Thomas_Goodwin
Puritan Board Freshman
Please inform of this matter so I can recognize this idea. Are they antinomians? They think the church is in the OT? Polygamy was legal in the OT? No Sabbath in NT when Jesus is Lord of Sabbath?
It's the first time I have heard of New Covenant Theology. It sounds bizarre to me. Can someone list out what exactly it entails to me.
- Thread starter Thomas_Goodwin
- Start date
- Status
Regi Addictissimus
Completely sold out to the King
Here is a helpful post from a missed brother:
Post in thread 'New Covenant Theology vs Covenant Theology' https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/new-covenant-theology-vs-covenant-theology.94129/post-1149030
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
They do not think that the church was in the OT. Few Baptists do, especially in the way that Presbyterians and other pedobaptists would see it. But NCT sees more discontinuity there than many Reformed Baptists do. Some of them come across as if they think that hardly anybody was saved in the OT unless they are mentioned in Heb. 11! There may be some who argue that polygamy was "legal" in the OT but I think most would not agree.
They are antinomian by confessional standards. They are sort of a middle course between covenant theology and dispensationalism. They are basically dispensational when it comes to the law. But almost all of the ones I have known are amillennial when it comes to eschatology.
At least one group of NCTers seems to have started as a reaction against perceived legalism among some "Reformed Baptists" who subscribe to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. From a practical standpoint, the main difference is on the Sabbath as well as sanctification in some cases. It is difficult to generalize NCT since I've seen it argued that there are probably 5-6 different camps. You'd really have to question the person to see what their views are. There is no NCT confession unless it is one that a local church has drawn up. Some subscribe to the 1st London Confession which is much briefer than the 1689 and thus has enough areas that it doesn't address with regard to the covenants, etc. that they feel that they can subscribe to it.
NCT seems to be done as any sort of coherent movement. Some of the more radical antinomians who do things like deny the imputation of the active obedience of Christ may continue to wave that flag, as might some who learned about the rough outlines of various positions years ago and who haven't bothered to keep up with ongoing developments in the field since then.
NCT was mainly developed and promoted by Calvinistic Baptist pastors. Progressive Covenantalism has basically taken over in recent years. In some ways it is a refinement of NCT. PC has been developed by some professors at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, particularly Stephen Wellum and Peter Gentry. For confessional purposes, they would also be antinomian but I think they affirm things like the Covenant of Works. "Kingdom Through Covenant," which is over 700 pages, I think, is the main work, along with an edited volume entitled "Progressive Covenantalism" that addresses various topics.
There may already be more Progressive Covenantal material in print than Progressive Dispensational material at this point. Dr. Wellum has been working on a Systematic Theology that is supposed to be released in the next year or two from what I understand. Other than a few holdouts, I suspect this will be the theology of most Southern Baptist seminary graduates in the near future with the exception of maybe a handful of 1689ers and dispensationalists. That's especially the case among Calvinistic men, but I suspect that even some non-Calvinists might adopt some views such as these.
They are antinomian by confessional standards. They are sort of a middle course between covenant theology and dispensationalism. They are basically dispensational when it comes to the law. But almost all of the ones I have known are amillennial when it comes to eschatology.
At least one group of NCTers seems to have started as a reaction against perceived legalism among some "Reformed Baptists" who subscribe to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. From a practical standpoint, the main difference is on the Sabbath as well as sanctification in some cases. It is difficult to generalize NCT since I've seen it argued that there are probably 5-6 different camps. You'd really have to question the person to see what their views are. There is no NCT confession unless it is one that a local church has drawn up. Some subscribe to the 1st London Confession which is much briefer than the 1689 and thus has enough areas that it doesn't address with regard to the covenants, etc. that they feel that they can subscribe to it.
NCT seems to be done as any sort of coherent movement. Some of the more radical antinomians who do things like deny the imputation of the active obedience of Christ may continue to wave that flag, as might some who learned about the rough outlines of various positions years ago and who haven't bothered to keep up with ongoing developments in the field since then.
NCT was mainly developed and promoted by Calvinistic Baptist pastors. Progressive Covenantalism has basically taken over in recent years. In some ways it is a refinement of NCT. PC has been developed by some professors at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, particularly Stephen Wellum and Peter Gentry. For confessional purposes, they would also be antinomian but I think they affirm things like the Covenant of Works. "Kingdom Through Covenant," which is over 700 pages, I think, is the main work, along with an edited volume entitled "Progressive Covenantalism" that addresses various topics.
There may already be more Progressive Covenantal material in print than Progressive Dispensational material at this point. Dr. Wellum has been working on a Systematic Theology that is supposed to be released in the next year or two from what I understand. Other than a few holdouts, I suspect this will be the theology of most Southern Baptist seminary graduates in the near future with the exception of maybe a handful of 1689ers and dispensationalists. That's especially the case among Calvinistic men, but I suspect that even some non-Calvinists might adopt some views such as these.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
