New Covenant Theology

[joelkaki]

Would someone care to explain to me what New Covenant Theology is, how it differs from traditional covenant theology, and if you espouse it, why so?

Also, links to sites telling about it would be helpful. I have heard the term used some, but don't really know anything about it.

Thanks,
Joel

[Covenanter]

Try this link

These are my preliminary thoughts

It needs some study, but as a propagandist for Covenant Theology, a quick look indicates that they have a serious misunderstanding of Covenant Theology and the Everlasting Covenant.

THus they think of the NC as a completely new covenant, comprising only believers since Christ.

THey seem to think that the Old Covenant was enshrined in the Decalogue, whereas I consider that the OC was typical of the NC, and that the Everlasting Covenant is the only saving covenant. THe NC is the EC fully ratified by the blood of Christ.

The heart of the Covenant is enshrined in the oft-repeated promise: I will be your God, and you will be my people which comes in various forms throughout Scripture, finally in Rev. 21:3.

[joelkaki]

Today @ 09:28 AM post located here
Covenanter:

Try this link

These are my preliminary thoughts

It needs some study, but as a propagandist for Covenant Theology, a quick look indicates that they have a serious misunderstanding of Covenant Theology and the Everlasting Covenant.

THus they think of the NC as a completely new covenant, comprising only believers since Christ.

THey seem to think that the Old Covenant was enshrined in the Decalogue, whereas I consider that the OC was typical of the NC, and that the Everlasting Covenant is the only saving covenant. THe NC is the EC fully ratified by the blood of Christ.

The heart of the Covenant is enshrined in the oft-repeated promise: I will be your God, and you will be my people which comes in various forms throughout Scripture, finally in Rev. 21:3.

Thanks for the info. *Rambling*At the present time, I believe in Covenant Theology as well, but I just have some things that don't seem to be resolved in my mind with how everything works together, so I was just looking into NCT to see if perhaps it answered it somewhat. I don't believe there is quite so radical a shift as NCT wants to indicate, but certain aspects of CT I don't quite think match up completely. Also the law of God aspect of NCT worries me.*/Rambling*

Perhaps you could answer some of my questions on CT as well?
Much of my difficulty with respect to these issues is on the issue of baptism, just in case you were wondering.

Joel

[Thomas2003]

This appears to me to be a sycretism between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism - they are calling it New Covenant Theology.

It appears to me to be antinomian Covenant Theology (ACT), in my opinion, not a Biblical approach to understanding Scripture as they claim.

What are your concepts that don't seem to match up in Covenant Theology? If they are on baptism I may be able to point in some directions - I was raised a Baptist, so I had a huge learning curve to overcome in order to understand paedobaptism.

Cordially,

Thomas

[Covenanter]

Please post your specific questions.

I can't help with paedobaptism, even after a long correspondance with Ron Hanko of the Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church.

Its an important question, which in my church is greatly confused by the Punjabi translation for "covenant" being a word for "Law".

[joelkaki]

Covenanter:

Please post your specific questions.

I can't help with paedobaptism, even after a long correspondance with Ron Hanko of the Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church.

Its an important question, which in my church is greatly confused by the Punjabi translation for "covenant" being a word for "Law".

Alright, thanks, I will post some soon. They do have a lot to do with Baptism, though.

Thomas2003:

This appears to me to be a sycretism between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism - they are calling it New Covenant Theology.

It appears to me to be antinomian Covenant Theology (ACT), in my opinion, not a Biblical approach to understanding Scripture as they claim.

What are your concepts that don't seem to match up in Covenant Theology? If they are on baptism I may be able to point in some directions - I was raised a Baptist, so I had a huge learning curve to overcome in order to understand paedobaptism.

Cordially,

Thomas

Most of my problem is with baptism. I am from a Presbyterian background, and I guess you would say that I am a paedobaptist at this point, but I just want to understand these issues more clearly.

