# New Convenant Theology



## BuddyOfDavidClarkson (Jul 9, 2006)

I'm curious to see a debate as to the pros and cons of New Covenant Theology as largely championed by Pastor Tom Wells.


----------



## turmeric (Jul 9, 2006)

Are you a member of Dr. Sproul Sr.'s congregation?


----------



## BuddyOfDavidClarkson (Jul 9, 2006)

We attend there.



> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> 
> 
> Are you a member of Dr. Sproul Sr.'s congregation?


----------



## fivepointcalvinist (Jul 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BuddyOfDavidClarkson_
> I'm curious to see a debate as to the pros and cons of New Covenant Theology as largely championed by Pastor Tom Wells.



pastor wells is my pastor; have you read his book on NCT?


----------



## BuddyOfDavidClarkson (Jul 9, 2006)

Yes and a number of others on the subject as well.



> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BuddyOfDavidClarkson_
> ...


----------



## fivepointcalvinist (Jul 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BuddyOfDavidClarkson_
> Yes and a number of others on the subject as well.
> 
> 
> ...



what is your position?


----------



## Average Joey (Jul 9, 2006)

Hi Matthew,

Tom Wells visits our church maybe at least twice a year.Him and my pastor Mark Webb are good friends.


----------



## fivepointcalvinist (Jul 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Average Joey_
> Hi Matthew,
> 
> Tom Wells visits our church maybe at least twice a year.Him and my pastor Mark Webb are good friends.



tom is a great man who truly loves the Lord. i am blessed to have him at our church and have learned a great deal from this wonderful contributor to the body of Christ.


----------



## Average Joey (Jul 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Average Joey_
> ...



He usually visits during Thanksgiving with other pastors for a weekend bible study.I have throughly enjoyed his sermons.


----------



## JM (Jul 21, 2006)

NCT is [pre-dispey] Baptist theology...but I'm could be wrong and often am.

[Edited on 7-21-2006 by Hard Knox]


----------



## bob (Jul 21, 2006)

New Covenant Theology is a rather recent contribution to the debate between the continuity of the covenants. In a nutshell, most advocates of New Covenant Theology introduce it as a new system of Scriptural interpretation, differing significantly from Covenant Theology and less significantly from dispensationalism.

NCT denies the concept of the covenant of grace and works and places a distinct discontinuity between the Old and New covenants. The greatest distinction of application would be in considering all of the Old Testament law as pertaining only to Old Covenant Israel. They disregard any form of categorizing the law (moral, civil, or ceremonial) and advocate that the entire package has been abrogated in Christ.

Their biblical hermeneutic then for considering any binding proponents of Old Testimony Scriptures is that it must be repeated in the New in order to be binding. 

(As an aside, I have run across some NCTian that completely disregard the Old Testament Scriptures, in fact, I have read a few church covenants that states "We believe the New Testament to be our rule of faith and practice." This is a rather extreme form of New Covenant Theology, but it does exist.)

Although I am a Baptist, I do not embrace New Covenant Theology.


----------



## fivepointcalvinist (Jul 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by bob_
> 
> most advocates of New Covenant Theology introduce it as a new system of Scriptural interpretation, differing significantly from Covenant Theology and less significantly from dispensationalism



bob im not exactly sure how accurate this statement is. If anything i understand NCT to share most of its theology with CT and less with Dispensationalism. We do note however the discontinuity between Israel and the church. The church began in Acts and Jesus alluded to it in His ministry:

"Therefore I tell you, the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and will be given to a nation bringing forth its fruit."

for something to be taken, one must first posess; God had a Covenant with Israel, but now His covenant is with the church. What gentile was justified in the sight of God prior to the Incarnation? men have never been justified by works, for only by grace could any man be saved, including those men of the Old Covenant.




> The greatest distinction of application would be in considering all of the Old Testament law as pertaining only to Old Covenant Israel. They disregard any form of categorizing the law (moral, civil, or ceremonial) and advocate that the entire package has been abrogated in Christ.



