# How Dangerous is New Covenant Theology?



## pslagle2012

Although I am Presbyterian, I go to a Baptistic church that leans toward NCT. Some of my best friends are NCT as well. I have been studying it lately and have been concerned by some things about the movement. 

I have discovered that their understanding of the moral law as progressive rather than unchanging has some scary implications. Some within the movement deny the imputation of Christ's active obedience. I was told by my friend that anger and lust were not sins in the OT. 

Up until now I have thought of NCT as well within orthodoxy, but lately I am wondering. Does its teachings strike at the gospel itself and/or border on heresy? Is it a teaching I should be concerned about my family being subjected to?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

See:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/new-covenant-theology-vs-covenant-theology.94129/#post-1149030

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BG

It is heresy, get out now, don’t walk run.

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 1 | Amen 1


----------



## TylerRay

It's dangerous enough to send a man to hell for a violation of the fourth commandment. 

It's dangerous enough to cause a little one to stumble and render a teacher worthy of having a millstone hung around his neck and cast into the midst of the sea.

Reactions: Amen 4


----------



## Doulos McKenzie

TylerRay said:


> It's dangerous enough to send a man to hell for a violation of the fourth commandment.
> 
> It's dangerous enough to cause a little one to stumble and render a teacher worthy of having a millstone hung around his neck and cast into the midst of the sea.


Are you implying that people who don't share the Reformed view of the Sabbath are damned to hell?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SolaScriptura

I think our forefathers threw around the word "heresy" far too often. And I think some here occasionally use the language of our forefathers a little too uncritically. If by heresy we simply mean "out of accord with what we believe to be true," then fine, throw the word around.

But if we mean by heresy, "teaching that is so aberrant that the true Gospel is lost, and consequently those who teach and believe it are damned," then I think we should be a lot more reserved in using the "H" word.

New Covenant Theology gets some things wrong. As lovers of truth and precision, we should reject its errors and mistakes. But to suggest that proponents or adherents of it are going to hell is ridiculous.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 3


----------



## TylerRay

Doulos McKenzie said:


> Are you implying that people who don't share the Reformed view of the Sabbath are damned to hell?


I'm implying that any sin is enough to damn a man to hell. Anyone who breaks the Sabbath and is not covered by Christ will be damned. Any doctrine that teaches people that they are not obliged to keep the Sabbath is a doctrine that will lead them to hell, if they aren't in Christ.

It's not an issue of "sharing the Reformed view" of something; it's an issue of violating the law of God. As the Shorter Catechism says, "Every sin deserveth God's wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is to come."

Do I think that NCT is to be considered damnable heresy, so that its adherents are not to be deemed Christians? No. I was fellowshipping with a Christian brother who adheres to this doctrine just a few weeks ago.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Doulos McKenzie

TylerRay said:


> I'm implying that any sin is enough to damn a man to hell. Anyone who breaks the Sabbath and is not covered by Christ will be damned. Any doctrine that teaches people that they are not obliged to keep the Sabbath is a doctrine that will lead them to hell, if they aren't in Christ.
> 
> It's not an issue of "sharing the Reformed view" of something; it's an issue of violating the law of God. As the Shorter Catechism says, "Every sin deserveth God's wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is to come."
> 
> Do I think that NCT is to be considered damnable heresy, so that its adherents are not to be deemed Christians? No. I was fellowshipping with a Christian brother who adheres to this doctrine just a few weeks ago.



Okay, I just wanted clarification. I completely agree with your point.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

Doulos McKenzie said:


> Are you implying that people who don't share the Reformed view of the Sabbath are damned to hell?


I thought that the only sin that did that to persons are the continual and willful denying that Jesus was the Lord Messiah, as there are 7th day Baptists who claim salvation and worship still on Saturday.


----------



## Dachaser

SolaScriptura said:


> I think our forefathers threw around the word "heresy" far too often. And I think some here occasionally use the language of our forefathers a little too uncritically. If by heresy we simply mean "out of accord with what we believe to be true," then fine, throw the word around.
> 
> But if we mean by heresy, "teaching that is so aberrant that the true Gospel is lost, and consequently those who teach and believe it are damned," then I think we should be a lot more reserved in using the "H" word.
> 
> New Covenant Theology gets some things wrong. As lovers of truth and precision, we should reject its errors and mistakes. But to suggest that proponents or adherents of it are going to hell is ridiculous.