Let me explain a little bit where I am coming from. Sometime back, I was quite sure of infant baptism--not a doubt. Then I got a debate between John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul (both of whom I have a great amount of respect for) on the issue. I could see many points on both sides ot the issue, but some of what John MacArthur said seemed to make some important, unanswered points. Recently, I have been listening to Steve Schlissel's tapes on Covenant Baptism. I have found many of his points to be good, but some aspects of this have worried me.

1) The idea of the Covenant of Grace -- I have always understood the Covenant of Grace (and perhaps it was a misconstrued understanding) as being God's covenant to provide the Seed of the Woman, Messiah, to cover the sins of those who would believe on Him. Inclusion in this covenant is by faith. But if this is the case, than I do not understand how infants can be included in the actual covenant of grace. They can be included in the covenant community, but not the actual covenant between God and man.

2) Steve Schlissel was saying that infants born into Christian homes are "in Christ." They belong to Him. They are not the same as pagans. I agree with that last point. I would not address children of believers as if they were just the same as unbeliever's kids. At least not exactly. He made a very strong point of the fact that we should not teach Christian kids to "make a decision for Christ, but rather make EVERY decidision for Christ." Thus, we should assume that they will believe, and treat them as such. But getting back to my first statement, there seems to be a problem with infants who will end up unregenerate being "in Christ." I don't see how anyone can be "in Christ" except by faith. I don't see any indication in Scripture that being in Him is by anything other than faith.

3) He said that not just infants, but all in a household where the head is a believer should be baptized. That seems to pose some problems. Suppose you have a teenager, maybe between 15 and 17, who openly rejects Christ. Yet he is still under the covenantal authority and headship of the father, the head of the household. Should then he be baptized as well, along with the rest of the family (this scenario of course is one in which the father and mother come to faith when their child is of this age)? That doesn't seem right to me. Because then you are saying that the sign of the covenant, which essentially says that the person receiving it is in the covenant, is given to someone who is most assuredly and very openly not in the covenant? Or is it supposedly that this unbelieving teenager is in the covenant by virtue of his parents' faith?

That's enough for now I guess. I feel like I didn't get across what I was trying to say, probably because of the amount of confusion I feel on this issue.

Joel

[Long Hair]

Here is a site:

http://www.solochristo.com/

[Theo Books]

09-20-2003 @ 04:27 PM post located here
joelkaki:

Would someone care to explain to me what New Covenant Theology is, how it differs from traditional covenant theology, and if you espouse it, why so?

Also, links to sites telling about it would be helpful. I have heard the term used some, but don't really know anything about it.

Thanks,
Joel

www.solagratia.org has many articles from the perspectives of dispensationalism, progressive dispensationalism, new covenant theology, and covenant theology.

[adam.naranjo]

Joel

Your not going to believe this, but I just wrote you two huge responses, (about 2 hrs worth of writing) and the frist time I accidentially deleted the whole thing, and then the second time my computer bugged out and I lost the whole thing.

I tell you what.
If you want to here some answers to your quesitons from someone who used to be New Covenant and is now Traditional 'High' Covenant (like schlissel) Then PM me and give me your phone number and we'll chat long distance on my dime.

Your on the right track, and asking the exact questions that have been in the back of many peoples minds. However, the only coherent biblical answers are to be found in the view that Schlissel, and others like him, hold to...NOT in New Covenant theology.

I'd love to chat about it some time.
PS...I've been studying this issue a LOT for about 8 months now and I think I'll be able to clear up a lot of the confusion that your having....because I once had it as well.
-------

Adam.naranjo

[Covenanter]

I have prepared a table & notes regarding Covenant Theolgy, with a discussion on baptism.

http://www.baldaeus.com/Covenant%20Theology.htm

I hope it will further the discussion.

THere is lots on the above mentioned web site on NCT, but I do not consider it the way forward.

Sorry I cannot help with demonstrating infant baptism as required by CT. I'm sure it isn't. Baptism is for the spiritually new born children of Abraham. It is necessary to be careful with our understanding of types.

[adam.naranjo]

Sporadic, slightly tipsy, thoughts spurd on from 'covenanters' link......

