminster Assembly. The deck was stacked. I understand why also. They were sparse and some were very unscriptural. There were some good ones though. I also understand that theologies were still being developed. 

Tell me. I don't know? Is the WCF the response of the crown to the 1644. You should never put one up on the crown you know. I have been told by some Presbyterian's that the 1689 is a baptized WCF. I still believe Luther and Calvin didn't Reform enough. I just disagree with you. I do not see infant baptism in the scriptures. Sola Scriptura. It isn't even mentioned until Origen. That is what I understand.

Don't get me wrong. Please understand. I have great respect and love for the WCF and the great men who put it together. I was trained to know Messiah the Prince. My youngest son's name is Samuel Rutherford. God knows who is Reformed in doctrine and who isn't. Be Encouraged Dr.
For Christ's Crown and Covenant, R. Martin Snyder
Still a REFORMED Baptist who holds to Covenant Theology.



[Edited on 7-21-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 5, 2004)

Randy, regarding the reasons behind the drafting of the WCF and the type of people called to do it, the following is from the _Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible_:



> By order of the English Parliament these documents were drafted by the Westminster Assembly as a revision of the doctrinal standards of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. The Assembly first met on July 1, 1643, and consisted of 151 persons appointed by Parliament: 10 land owners (Lords), 20 commoners (tradesmen) and 121 ministers (divines), including Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Independents and Erastians in fair proportion. This balance changed over the years to favor the Presbyterians.



As far as the LBCF of 1689 being a "baptized" version of the WCF, it is true that its writers did look a lot to the WCF as a model. There's been a ton of discussion on this board regarding infant baptism, so you might enjoy reading some of those threads to hear some interaction on the topic. One thread in which I briefly explained why I hold to it is here. One important thing that isn't discussed in that thread, though, is the link between circumcision and baptism (Col. 2:11-12), which you'll find a lot on in the other discussions. I just put this information here as a reference remark, and we shouldn't let the thread turn into a discussion on baptism.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 5, 2004)

Thanks Chris, I have studied baptism till I am blue in the face. I don't even make it an issue unless someone wants to believe baptismal regenereation. I personally don't even concern myself with the mode. I just believe in believers bapism. I am just responding to the article I just read. Who is Reformed? It is done very scholarly. I just disagree with it. 
I would have diligently compared notes to the Westminster and other confessions if I was constructing a confession of Faith. I am not putting down the Westminser Assembly.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 6, 2004)

> it is true that its writers did look a lot to the WCF as a model.



MDB - 

Just as a note, the WCF was NOT used by the 1689 Confession as a model - rather, they used the Savoy Declaration which was a copy and revision of the Confession (done by none other than John Owen at the time, who, for a brief and tragic period, was an Indepednent! but his writings reflect a Presbyterianism that he seemed to go back to later on) but they changed it to suit the Independent form of church government with a Baptist distinctive, and a rewriting of the Savoy Declaration on a number of points. That is why there are so many differecnes between the WCF, Savoy and 1689.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 6, 2004)

Thank You Gentlemen,

I have read a few biographies about John Owen. I thought he was a congregationalist who had great admiration for Presbyterian's. I love John Owen. Anyways thanks guys for helping me understand what NCT is. I was afraid it was somehow tied in with the NPP. Thank God it isn't. I am not a NCT and wonder how the Church can't be in the Old Testament. Especially since we were grafted into Isreal. Maybe I am being to simplistic. It wouldn't be the first time.

Thanks again for the help. Be Encouraged.

For Christ's Crown and Covenant, R. Martin Snyder


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 6, 2004)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > it is true that its writers did look a lot to the WCF as a model.
> ...



OK, that clarifies a misunderstanding I had. I had taken an online quiz once, and it asked which document the LBCF of 1689 closely resembled, and it was multiple choice with the Heidelberg Catechism, the Westminster Confession, etc. I guess it did not include Savoy as one of the answers, since it said the correct answer was the WCF. I guess I wrongly assumed that meant it was modeled after it.


----------



## Puritanhead (Dec 30, 2004)

NCT has a strict dichotomy between Israel and the Church? I didn't know that... seems quasi-dispensationalism for ex-dispensationalists in that case.


----------



## Average Joey (Feb 3, 2005)

After reading that chart I realize I hold mostly to CT,but there are a couple things I agree with NCT about.Maybe I am Middle Covenant Theology.