To be heresy in a saving sense, one would have to deny the atonement of Jesus for sins, His physical resurrection etc, and NCT does not rise to those levels. They are really wrong on certain aspects of theology, but not teaching outright heresy.


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> I'm implying that any sin is enough to damn a man to hell. Anyone who breaks the Sabbath and is not covered by Christ will be damned. Any doctrine that teaches people that they are not obliged to keep the Sabbath is a doctrine that will lead them to hell, if they aren't in Christ.
> It's not an issue of "sharing the Reformed view" of something; it's an issue of violating the law of God. As the Shorter Catechism says, "Every sin deserveth God's wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is to come."
> 
> Do I think that NCT is to be considered damnable heresy, so that its adherents are not to be deemed Christians? No. I was fellowshipping with a Christian brother who adheres to this doctrine just a few weeks ago.


ALL though not in Christ are damned, regardless of their Sabbath views.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

SolaScriptura said:


> I think our forefathers threw around the word "heresy" far too often.



It's because they were deadly serious about the truth.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

There is a greater issue that Tyler hinted at earlier, and that is that many are misled by their teaching, and it is very dangerous, according to our Lord, to cause His little ones to stumble. I do recognize that all teachers do so in one way or another, for none of us are perfect teachers. But there is a greater condemnation that comes with being a Church guide that is real, and must be dealt with. I was grieved the other week when I heard one of these NCT/Law of Christ guys saying boldly from the pulpit that Christ broke the Sabbath, because it never was a law to be kept. The implications of a statement like that are staggering, and may well rise to the level of heresy. For if that is true, we no longer have a perfect Lamb of God, a Perfect sacrifice, and a Perfect righteousness to be imputed to us. As a teacher of the Word he ought to know better, and those under that teaching are being horribly misled at best, and scandalized at worst. I'm glad to say that not all of these teachers say such things, but this does seem to be a very dangerous trend.

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 1 | Amen 5


----------



## Dachaser

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> There is a greater issue that Tyler hinted at earlier, and that is that many are misled by their teaching, and it is very dangerous, according to our Lord, to cause His little ones to stumble. I do recognize that all teachers do so in one way or another, for none of us are perfect teachers. But there is a greater condemnation that comes with being a Church guide that is real, and must be dealt with. I was grieved the other week when I heard one of these NCT/Law of Christ guys saying boldly from the pulpit that Christ broke the Sabbath, because it never was a law to be kept. The implications of a statement like that are staggering, and may well rise to the level of heresy. For if that is true, we no longer have a perfect Lamb of God, a Perfect sacrifice, and a Perfect righteousness to be imputed to us. As a teacher of the Word he ought to know better, and those under that teaching are being horribly misled at best, and scandalized at worst. I'm glad to say that not all of these teachers say such things, but this does seem to be a very dangerous trend.


Did he argue from the point of view that since Jesus was the Lord over the Sabbath, did not apply to Him, as have heard that before!


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

Dachaser said:


> Did he argue from the point of view that since Jesus was the Lord over the Sabbath, did not apply to Him, as have heard that before!



No, it was more a passing comment in order to communicate that the law (all of it, not just the 4th commandment) is passed away for New Testament Christians. There was very little explanation, which is even more troubling, and apt to confuse, or worse.


----------



## Dachaser

Interesting that even Jesus Himself, while stating that he came to fulfill all of the Law, did not say that it creased to exist anymore.


----------



## pslagle2012

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> There is a greater issue that Tyler hinted at earlier, and that is that many are misled by their teaching, and it is very dangerous, according to our Lord, to cause His little ones to stumble. I do recognize that all teachers do so in one way or another, for none of us are perfect teachers. But there is a greater condemnation that comes with being a Church guide that is real, and must be dealt with. I was grieved the other week when I heard one of these NCT/Law of Christ guys saying boldly from the pulpit that Christ broke the Sabbath, because it never was a law to be kept. The implications of a statement like that are staggering, and may well rise to the level of heresy. For if that is true, we no longer have a perfect Lamb of God, a Perfect sacrifice, and a Perfect righteousness to be imputed to us. As a teacher of the Word he ought to know better, and those under that teaching are being horribly misled at best, and scandalized at worst. I'm glad to say that not all of these teachers say such things, but this does seem to be a very dangerous trend.