(I don't know if i agree or disagree with covenanter. However, like Luther often was, and as I am know (tipsy from drinking), I will respond with these sporadic thoughts -- and all you "anti-drinkers" can attack me, luther, calvin, and the rest of the church, later!! hahaha!!)
--------------

Some of the difference between [what I will call] "Low" covenant thinking and "High" covenant thinking, has to do with understanding Jesus' teaching on being "Born Again". I believe that the idea of being born again was taught from the OT prophets and concerned a time when God's people, as a whole, would be "Born again" by the Spirit (symbolised by both fire and water)

Notice: I said "people"!! Not individuals! God's Covenant PEOPLE were born again, as a whole, on pentacost (keep in mind that this does not exclude individualism completely, but we mus understand that the whole is made of particulars). To be born again means to enter the covenant community...just like the early church believed...
......(finally, were making it full circle back to the early church teaching)
----------

Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31, and all of scirpture, teach that the covenant (both old and new) can be broken -- hence the warning passages through-out hebrews ( and the New testament). Both the New and OLD covenant's can be broken by those within the covenant.
-------------------

New covenant theologians have a serious problem with all of the warning passages in the New Covenant that teach that one can be 'in christ' covenantally, and yet can "fall" and be "cut off" from the people of God.

The fact is, the old covenant and the new covenant are very similar. Far more similar than theologians in that last couple hundred years have been willing to let on. In fact, I venture to say, along with Steve Wilkins, (and others) that "Reformed theologians" of our day, are NOT truly inline with the reformers.

(It may be that) Covenanter fails to realize that the Promise of being SPIRITUALY reborn was a promise to ALL of ISRAEL -- as a community -- It was NOT an individual promise (as individual, exestentialism, tends to think of it today). The Promise that God made was that one day Israel would be reborn, by the Spirit. The whole covenant community is reborn by the Spirit. And according to tha vast majority of the reformers, those who are baptized as infants participate in the Spiritual Renewal of Israel -- and are Born again (thats the language of the early church and the reformers! Deal with it!) The problem is that N.C. theologians cannot stand the idea that the Covenant is OBJECTIVE! In other words (I believe), the New Covenant [and the Old Covenant] (Because the New covenant is really just a "Newer Covenant") are alike, in that you can know for sure who is in the covenant. The covenant is OBJECTIVE, NOT SUBJECTIVE!!

See the difference is in the MODERN, Platonic, spiritualization of the covenant -- versus the HEBRAIC understanding of Spiritualization. Today we have a twisted understanding of the covenant -- we have a view that is controlled by our elightenment and modernist thinking rather than controlled by the Scripture -- including the Old Testament-- , which gave us the precedent for understanding the new.

For [a baptism] example: the French reformed liturgy for infant baptistm:

"Little child, for you Jesus Christ has come, He has fought, He has suffered. For you He entered into the shadows of Gethesemane and the terror of calvary; For you He uttered the cry "it is finished". For you He rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, and there for you He intercedes. For you, even though you do not know it, little child, but in this way the word of the gospel is made true, "we love Him because he first loved us"

Notice the difference between the Old Reformed view and the view that controls Christianity today?? (Just read any reformed document -- the westminster, the hidelberg, etc.,)

The difference is that their is an OBJECTIVE covenant COMMUNITY versus a SUBJECTIVE covenant community! One view is based on a visible/invisible (platonic) Church distinction, while the other view is based on a unified and eschatological church distinction (as propogated by Augustine and the early church) -- the belief that there is no invisible and visible church, but rather an objective covenant, where all who are baptized are members and are held accountable to the covenant -- if they fail in dis-belief and apostacy then we ex-communicate them (as scripture teaches) -- and one day Christ will judge the living and the dead and will finally seperate the sheep from the wolves, and will vindicate those who believe on him for salvation.

All you have to do is read the reformers...Like calvin, etc!

WE need to get away from enlightenment modernist thinking, and back to believing the Word of God!!

I could have quoted from an even more straight forward litrugy. But, I think you get the point.

The New Covenant is a New administration of the Original Covenant....Not a change of all that God has done in that past for his people... God always includes Children!!

