New Covenant Theology Debate

New Covenant Theology has a rich history within Baptist churches, but now Reformed churches are experiencing a renewed interest in NCT.

As I hold the view this is a good thing. But within Reformed churches (traditionally they affirm Covenant Theology) many see it as a decline from the position they hold (and they are correct).

Within Reformed churches there have been movements to reevaluate their theology and bring it closer to a "biblical position". This includes the Reformed way of viewing Atonement and the Reformed way of understanding Divine Economy.

So it is no surprise that NCT is often met with hostility. Those holding the traditions of the Reformed church believe they are already biblical therefore any reevaluation is dangerous and any change is a move away from Scripture.

New Covenant Theology is not new theology (NCT is reflected in the First London Baptist Confession of 1646) but rather a way of examining Scripture focused on the New Testament.

I grew up in a Baptist church. We learned of dispensations and covenants. But being Baptist our way of framing redemptive history was NCT.

And that is still my view.

The framework considers all of redemptive history as centered on Christ Himself. Adam disobeying God demonstrated the inability of man - apart from Christ - to please God. The OT covenants were progressive, narrow at first but widening (individuals, families, a nation, and ultimately all nations) reached ng a fulfillment in the New Covenant. The Old Covenant points to the New Covenant. The prophets point to Christ. The Law was never designed to save but instead to reflect the sin of man contrasted with the standard which is Christ.

This is a debate forum where those who disagree with New Covenant Theology (those, like @AustinC and @Martin Marprelate who view New Covenant Theology as "nothing") can debate against the NCT.

TWO THINGS -

1. This is not a thread to advocate another method. This is a thread to argue for or against New Covenant Theology.

2. Argue YOUR points. Don't just link volumes of websites and verse references (they will be deleted). If you use a source, stating the point you want to make in your own words, provide that source at the bottom of your post.

Edit : Ok, three things. No insults, clouding the issues, ect. No gossip. Remember this is a Christian board.

 

I know ...I mistyped etc. long ago and my phone has not forgotten.

 

Lol...yes. Is there a way to restart it's "learning" feature? I don't mind ect....but "Hod" bothers me. When not careful I type mixing up letters. My phone started anticipating this.

Strange thing is this has happened only since I've gotten older (numbers are the worst....98 becomes 89).

 

Thank you. I have an Android and will follow the link.

 

One objection - offered by AustinC - is that New Covenant Theology is new.

The problem here is New Covenant Theology, while post-Reformation, dates to about the same time as Covenant Theology. It was the Reformed Baptist position for a long time.

His second objection is it has no endorsements or published theologies.

Here are some who endorse New Covenant Theology: Jon Zens (theologian, Anabaptist scholar), Fred Zaspel (Reformed Baptist theologian), Tom Wells (Reformed Baptist theologian), Gary Long Geoff Volker (Reformed Baptist theologian and pastor)) and Steve Lehrer (Reformed Baptist theologian).

Here are some New Covenant Published theologies: The priority of Jesus Christ (Zens); New Covenant Theology (Wells and Zaspel), New Covenant Theology: time for a more accurate way (Gary Long),

Probably the most well known Reformed pastor who at least describes himself as close to New Covenant Theology is John Piper.