These are my concerns. The implications of the system may be really dangerous even though those who hold to it don't take it to its logical conclusion. Doesn't an incorrect view of the law affect one's understanding of the gospel?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

pslagle2012 said:


> These are my concerns. The implications of the system may be really dangerous even though those who hold to it don't take it to its logical conclusion. Doesn't an incorrect view of the law affect one's understanding of the gospel?


Without a real understanding of the Law, its hard to have a really good grasp on the real Gospel.


----------



## Panegyric

I think it must be kept in mind that New Covenant theology is not at all monolithic, and is also still developing in several different schools of thought. To push a little further, New Covenant theology, especially as espoused at Southern Seminary, appears to have so far only laid the broad contours of hermeneutics, exegesis, and biblical theology, and has yet to undergo a thorough systematization.

For that reason, I think it is a little unhelpful to say, "New Covenant Theology denies active obedience," as that is not true of all branches. I also have hope for New Covenant Theology, the Covenants of Works & Redemption, & the Decalogue. Richard Barcellos especially has been helpful by engaging New Covenant Theology polemically over these very issues. As NCT engages in more thorough systematization, we might hope to see it move to a more Reformed view on these particular issues. The reason why I say that is that there are certain family resemblances broadly speaking between _Kingdom through Covenant_'s exegesis of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic Covenants & 17th century confessional Particular Baptist theology, which means there is somewhat of a biblical-theological common core between NCT and a branch of Reformed Covenant Theology. Reading Piper's (DA Carson) view of the Sabbath, I think there is a foundation of common agreement from which a Puritan view could be erected.

As to how dangerous NCT is…

I see it as an improvement over Dispensationalism, and largely the work of Baptists & Evangelicals _working with their hands tied_, historical-theologically speaking. And yet, they are coming to a more biblical path, in large part due to reflection on the content of Scripture & how that should effect hermeneutics.

It is possibly an academic powerhouse that might provide some real fuel to the Reformed Baptist fire… 

I am a little concerned about antinomianism tendencies because of a lack of good systematic theology, and shallow popularizations. But to be honest, I've seen a few Reformed churches that had loads of systematic theology & correct views of the Sabbath, etc., but did not practically teach the necessity of love, and thus were quite contrary to the rule of Christ (Rom. 13:8ff). Whereas I have known many believers quite errant in their dogmatics who nonetheless understood the necessity of love.

Color me naive, optimistic, and gullible.


----------



## BG

Panegyric said:


> I think it must be kept in mind that New Covenant theology is not at all monolithic, and is also still developing in several different schools of thought. To push a little further, New Covenant theology, especially as espoused at Southern Seminary, appears to have so far only laid the broad contours of hermeneutics, exegesis, and biblical theology, and has yet to undergo a thorough systematization.
> 
> For that reason, I think it is a little unhelpful to say, "New Covenant Theology denies active obedience," as that is not true of all branches. I also have hope for New Covenant Theology, the Covenants of Works & Redemption, & the Decalogue. Richard Barcellos especially has been helpful by engaging New Covenant Theology polemically over these very issues. As NCT engages in more thorough systematization, we might hope to see it move to a more Reformed view on these particular issues. The reason why I say that is that there are certain family resemblances broadly speaking between _Kingdom through Covenant_'s exegesis of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic Covenants & 17th century confessional Particular Baptist theology, which means there is somewhat of a biblical-theological common core between NCT and a branch of Reformed Covenant Theology. Reading Piper's (DA Carson) view of the Sabbath, I think there is a foundation of common agreement from which a Puritan view could be erected.
> 
> As to how dangerous NCT is…
> 
> I see it as an improvement over Dispensationalism, and largely the work of Baptists & Evangelicals _working with their hands tied_, historical-theologically speaking. And yet, they are coming to a more biblical path, in large part due to reflection on the content of Scripture & how that should effect hermeneutics.
> 
> It is possibly an academic powerhouse that might provide some real fuel to the Reformed Baptist fire…
> 
> I am a little concerned about antinomianism tendencies because of a lack of good systematic theology, and shallow popularizations. But to be honest, I've seen a few Reformed churches that had loads of systematic theology & correct views of the Sabbath, etc., but did not practically teach the necessity of love, and thus were quite contrary to the rule of Christ (Rom. 13:8ff). Whereas I have known many believers quite errant in their dogmatics who nonetheless understood the necessity of love.
> 
> Color me naive, optimistic, and gullible.