Children are allways included in the Covenant.

non-Covenanter said:

In effect not just believers' children but the children of all who want their children baptised are included

Not hardly. this is why Church discipline exists. We are to ex-communicate all who disbelieve. Just because churches do not always act responsibly by disciplining their congregants, doesn't mean that Church discipline does not exist. Church discipline DOES EXIST, and exists for the purpose of dealing with problems like this.


I wonder if Covenanter has bought into enlightenment, platonic thinking -- The very thing that has caused the church to move away from belief in an OBJECTIVE covenant community. Exestential, individualism, and personal revivalism thinking has cuased the Church to move SOOO far way from Biblical thinking, that the Church has a hard time reading Biblical Texts.Why? Because much of the Bible was writen from a strong, hebrew, Covenantal presupposition (which carries into the New testament perfectly) -- However, modern "reformed theology" does NOT fit perfectly -- Traditional ("High" Covenant) reformed theology fits in well with the early church and makes sense out of scirpture.

-----
I have to go


--- Finally, let me say that God's covenant has Allways been salvific! And that very little has changed from the Old Covenant into the New, BUT that which has been changed has been drastically changed..(the coming of the Spirit to produce faithfullness to the law [Rom 8 - 2 cor 3] and the fulfillment of Old Covenant cerimonial laws in Christ, etc.,)



---- One more thing! I encourage everyone to listen to: Greg Bahnsen, Douglas Wilson, Steve Schlissel, Steve Wilkins, Norman Shephered, John Barach, N.T. Wight, and Mark Horne!!! They have a lot of GOOD, SCHOLARLY work that is worth listening to and reading.



----

If any of this does not make sense its because its 4:00 am in the morning, and i'm really tired (and i've had a couple shots of yag)



take care!
---------
Adam

[TedO]

Adam,

Would this fall under the category of "New Perspective"?

[adam.naranjo]

TedO

Certain aspects are associated with the New Perspective (which isn't really "New" at all). However, the 'New Perspective' particularly applies to certain views/interpretations on Paul's teaching. (especially 'justification')
Anyway, of all New Perspective scholars I like N.T. Wright. I think that the papers at theologia show a great understanding of both "high" covenant theology, and New Perspective approaches to Paul. (One of my favorite sites on the web)

In terms of "high covenant" theology.
High covenant theology has been around through out the Old Testament and into the early church. Many of the reformers held this view and today there is a resurgence of this view in reformed chruches. (finally the church is responding to the humanistic individualism of the last few hundred years)

If you want any more information (like mp3 sermons on this issue) let me know


-----
adam

[Covenanter]

adam.naranjo

Thanks for a detailed analysis of my study.

I lot of study has been put in since Calvin, so I do not want to stay in the 16th C. I want to stay in Scripture.

The idea of a "born again covenant community" as distinct from a church of born again believers I find unsatisfactory. God does save individuals & graft them into "Israel". Every social community contains unbelievers, or unsaved, & so is heterogeneous. Only if the church is managed as a local church with control over its membership can it comprise believers only. (As far as can be ascertained by assessment of the fruits of the SPirit.)

While calvinist covenant theology includes children, I consider that to be in the saving covenant, one must be IN CHRIST. The whole area of children of believers, & what to teach them is an area we need to consider separately. I am not happy for CT to insist on paedobaptism to be true CT.

[Covenanter]

The Old Covenant was with man in Adam, the Everlasting Covenant was declared to Noah & Abraham, bt the terms of the OC were spelled out to Israel, through Moses, In Lev. 26.

In Lev. 26 we see the blessings of obedience and the curse of disobedience declared. Finally the covenant is remembered by God himself, and implemented.

The OC was broken by Israel & the curses came on them. THe NC was promised, & fully kept by God himself IN CHRIST, Immanuel. In a sense, we did not need a NC but a perfect surety. Animal sacrifices could not take away sin.

THe essential difference is then the SURETY OF THE COVENANT - the Lord Jesus Christ. We do not ourselves have to keep the terms of the covenant - we cannot. We have to come to God through Christ, & so IN HIM we are counted righteous - fully obedient to the covenant.

Remember always the essential feature of the Covenant is "I will be their God, & they will be my people."