New Covenant Theology

Here are two fine resourses on the subject:

http://www.biblelighthouse.com/covenants/nct.htm

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/covenant_theol.html

Probably the only thing I would disagree upon in regards to Covenant Theology is the necessity to baptize infants.

 

OP,

Just remember, Covenant Theology is correct and dispensational theology is all wrong. I am smarter than you. And if you believe in dispensational theology, then you must have massive head trauma. Believing in DT is much like thinking that the earth is flat. CT is correct and right. DT came from the infernal regions and if you believe in it, you are unsaved.

Ok. I hope you are picking up on the sarcasm there. You'll find people on both sides that sport a superiority complex b/c of their theology. And they will talk down to you because you are brand Y and they are brand X.

I've found that BOTH had good points. Remember: they are theoretical slants. Much like Cognitive Psychology vs Behavioral Psychology.

Having put it that way, I now await the obligatory "you are wrong" replies.

p.s. go check out the thread(s) on plagiarism!

 

Ok, your wrong. just kidding.

 

Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology both have good and bad points for sure but personally I do believe that NEW Covenant Theology most closely aligns with the COMPLETE Word of God. IMHO of course

 

I respect my Dispensationalists brethren, but Covenant Theology is what I see in Scripture.

 

I respect some of my covenantal brethren, but covenantalism cannot even be found in Scripture.

As for the OP, listen to the series of lectures presented at the Master's Seminary on this topic. If I wasn't lazy, and if you didn't have google, I would look them up for you, but I'm lazy and you have google .

These lectures are a very good introduction.

 

Will one of you learned gentlemen (no sarcasm there) please explain to this ignoramus pretending to be like you what CT and NCT are and how they differ ?
Is CT for CaTscan and NCT for NoCaTscan ?
Thanks.

 

Simplistically, NCT is a kind of halfway step between Covenant Theology and the Bible. (Do you like how I put that). Seriously, it is a halfway house. It is impossible to explain it all here. That's why the lectures by people who have actually studied the issue are more helpful. The are the Master's Seminary Website and there are five.

It is a movement driven largely by the cyberworld. It is doubtful it would have much sway if any apart from that. Most are unpublished (or to my knowledge self-published). That means that at least so far (after almost 30 years) it does not seemed to have gained enough publishibility.

Of course, that's not real standard to judge by in many cases since even Joel Osteen and Benny Hinn have gotten published.

As a whole, the NCT movement started back in the late 70s and early 80s as I recall, and "took off" if such a thing could be said about a virtually negligible theology with the advent of the internet. It was a reaction against some of the most glaring problems of covenant theology.

I would strongly urge the lectures, and perhaps several times through them would be helpful.

 

Thanks for the feedback, PL.
Now, my next question, is, who are the "personalities" most closely associated with NCT ?
I know of at least one.
The pastor of the church we go to here in Western New York, who for some reason thinks I am an adherent to NCT which, I confess, I don't even understand at this point.
But I don't have the heart to break the news to him.
He's such a kind man, and so on fire with this theology, and obviously so in love with the Lord.

 

Although the web site I'm recommending here is very controversial, nevertheless they have a great artical on CT vs NCT vs MCT (modified covenenat theology). I like the MCT the best.

http://www.5solas.org/media.php?id=573

and this one too

http://www.5solas.org/archive.php?view=topic&topic=5

 

wonderful.
thanks, ya'll, you've made my Saturday.:thumbs:

 

By God's providence, this subject will be addressed from our Pulpit in the coming weeks. In the meantime, I received this comment from one of our pastors. I thought it was quite good.

Basically, New Covenant theology teaches the following:
1. The Mosaic covenant has been abolished in its entirety and has
been replaced by the New covenant. (Amen!)
2. The Mosaic Law has been abolished in its entirety with the
abolition of the Mosaic covenant.
3. The Mosaic Law has been replaced by the higher "Law of Christ."