Why do you think a theology that is new is a good thing? 

Has the church been without a corrective theology for almost 2000 years? 

How do you know that there is not an even newer theology that will supplant New covenant theology?

How long do you think it will take for new covenant theology to finally be codified? 
I personally don’t believe this will ever happen. 

What if it is finally codified and it lacks historical support?


----------



## Dachaser

Panegyric said:


> I think it must be kept in mind that New Covenant theology is not at all monolithic, and is also still developing in several different schools of thought. To push a little further, New Covenant theology, especially as espoused at Southern Seminary, appears to have so far only laid the broad contours of hermeneutics, exegesis, and biblical theology, and has yet to undergo a thorough systematization.
> 
> For that reason, I think it is a little unhelpful to say, "New Covenant Theology denies active obedience," as that is not true of all branches. I also have hope for New Covenant Theology, the Covenants of Works & Redemption, & the Decalogue. Richard Barcellos especially has been helpful by engaging New Covenant Theology polemically over these very issues. As NCT engages in more thorough systematization, we might hope to see it move to a more Reformed view on these particular issues. The reason why I say that is that there are certain family resemblances broadly speaking between _Kingdom through Covenant_'s exegesis of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic Covenants & 17th century confessional Particular Baptist theology, which means there is somewhat of a biblical-theological common core between NCT and a branch of Reformed Covenant Theology. Reading Piper's (DA Carson) view of the Sabbath, I think there is a foundation of common agreement from which a Puritan view could be erected.
> 
> As to how dangerous NCT is…
> 
> I see it as an improvement over Dispensationalism, and largely the work of Baptists & Evangelicals _working with their hands tied_, historical-theologically speaking. And yet, they are coming to a more biblical path, in large part due to reflection on the content of Scripture & how that should effect hermeneutics.
> 
> It is possibly an academic powerhouse that might provide some real fuel to the Reformed Baptist fire…
> 
> I am a little concerned about antinomianism tendencies because of a lack of good systematic theology, and shallow popularizations. But to be honest, I've seen a few Reformed churches that had loads of systematic theology & correct views of the Sabbath, etc., but did not practically teach the necessity of love, and thus were quite contrary to the rule of Christ (Rom. 13:8ff). Whereas I have known many believers quite errant in their dogmatics who nonetheless understood the necessity of love.
> 
> Color me naive, optimistic, and gullible.


There seems to be now among Reformed Baptists an attempt to re discover Covenant theology viewpoints from a Baptist perspective, and will be interesting to see just how the NCT and 1689 Confession holders manage to work this all out in the Systematic theology aspect.


----------



## Dachaser

BG said:


> Why do you think a theology that is new is a good thing?
> 
> Has the church been without a corrective theology for almost 2000 years?
> 
> How do you know that there is not an even newer theology that will supplant New covenant theology?
> 
> How long do you think it will take for new covenant theology to finally be codified?
> I personally don’t believe this will ever happen.
> 
> What if it is finally codified and it lacks historical support?


I think that the Lord can give to us fresh and new insights into theology through gifted men, correct?


----------



## Panegyric

BG said:


> Why do you think a theology that is *new* is a good thing?



Dear Bill, since you are so sure that New Covenant Theology is entirely a theological novelty without precedent in church history, could you articulate what is so new about it?



BG said:


> How long do you think it will take for new covenant theology to finally be codified?



I'm 23, so I have a lot of experience with these sort of things. I guess 50 years.


----------



## BG

Panegyric said:


> Dear Bill, since you are so sure that New Covenant Theology is entirely a theological novelty without precedent in church history, could you articulate what is so new about it?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm 23, so I have a lot of experience with these sort of things. I guess 50 years.




NCT is as a whole a new system, you or I would be hard pressed to site three systematic Theology books that teach it.

However, Antinomianism, dispensationalism, anti-covenantalism, anti-paedobaptism and a host of others errors are not new.

BTW you were the one to first point out the novelty of the system.

Historically it lacks support neither the writers of the first or second LBCF taught anything like it, especially Dispensational stuff which did not exist until the 1930s.