I fear to use the word abrogated as the term to describe an actual fulfillment or completion of the Law. Christ did not so much do away with the OT law; He became the law, fulfilling the demands of civil and ceremonial. The moral law binds on all men, for Gods holy character is the predicate to moral standards as set forth in the moral law. The cumulitive effect of these fulfillments is referred to as the Royal Law.




> Their biblical hermeneutic then for considering any binding proponents of Old Testimony Scriptures is that it must be repeated in the New in order to be binding.



I respectfully disagree.




> (As an aside, I have run across some NCTian that completely disregard the Old Testament Scriptures, in fact, I have read a few church covenants that states "We believe the New Testament to be our rule of faith and practice." This is a rather extreme form of New Covenant Theology, but it does exist.)



i certainly wouldnt hold to that!

let me clarify also that i am still learning so my understanding may be a little foggy!

[Edited on 7-22-2006 by fivepointcalvinist]


----------



## MW (Jul 21, 2006)

When our Lord said, "tell it to the church," in order for His statement to have meant anything to his hearers, there must have been a church in existence.


----------



## fivepointcalvinist (Jul 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> When our Lord said, "tell it to the church," in order for His statement to have meant anything to his hearers, there must have been a church in existence.



thanks for the post; i will look into that!


----------



## BuddyOfDavidClarkson (Jul 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> When our Lord said, "tell it to the church," in order for His statement to have meant anything to his hearers, there must have been a church in existence.



Another explanation is that Jesus is establishing steps of discipline for the institution he declares two chapters earlier in Matt 16:18. The passage quoted above is in Matt 18:17.


----------



## MW (Jul 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BuddyOfDavidClarkson_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> ...



The same problem applies to Matt. 16:18 as 18:17. The statement required a church in existence in order to convey meaning to the hearers.


----------



## fivepointcalvinist (Jul 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BuddyOfDavidClarkson_
> ...



my understanding is the word here used in the greek was ekklesia which means "called out" and referred to a general assembly of believers. i think the church as being established is reasonable, but to assume the existence of a "church" doesnt seem realistic because the word church would be more specific of a Christian assembly. obviously the only contempory assembly would have been the synagogue. i think Jesus was denoting other believers in Him as the Christ as the "church".


----------



## MW (Jul 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> my understanding is the word here used in the greek was ekklesia which means "called out" and referred to a general assembly of believers. i think the church as being established is reasonable, but to assume the existence of a "church" doesnt seem realistic because the word church would be more specific of a Christian assembly. obviously the only contempory assembly would have been the synagogue. i think Jesus was denoting other believers in Him as the Christ as the "church".



I think you may be reading a modern anatomised concept of the church back into the sayings of the Lord. He is teaching them as a minister of the circumcision.

In the rock passage He shows them that a true member of HIS church is constituted such by the true confession of His person and work, in distinction from the masses who rejected or misunderstood His mission. It may be a reference to an ecclesiola in ecclesia, but it certainly is not an intimation of something new. In the discipline passage He is providing regular procedure as to how to deal with an offending brother. That was a reality then as it is now, and there was an institution then as there is now for dealing with it.


----------



## kceaster (Jul 24, 2006)

*David...*

I have read the NCT book and I find that the biggest difference between NCT and classic CT is the application of a logical priority that frankly doesn't need to be made. They want to say that they are making a logical priority of the NT over against the OT, Jesus over against his predecessors, and the "theology of the text" over our own theologies and those of others. 