The basic effect of this teaching is that the Old Testament is
not binding upon our consciences or ethics; the New Testament alone is
sufficient for us without the Old. Also, there is a strong tendency
to deny that we are saved, not only by Christ's death, but also by His
perfect righteousness imputed to us, a righteousness which consists of
His perfect obedience to the Mosaic Law.
Basically New Covenant theology is nothing more than
Dispensationalism dressed in the Emporer's new clothes! Some of the
second generation NCT men are already taking this teaching to its
logical conclusion: our liberty in Christ gives us the freedom to
marry our sisters, for instance. If they are consistent, then
spanking our children with the rod is no longer a necessity, since the
NT never commands us to do so. Where does the NT explicitly condemn
bestiality or uncovering another's nakedness?
Of course, our stance as a church is:
1. The Mosaic covenant has been abolished in its entirety and has
been replaced by the New Covenant (upon this we are agreed!)
2. The Mosaic Law is perpetual in its entirety under the New Covenant.
3. The APPLICATION of the Mosaic Law is DIFFERENT under the New
Covenant that it was under the Mosaic Covenant. (It is here that the
triplex understanding of the Mosaic Law comes into play. The moral
Law continues to bind us, the ceremonial and civil laws do not bind
us, at least not in the same way. Examples: I no longer have to be
circumcised in my body to be a part of the people of God, but I MUST
be circumcised in my heart! I no longer have to be sure to not muzzle
my ox while it treads the grain, but we must pay our pastors. I am
under no obligation to observe the year of Jubilee every 50 years, but
the Mediator of the New Covenant came to earth specifically to
proclaim the "favorable year of our Lord": He came to set prisoners
and slaves free and to cancel all our debts; not carnally but
spiritually!)
Matthew 5:17-19 hit me like a ton of bricks this week! I have
always thought of this text as an argument for the perpetuity of the
Decalogue. It does indeed teach this, but what Christ is saying is
that the entire canon of the 39 books of the Old Testament ("every jot
and tittle of the Law and Prophets") is binding upon our consciences,
not until His death on the cross, but until this present heaven and
earth pass away! He then tells us that if we break the least of these
commandments and teach others to do so, then we shall be called least
in the Kingdom of heaven. Yet, both Dispensationalism and New
Covenant Theology teach the radical abrogation of the ethically
binding nature of the Old Testament. Would not Christ say that by
teaching such things they will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven?
Also, Paul asked the question in Romans, "Do we then make void
the Law? No, on the contrary, we establish the Law." Spurgeon once
said, "a mutilated Law will lead to a mutilated gospel." I think he
is right! If the gospel we preach does not establish the Law, but
makes it void, are we not right to conclude that it is not the gospel
of Christ and of Paul?
Of course, the fact that the OT Law is different in its
application under the New Covenant leaves us with many interpretive
difficulties and challenges, but I believe that only a classic
covenantal and credobaptistic interpretation of Holy Scripture will
give us an adequate hermeneutic to do so!
So, in case you missed my point, in response to your request I
can only say "Amen! and Amen!" I intend to preach these things when I
get to the first blessing of the New Covenant: "I will write My Law
upon their hearts."

 

I seem to recall that John Piper is one of those who adhere to the New Covenant Theology.

Is this true and accurate ?

 

John Piper's position
John Piper has some things in common with each of these views, but does not classify himself within any of these three camps. He is probably the furthest away from dispensationalism, although he does agree with dispensationalism that there will be a millennium.

Many of his theological heroes have been covenant theologians (for example, many of the Puritans), and he does see some merit in the concept of a pre-fall covenant of works, but he has not taken a position on their specific conception of the covenant of grace.

In regards to his views on the Mosaic Law, he seems closer to new covenant theology than covenant theology, although once again it would not work to say that he precisely falls within that category.

http://www.desiringgod.org/Resource..._covenant_theology_and_new_covenant_theology/

 

Piper is a historic premill I believe.