Is "NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY" Valid?

Good, as that is my intent, to discuss in a brotherly fashion.

I do not see why. Does God still perform the ministry of convicting of sin, righteousness, and judgment...through the law?

Did Jesus not say, "I must go...that the Comforter may come?"

Nothing changes concerning God's plan of redemption, however, how He ministers to men does at times change, Christ's coming being the greatest example.

I have not implied that God Himself has changed, but that as revelation has been pogressively revealed to man, meaning, as God has seen fit to give man more understanding, we have seen change in how God ministers to man.

The New Covenant sees several things that differ than that which was found under the First Covenant.

Under the First Covenant, for example, men knew "Messias is coming," as testified by the woman at the well.

Under the New Covenant, Messias has come.

As testified by you and me.

I am not sure how a discussion about the New Covenant has gone to a discussion of the Trinity.

I guess you have been given the impression that I believe that God has changed.

Not so, but rather that man's understanding based upon further revelation given in the New Testament.

Under the First Covenant, men were told of Messiah, yet they did not understand that God would manifest in the flesh, die for the sins of the world, and by His indwelling Spirit teach His people, giving them a better and clearer understanding of the ministry of the law.

It helps to post the verses referred to.

And this verse in particular, if it is believed that God will not change, strengthens the belief that National Israel will, as prophecy states, receive the blessings and promises of God, even as He has said.

This seems to center more on a devaluation of the New Testament than a discussion of the New Covenant.

If we do not look at the revelation provided in the New Covenant as "new," and view this, not as inspired scripture, but commentary only, we find no fulfillment of the promises of God in the Old.

And I would disagree that without the revelation provided in the Old Testament "there would be no Christianity," though I would affirm that without the Old there would be "a more limited understanding of Christianity."

Without the "change" in ministry to man that is found in the revelation of Jesus Christ (and I speak to all aspects, not just the book), man would still be under a tutor that was meant to lead men to Christ.

That would be like looking at a manual of a model tee to figure out how to program a stereo in a modern car. The model tee would not have information available, for this was yet to be a part of automobiles.

Likewise, understanding the death of Christ was next to impossible for those under the First Covenant, and we see this illustrated in even the disciples that walked personally with the Lord, and were told specifically by Him concerning the fact that He would die.

So why did not Christ manifest in the flesh, and die for the sins of Adam?

Why wait approximately 4000 years to do so? It is because God decided to give understanding and for Christ to appear according to His wisdom.

And would you say that there is a difference between how God worked in the lives of Cain and Abel, and how He worked in the lives of Moses and Aaron?

And had you been born in the day of Moses, you would have been as limited in understanding of Christ as Moses.

John the Baptist recognized the "Lamb of God," but while in prison sent disciples to inquire if He was in fact...the Christ. Showing that he, though said to be the greatest among men, did not have a full understanding of Christ or the ministry He would perform among men and for men. And again, even the disciples of Christ, not just the twleve, did not understand clear statements which we can. Such as John 6.

Where to begin would be addressing the scriptural presentation which was given, not a personal testimony as to what is inspired and what is not, or, what scripture takes precedence over another.

Now I am forced to address this, rather than the New Covenant...lol. But that's okay.

The "bible" in the "Christian printing" consists of 66 books. That is my belief.

Now that we have that out of the way...

This is more than a little disturbing, that the "New Testament" is "commentary," which sounds to me like you are saying the the New Testament was given to us by men.

I hope that is not the case, and that I am misreading this.

I will ask you a question that I would really like to have an answer for: why is the New Testament called...the New Testament?

Likewise, why is the Old Testament called...the Old Testament.

Give this some thought before answering.

Who has done that?

If there has been something I have said that states we disregard or do away with any portion of scripture, please let me know.

However, to illustrate that the New Testament writers spoke for God can be seen in the Revelation of Jesus Christ (and this time I speak of the book): John is told he this...


Revelation 10:11

King James Version (KJV)

11And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.


Not write commentaries, but to speak that which God would reveal to man through a chosen prophet.

We see also in the writings of Paul that he claims to speak for God, and within that we find Paul teaching mystery, previously unrevealed truth given to man, through a divinely chosen prophet, one who speaks for God.

Agreed, in that it was weak through the flesh.

Which is why He promised a New Covenant. The New Covenant was not God changing His mind, or His nature (I feel compelled to add), but the New Covenant flows from Genesis to Revelation where we see God's plan of redemption culminate in a new heaven and earth, and a people of God cleansed of sin, and in relationship with God.