Essentially, what the first one does is pit inspired Scripture against inspired Scripture. No CT'er would disagree that Scripture interprets Scripture, but what NCT is claiming is that whatever is spoken of in the NT must be the best interpretation of what something means. In some cases they are right, but not in all. The danger in this is claiming to have no interpretational bias or presupposition. But there are clear biases and presuppositions. However, CT recognizes presuppositions and would heartily affirm that they are necessary. The NT was written with the OT in mind. And so I would think it impossible to truly understand the NT if the OT is still in the shadows. It's rather like skipping to the end of a novel to see how it turns out. But you know none of the characters or how the situation came to be. So I would say that the logical priority of the NT is not so logical. I think in the end, NCT believes that CT gives the OT logical priority over the NT. But that would be incorrect. CT sees Scripture as a whole that cannot be divided or parted to suit one's particular theology. And of all the "systems" out there, CT does the best at this. They aren't perfect by any stretch, but they get closer than the rest.

Secondly, to pit Jesus against His predecessors is really a non-issue for Christians. I don't know too many Christians who would hold Moses above Christ. But what they're really getting at here is to pit the words of Jesus above the words of any prophet, priest, or king in the OT. The problem with that is that the words of Moses in the OT are no less inspired or true or the mind of God than the red letters in the NT. In the final analysis, it is a strawman argument if I am applying it correctly. We do not have to pit Christ against Moses as persons, because Moses' person is not the issue. What Moses said is all we have of him. And what Moses said is the infallible and inerrant Word of God, breathed out by the Holy Spirit as given to Him by the Word, which is Christ. So to say that Jesus should be given logical priority over His predecessors is not to say that Jesus was a greater personality. Rather, what NCT means by this is that the red letters in the NT should trump anything that is recorded in the OT. This lays the groundwork for the abrogation of the law and to the clear agenda of only following the laws repeated in the NT...and even some of these interpreted loosely. Levitical law forbids a brother to uncover his sister's nakedness. That law is not specifically brought forward into the NT, so by logic and reason, that law is now abrogated. However, I'm sure that if this specific law is brought to the NCT theologian, they will quickly come up with an answer as to how it is implied in the NT. Or, they may say that where the NT is silent, the OT has power to speak. But is all of this really necessary? See my first point.

Thirdly, there is the logical priority of the theology of the text over against the so called man made theologies. What NCT attempts to do here is erase 500 years of Reformed scholarship. And not all should be erased because I'm sure they would admit there is much the Reformation got right. They just believe that the Reformed systematics need to really be secondary standards, or perhaps, tertiary standards. Many of the Reformed agree with them about being secondary. However, I believe that this is nothing more than a veiled attempt at "no creed but Christ, no book but the Bible." And that leads to what the Catholic church feared as having a bunch of little popes running around. To me, this mentality turns its head as not to look at what others think but to rely solely upon their own wisdom. Or, more to the point, don't read the Bible with any sort of systematic presupposition. Be a blank slate, as it were. But we all know that this is impossible. It was impossible for the disciples, apostles, and the early fathers. And I can't see how, being so far removed from them, we have the luxury of turning off the light and reading it for ourselves.

What it all boils down to is don't trust the OT to give you answers unless it agrees with the NT. In doing this, you'll bypass all that stuff about continuity and how God's plan of Redemption through Jesus Christ was really begun in the garden. Also, don't follow any godly example from the OT unless they seemed to be living life as a pre-christian, that is, they were free sons that did not have to follow the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law. Following the letter of the law for the Christian is unthinkable even if one relies upon the righteousness and perfect obedience of Christ. It looks and smells too much like legalism even if the person is simply obeying God. And, don't trust anyone to tell you what to believe. Read the Bible for yourself and all the NCT materials you can find, and you'll see that NCT is the correct interpretation. Otherwise, why would they have written the book?

I am not attacking individuals. I am attacking the position. These logical priorities are all fine and good, but if they were truly, naturally formed logical conclusions, there would be no need to write anything about it. The moment one writes a position paper that on the one hand specifically condemns all previous thoughts or papers on the subject but on the other claims to be free of such trappings then the paper should be read with a wary eye. Any theological book written today that attempts to change the course of the Reformation, in my opinion, is not trying to reform the church, but trying to revolutionize the church. NCT does that, and so I would caution anyone to follow it without first recognizing the pitfalls.

In Christ,

KC


----------