Can you name any reformers or puritans or pilgrims who taught it, as it currently exists?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Panegyric

BG said:


> Historically it lacks support neither the writers of the first or second LBCF taught *anything* like it, especially Dispensational stuff which did not exist until the 1930s.
> 
> Can you name any reformers or puritans or pilgrims who taught it, as it currently exists?



Bill, just to be clear, I didn't assert that New Covenant theology is a novelty, I said it is developing. Evangelicals have spent the last 70 years developing a doctrine of inerrancy, but it isn't a *novelty* in the sense that you make it to be.

Augustine made a pretty big deal about reading Scripture with a consistent typological hermeneutic, and I consider that to be the central thesis of New Covenant Theology. So I guess it isn't that novel. John Owen, confessional Particular Baptists, Jonathan Edwards, John Erskine, Charles Hodge, Keith M Watkins, James Buchanan, and Luther are all capable of discerning a typological relationship between Israel and the church, so I would not consider that a novelty, though New Covenant Theology is still systematizing the results and working out the particulars in its own distinctive way.


----------



## BG

Panegyric said:


> Bill, just to be clear, I didn't assert that New Covenant theology is a novelty, I said it is developing. Evangelicals have spent the last 70 years developing a doctrine of inerrancy, but it isn't a *novelty* in the sense that you make it to be.
> 
> Augustine made a pretty big deal about reading Scripture with a consistent typological hermeneutic, and I consider that to be the central thesis of New Covenant Theology. So I guess it isn't that novel. John Owen, confessional Particular Baptists, Jonathan Edwards, John Erskine, Charles Hodge, Keith M Watkins, James Buchanan, and Luther are all capable of discerning a typological relationship between Israel and the church, so I would not consider that a novelty, though New Covenant Theology is still systematizing the results and working out the particulars in its own distinctive way.



Craig, none of the people you listed would claim a theology anywhere close to NCT. NCT is a novelty that is not confessional. NCT is also very dangerous. I have several friends who ventured into it and not one of them attend church today, although they all still claim to be Christian (go figure). Thanks for the discussion.


----------



## Dachaser

Panegyric said:


> Bill, just to be clear, I didn't assert that New Covenant theology is a novelty, I said it is developing. Evangelicals have spent the last 70 years developing a doctrine of inerrancy, but it isn't a *novelty* in the sense that you make it to be.
> 
> Augustine made a pretty big deal about reading Scripture with a consistent typological hermeneutic, and I consider that to be the central thesis of New Covenant Theology. So I guess it isn't that novel. John Owen, confessional Particular Baptists, Jonathan Edwards, John Erskine, Charles Hodge, Keith M Watkins, James Buchanan, and Luther are all capable of discerning a typological relationship between Israel and the church, so I would not consider that a novelty, though New Covenant Theology is still systematizing the results and working out the particulars in its own distinctive way.


They are attempting to clarify and state down the NCT theology in a systematic fashion now, for did not Calvinism itself get worked out over a period of time? or any other theology in the Church, for few came straight out fully codified did they?

I just do not see them rising to the level of being heretics with this theology, but would also add in some areas it is really bad and wrong.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Panegyric said:


> Bill, just to be clear, I didn't assert that New Covenant theology is a novelty, I said it is developing. Evangelicals have spent the last 70 years developing a doctrine of inerrancy, but it isn't a *novelty* in the sense that you make it to be.
> 
> Augustine made a pretty big deal about reading Scripture with a consistent typological hermeneutic, and I consider that to be the central thesis of New Covenant Theology. So I guess it isn't that novel. John Owen, confessional Particular Baptists, Jonathan Edwards, John Erskine, Charles Hodge, Keith M Watkins, James Buchanan, and Luther are all capable of discerning a typological relationship between Israel and the church, so I would not consider that a novelty, though New Covenant Theology is still systematizing the results and working out the particulars in its own distinctive way.


I am not sure what you are advocating here. Are you hoping for some rehabilitation of NCT because you see merits? Why is it that you have an interest in this movement given the fully-fleshed out LBCF that you affirm?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> They are attempting to clarify and state down the NCT theology in a systematic fashion now, for did not Calvinism itself get worked out over a period of time? or any other theology in the Church, for few came straight out fully codified did they?
> 
> I just do not see them rising to the level of being heretics with this theology, but would also add in some areas it is really bad and wrong.


Please do not equate Reformed historical development on a par with NCT.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Please do not equate Reformed historical development on a par with NCT.


