Featured Christocentric Theology (New Covenant Theology): The Big Nothing Burger

Nowadays about the best you can hope for is that they at least stick to the UFC rules.

 

No. It's always been spiritual, even under the OT. There's actually nothing 'new' about the spiritual tenets of the New Covenant. It's new only in the sense that these things had not been revealed before Christ (Matthew 13:35).

13 In that he saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away. Heb 8

 

I agree with most of the things @JonC has brought up in defense of NCT. It's been nothing new or strange to me. Truth is truth, facts are facts, AND NOT A NOTHING BURGER, no matter what system espouses them. I also agree with A.W. Pink and my fellow Primitive Baptists concerning the 'Eternal Covenant', whether NCT recognizes it or not:

“....The everlasting covenant or covenant of grace is that mutual agreement into which the Father entered with His Son before the foundation of the world respecting the salvation of His elect, Christ being appointed the mediator, He willingly consenting to be their head and representative. That there is a divine covenant to which Christ stands related, and that the great work which He performed here on earth was the discharge of His covenant office, is very plain from many Scriptures....”

 

This was pointed out well before your post asked again, and has been answered since. However, it seems to bear repeating.

New Covenant Theology is decidedly not new. The New Covenant is what was/is new.

Its theology is only new in the sense that it came after the Old Covenant had been established and made clear that it cannot save.

The emphasis is obviously on the fact that only one covenant is needed, and that is the New Covenant in Christ's blood.

 

If the 'golden rule' was taught in America's education system, as it should be, perhaps a lot of the chaos that's happening now wouldn't be.

Someone at work shared with me a copy of Rick Warren's book, 'The Purpose Driven Life' many years ago. I did browse the book, and, to me, he made a profound statement in it: "The essence of the religion of Jesus Christ is agape, 'thinking of others", to which I wholeheartedly agree. But, so it was with the religion of the Old Covenant also. Even the Rabbinism of Christ's day had condensed the law to it's simplest terms:

“…Rabbinism is never weary of quoting as one of the characteristic sayings of its greatest teacher, Hillel (who, of course, lived before this time), that he had summed up the Law, in briefest compass, in these words: ‘What is hateful to thee, that do not to another. This is the whole Law; the rest is only its explanation…..” Life & Times - Edersheim

 

Covenant theology in all forms is an area I haven't looked into much so it is fairly new to me. I'm just guessing but from what I have read quickly it seems that if you tend to be classic Calvinist in theology you are going to have all kinds of inner alarms go off when you hear of NCT for the following reason.

When you hear someone say the Law does not apply to a Christian any more we immediately associate that with antinomianism. In practical terms we associate it with the "free grace" movement and the "carnal Christian" teaching and with "easy believism". We have seen the harm that does and in my case at least, I came to be a reformed Baptist for those reasons more so than any big change of heart on the doctrines of grace. I know this is true because if you google "what's wrong with New Covenant Theology" the issue of antinomianism comes up immediately.

But, I haven't seen anything that Jon has written that even hints of that and I honestly don't know enough about the covenants to know if this kind of thing is really going on somewhere or if it is an unfair accusation by classical Calvinists. As far as I'm concerned, with what I know now, anyone who doesn't want anything to do with the Law anymore - if the reason for this is that they instead want to focus on imitating and following Christ and doing everything He says then I don't see how that can be a problem. But there may be a history on this that I am not aware of so who knows.

 

I guess what I'm trying to understand is that I always thought that obedience to the Law and the blood of bulls and goats was never at any time actually able to take away sin. That there was always a looking ahead to Christ, although it was probably true that most people could not clearly see this, who were under the Old Covenant. Now. This I think is part of typical Puritan era teaching. Is that the same as New Covenant Theology? And if so, why was the Law as a "rule of life" taught as important by the same people. (Who were also well aware of the idea of following Christ's teaching of internalizing the Law and examining yourself.) I'm new at this but the New Covenant Theology seems to me like a repackaging of elements of just plain theology and doing what the Young Restless and Reformed did with Calvinism - trying to sell books and be the one that is heard. In that sense they seem to be the one's claiming that it's new.

Does anyone have any dates as for the earliest writings of this written identifiably as "New Covenant Theology"? Because what I'm saying is that elements of it go back to Leviticus but it may have been repackaged and renamed. Which isn't necessarily bad but it would be nice to see some dates.

 

So, you still agree with @AustinC? That the 'Christocentric Theology of NCT' is a 'nothing burger?:

Are you able to decide, one way or another?

 

Not yet. I still ain't sure what it is. It seems to be fairly benign the way Jon explains it but I can't find any examples of anyone who actually adheres to it. It bothers me that Martin seems to have problems with it. That is not a good sign. I would definitely say that I would agree with Austin on this for sure but on the other hand he might be overstating his case. So yes, definitely; maybe so.

 

Thank you very much!

 

That is very helpful. I read those points quickly. Most are just restated reformed Baptist theology. Some seem contradictory (#45) and some might be flat out wrong. One of the churches listed I am familiar with in a secondhand way and it was always known as a really good church although I don't know the timeline for when and how long they adhered to the NCT.

 

Yea, NW New Jersey is rural, so is Sussex NJ, farther north where my wife is from… on a small farm. We have chickens, horses, motorcycles etc. we lived in harmony till New Yorkers moved in. They call us hillbillies! LOL. In a way they are right. My family are coal miners from Pennsylvania, before that European. The wife are the rugged Germans, Swiss and Scots and they prefer the highlands of Sussex county… being too close to people creeps them out.