How Dangerous is New Covenant Theology?

[Panegyric]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Krak3n]

...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]

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.

 

[KGP]

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?