----------



## heartoflesh (Feb 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Just to add, there are many who hold to *a* New Covenant Theology, yet disagree with some extremeties found in the NCT as touted by say, Fred G. Zaspel.



Fred coauthored a book on NCT:


This is Fred's website:
http://www.biblicalstudies.com

About 4 years ago I had a few email correspondences with Fred regarding NCT. He's a real nice guy, very irenic in his dialogue.

[Edited on 2/10/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## Ranger (Feb 8, 2005)

Did Philip Way have a chart showing the distinctives of CT, NCT, Dispensational and Prog Dispensational? Or something like that?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ranger_
> Did Philip Way have a chart showing the distinctives of CT, NCT, Dispensational and Prog Dispensational? Or something like that?



Right here.


----------



## Ranger (Feb 8, 2005)

Thanks a ton Chris. I'm still struggling with why some claim that a Reformed Baptist cannot be CT. If the Reformed Baptist understands the spiritual fulfillment of physical circumcision to be in baptism, and the spiritual birth into the people of God at conversion to be the fulfillment of the physical birth into the church in the OT, then what would be the problem? 

Forgive my ignorance, I'm still new to much of this, and have only read through a couple works primarily Berkhof's Systematic on the subjects and Robertson's Christ of the Covenants.

[Edited on 9-2-2005 by Ranger]


----------



## Philip A (Feb 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ranger_
> I'm still struggling with why some claim that a Reformed Baptist cannot be CT.



Because it is their most effective propaganda tool! Followed closely by the accusation of dispensationalism, which is the 2nd most effective propaganda tool.



[Edited on 9-2-2005 by Philip A]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Philip A_
> Because it is their most effective propaganda tool! Followed closely by the accusation of dispensationalism, which is the 2nd most effective propaganda tool.



Please prove, with Scripture, why your conclusions on the covenants and baptism are not either different from authentic CT or completely separated from dispensationalism.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Feb 10, 2005)

Ask Doulos


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> Ask Doulos



I'm asking Mr. Arrogant, here.


----------



## pastorway (Feb 10, 2005)

"Mr. Arrogant" deserves your respect as an elder in the church. He has devoted several threads to answer the question you have asked so feel free to search the board for his posts.

Phillip Way on behalf of Philip A.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> "Mr. Arrogant" deserves your respect as an elder in the church. He has devoted several threads to answer the question you have asked so feel free to search the board for his posts.
> 
> Phillip Way on behalf of Philip A.



But all of the elders and saints that he insulted through his arrogant remarks and "laughing smiley" have no value?


----------



## pastorway (Feb 10, 2005)

he insulted no one. He made light of the fact that the two most common slights against Reformed Baptists are that they do not hold to CT and are all dispensational. This is founded on the ridiculous idea that one cannot be a Baptist and also be really reformed. Philip A has put forth some very good arguments on this board defending what it is to be a "Particular Baptist", holding to CT and not being dispensational.

He was not (in my estimation) being arrogant and to level such an unwarranted charge exposes a leap to conclusions.

Phillip


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 11, 2005)




----------



## Ranger (Feb 11, 2005)

If he is arrogant, than so are you for your comments http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=8656&page=1 , when daveb said he thought all Baptists were dispensational, Dr. Matt said, "They are..." and you posted three laughing faces. I understood that he was just joking about the common responses, as you were just joking about all Baptists being dispensational (which is a huge insult on this board).

Your responses could be construed as just as arrogant and offensive as his. He was just making light of the common responses as were you in the other thread. I don't completely agree with everything he has said, or how he has said it, but that comment was obviously just made in jest.

[Edited on 11-2-2005 by Ranger]


----------



## BobVigneault (Feb 11, 2005)

Ok, Ok, don't make me have to separate you two. Let's keep this debate civil or you're going to have to surrender your firearms to the bartender. Now you boys settle down!


----------



## Ranger (Feb 11, 2005)

- lays his Texas Ranger six shooters on the bar -

With the argument out of the way, can someone give me their top 5 reasons why Baptists cannot be CT?

[Edited on 11-2-2005 by Ranger]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 11, 2005)

Agreeing or disagreeing with each other, yes, I think we have to have some levity now and then. Nothing wrong with that. That is one of the most refreshing things about the guys over at the WHI, three different denominations but they truly enjoy the faith - very refreshing.

Besides if it wasn't for us Baptist the Presbytarians and Lutherans would never eat any good fried chicken or potato salad and we'd still think that beer and wine was the devils brew

Larry


----------