I was not attempting to do that, as my only real thought on it was that they seem to be in the early stages still of putting together what all who hold to NCT would see as being their common agreement points in their theology. They have yet to prodice any ST, as far as I know.


----------



## Panegyric

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I am not sure what you are advocating here. Are you hoping for some rehabilitation of NCT because you see merits? Why is it that you have an interest in this movement given the fully-fleshed out LBCF that you affirm?



Patrick, I'm not _advocating_ anything in the above post. I am _stating_ two things: 1) The central claim of New Covenant Theology is that the Bible must be read using a consistent typology. 2) That claim has a venerable pedigree in the church.

I am stating those two things because some here on this thread would like to simply dismiss entire swaths of evangelical thought with a wave of the 'historical' hand. *But that is not intellectually honest, and if we are really so sure of our confessional positions, we should be able to engage our opponents honestly*.

As to your other questions, I hope to see New Covenant Theology proponents move to a confessionally Baptist position, and I believe this is possible because they hold to a common typological hermeneutic. I see our differences as being primarily the result of a lack of careful systematic theology being done by New Covenant theologians, which is not surprising given that most of its proponents have sprung up in recent years, and from Dispensationalist background.

I have an interest in the movement because it is rapidly gaining followers within the wider Baptist world, and I do see many merits in its fundamental hermeneutical and biblical theological method, even if I disagree with the systematic conclusions currently being drawn.


----------



## Krak3n

Panegyric said:


> I have an interest in the movement because it is rapidly gaining followers within the wider Baptist world, and I do see many merits in its fundamental hermeneutical and biblical theological method, even if I disagree with the systematic conclusions currently being drawn.



As a baptist, who has gone to a baptist church for nearly 2 decades, I can say that it is because of NCT that I am strongly considering the presbyterian option. Baptist need discontinuity, NCT dumps it on like a truck. That's unfortunate, they push too hard, pitting Christ against his own law in Matthew 5 (The Sermon on the Mount), and Paul sounds silly arguing from the law that has been abrogated in Ephesians 6:1-3 (Why should children obey their parents?).

I'm not saying that Reformed Baptists are wrong, but it's because of the NCT issue that really got me looking into the law and covenants. I guess I'm just wanting to warn, as a baptist to another baptist, those looking into NCT from a baptist perspective may indeed be goaded into an altogether different direction due to the insanity inherent in NCT's approach to God's law.

Not all will, and my account is anecdotal, so your mileage may vary.


----------



## BG

Krak3n said:


> As a baptist, who has gone to a baptist church for nearly 2 decades, I can say that it is because of NCT that I am strongly considering the presbyterian option. Baptist need discontinuity, NCT dumps it on like a truck. That's unfortunate, they push too hard, pitting Christ against his own law in Matthew 5 (The Sermon on the Mount), and Paul sounds silly arguing from the law that has been abrogated in Ephesians 6:1-3 (Why should children obey their parents?).
> 
> I'm not saying that Reformed Baptists are wrong, but it's because of the NCT issue that really got me looking into the law and covenants. I guess I'm just wanting to warn, as a baptist to another baptist, those looking into NCT from a baptist perspective may indeed be goaded into an altogether different direction due to the insanity inherent in NCT's approach to God's law.
> 
> Not all will, and my account is anecdotal, so your mileage may vary.



You are right on point here. It is heresy and should not be tolerated by Christianity.
It is an unfortunate providence that the translators of the English Bible ever mis translated the word ekklesia as Church. This error has caused so many heresies.


----------



## Panegyric

Krak3n said:


> As a baptist, who has gone to a baptist church for nearly 2 decades, I can say that it is because of NCT that I am strongly considering the presbyterian option. Baptist need discontinuity, NCT dumps it on like a truck. That's unfortunate, they push too hard, pitting Christ against his own law in Matthew 5 (The Sermon on the Mount), and Paul sounds silly arguing from the law that has been abrogated in Ephesians 6:1-3 (Why should children obey their parents?).
> 
> I'm not saying that Reformed Baptists are wrong, but it's because of the NCT issue that really got me looking into the law and covenants. I guess I'm just wanting to warn, as a baptist to another baptist, those looking into NCT from a baptist perspective may indeed be goaded into an altogether different direction due to the insanity inherent in NCT's approach to God's law.
> 
> Not all will, and my account is anecdotal, so your mileage may vary.



