What is New Covenant Theology?

Status
Not open for further replies.
PuritanCovenanter

PuritanCovenanter

The Joyful Curmudgeon
Staff member
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? :candle: Illumine Me!
For Christ's Crown and Covenant, Randy
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
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]
 
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.
 
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]
 
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? :candle: Illumine Me!
For Christ's Crown and Covenant, Randy
Click to expand...

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
 
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]
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
:banana:
 
it is true that its writers did look a lot to the WCF as a model.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
Originally posted by webmaster
it is true that its writers did look a lot to the WCF as a model.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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]
 
Did Philip Way have a chart showing the distinctives of CT, NCT, Dispensational and Prog Dispensational? Or something like that?
 
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]
 
Originally posted by Ranger
I'm still struggling with why some claim that a Reformed Baptist cannot be CT.
Click to expand...

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

:lol:

[Edited on 9-2-2005 by Philip A]
 
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.

:lol:
Click to expand...

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

But all of the elders and saints that he insulted through his arrogant remarks and "laughing smiley" have no value?
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Matthew1344
  • Locked
what is new covenant theology?
Replies
6
Views
3K
brandonadams
brandonadams
P
  • Locked
How Dangerous is New Covenant Theology?
2
Replies
37
Views
14K
Dachaser
D
Reformed Roman
  • Locked
New Covenant Theology vs Covenant Theology
2
Replies
35
Views
16K
zsmcd
zsmcd
Andrew P.C.
  • Locked
New Covenant Theology
Replies
4
Views
3K
Machaira
Machaira
Doulos McKenzie
  • Locked
In what way is the New Covenant New?
2
Replies
39
Views
6K
RAR
R
Back
Top