Howdy Joshua, I appreciate your comment as I think it will prove illustrative. NCT proponents appear to hold to basically the exact same view of the law as revised Dispensationalists. And many of them came out of that background. However, they have rejected the revised Dispensationalist hermeneutic that gave birth to that view, and have adopted a typological hermeneutic very similar to the one of confessional Baptists. As they work through the effect of this change, I have a high confidence their view of the law will change as well. And I believe I have seem some improvement even in my own short life on this issue, as it seems many NCT are willing to distinguish between moral & positive law now. Previously, it seemed as if they held to the thesis that all law was covenantal or positive. Now it is simply a debate with them over the exegetical data to demonstrate that the moral law can be identified in the ten commandments. Like I said, call me naive, I believe progress can be made.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Krak3n

Panegyric said:


> ...as it seems many NCT are willing to distinguish between moral & positive law now.



That is not something I have seen, but my understanding of NCT is based mainly upon the Zaspel and Wells book, which is older as far as the movement is concerned, and conversations with two elders who hold to NCT. Those elders may also be using the "outdated" text like myself.

I may be asking for too much here, but if you think they are heading in the correct direction, where do you believe they will end up? (I am asking because I'm curious, not as a challenge to your response.)

My major contention with NCT is its' view of the law. In my understanding, for the proponents of NCT to take any step back toward what the Confessions say is to remove the only thing that gave them the "wiggle room" to differ in the first place.


----------



## Panegyric

Krak3n said:


> That is not something I have seen, but my understanding of NCT is based mainly upon the Zaspel and Wells book, which is older as far as the movement is concerned, and conversations with two elders who hold to NCT. Those elders may also be using the "outdated" text like myself.
> 
> I may be asking for too much here, but if you think they are heading in the correct direction, where do you believe they will end up? (I am asking because I'm curious, not as a challenge to your response.)
> 
> My major contention with NCT is its' view of the law. In my understanding, for the proponents of NCT to take any step back toward what the Confessions say is to remove the only thing that gave them the "wiggle room" to differ in the first place.



Joshua, NCT seems to get itself in a lot of trouble by refusing to use the old terms to refer to old concepts. Older NCT proponents explicitly denied that there was any such thing as moral law. All law is covenantal and contextual in their understanding. However, in Kingdom through Covenant, Gentry and Wellum introduce the concepts of 'Absolute' and 'Covenantal' law. These two concepts track onto moral and positive law respectively. One is unchanging, founded upon the relationship of creatures to creator, and the other is positive, introduced by God at a later date if you will and for limited purposes. NCT has always agreed with theonomy that the Mosaic law operates as a unit, and they take the exact opposite line of theonomists, by insisting that given Moses law has expired, it has expired as a unit. Because older NCT proponents denied any category of moral law, they then insisted the only commands we are obligated to obey are those found in the New Covenant, which relate to us. However, with the recognition of moral law, it becomes possible to discuss where the Mosaic covenant overlapped with moral law, and how we know when that happens. NCT proponents largely still argue that the 4th commandment is purely positive law, on the basis of it being the sign of the Mosaic covenant. However, they have the systematic categories in place to recognize the Mosaic law as containing statements of the ever-binding moral law, and so it is merely a matter of exegesis and biblical theology to demonstrate to NCT that the 4th commandment is a moral one. This is exactly what Richard Barcellos has been so busy doing (not to put words into his mouth, it would be great if he'd come on here). If you watch the videos on the 1689 Federalism site, Renihan appeals to NCT proponents on the basis of exegetical considerations to recognize the Ten Commandments summarize the moral law.

Given the revival in interest in Puritans, historical theology, and returning to historic beliefs at Southern Seminary, (especially through Founders ministries), I think there is a decent chance the brand of NCT being developed there will come into relatively close agreement with the Baptist Confession. Factor in the ARBCA seminary promoting more historic Baptist federalism to a larger audience than prior, and I get excited for the future. I don't think history ever really repeats itself, so I don't believe we will necessarily see a return to the year 1695, but a return to the system of doctrine found in the confessions? Yes.

Like I said, I might be quite naive.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KGP

Panegyric said:


> Color me naive, optimistic, and gullible.



I'll color you well spoken. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion.


----------



## Dachaser

Would the main disagreement between NCT and those who are reformed baptists be in how they treat the issue of the law then?


----------