We see fulfillment of promise to Abraham and the covenant made in the New Covenant, for examle.

We see in the Millennial Kingdom fulfillment of the New Covenant to Israel, for example.

But we see fulfillment of the New Covenant specifically in the work of Christ, that man might be brought into relationship with God. And until He died, it was necessary that the law remain in place.

The law is euphemistic in Hebrews for the First, or, Mosaic Covenant.


I will have to post this in two parts,


Continued...

 

Then you deny that God covenanted with mankind through Noah? With Abraham (and subsequently with all peoples, nations, tribes and tongues)? With Moses? With David?

That He promised those that were enjoying (and sometimes, most of the time...not) the benefits of these previous covenants that He would make a New Covenant?

We have this promise found under the Old Covenant, meaning...in the Old Testament writings.

And that clearer understanding is given in the New Testament cannot be escaped...it is more than just commentary.

It is the inspired word of God given to men under the New Covenant.

So far, I have only seen a small prtion of the beliefs of "NCT" given, so whether they are "misguided" or not remains to be seen.

I have yet to see one speak here.

Anyone that ascribes the law, the First Covenant, or the keeping of the law the power to grant eternal life is in error.

I am aware of no-one but Judaizers that err in such a way.

My understanding of the New Covenant (the covenant itself) in the New Testament (the collective writings) proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is not true.

If it were true, much of the New Testament comes into contradiction.

True. The law did, though, show man his sin and his need for a Savior.

True again.

God bless.

 

EWF, here is a seminary journal article on New Covenant Theology:

http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj18f.pdf

 

New Covenant Bible Fellowship (Tempe AZ):

http://ncbf.net/pdf/NCBF_Constitution.pdf

New Covenant Confession of Faith:

http://ncbf.net/pdf/confession.pdf

 

http://www.challies.com/church/the-reformed-baptist-renewal

 

Well, You must not have read my earliest reply because I did, from scripture, prove it is not valid and every post to contrary has been, like yours, opinion and opinion does not override what God has put down for us to follow.

 

So, you can prove either a dispensational theory or a covenantal theory from the actual exegesis of Scripture?

Good luck with that (use of the word luck is intentional).

Where is the Covenant of Works or the Covenant of Grace listed?

Where is the Church a parenthesis to the Jews?

 

I am sorry but the rest of your post here matters not because thew foundation, quoted, is, in no manner true! Within the Baptist Christian Religion there is a core membership, of whom I am a member that does not lay a grid-work over the scriptures but rather we take the scripture at face value, just the way it was given from God. That is why you and others always have such a problem with my posts, they are Holy Spirit led, not man made.

 

That would be me... And the theology is still underway. If you want some of the flavor of what is to come, check out the ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) papers. That is where the cutting edge biblical theology gets sorted out (for the most part).

http://www.etsjets.org/

 

And I say AMEN!!

 

Could you expand on this? How are the moral laws of the 10 commandments "changed?"

 

Can you quote a "New Covenant Theology" "folk" actually stating as you have here?

The New Covenant is a large part of my own beliefs, yet this statement makes little sense to me. Unless one believes that The Son of God had no existence, or at least no part in the Old Testament, they might make a statement to this effect as you put it forth.

But, the statements hereafter are easier to respond to.

Hate to say it, but that is just a basic bible fact presented in scripture, though first it has to be made clear what exactly one considers "the law" to be.

If "the law" is considered to be a general term for God's will, which a case could be made, perhaps, but, if "the law" is taken in context in many passages, the reference is to the First Covenant, or, the Covenant of Law, or, the Mosaic Covenant.

As far as Jesus "improving the law," that is evident easily enough: man was given the law, with a built in clue toward the intent of the heart in the law, "Thou shalt not covet."

Christ made clear the spiritual intent of law by several times saying, "Ye have heard that it was said," followed by "But I say unto you..."

So if by making the law more clear and actually exacting a stricter measure by which the law of God was to be followed...then yes, Jesus Christ very much "improved the law," but only in the sense that He made clear His intentions when giving this law.

Not of itself was it inadequate, however, that it was inadequate to bring completion in atonement and forgiveness is also clear in scripture:


Romans 8

3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.


The law did not need improvement, but it was clearly, apart from the work of Christ, inadequate.

Another example would be found here:


Hebrews 10

1For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Did Jesus improve the law? No, He fulfilled it, He did that which it could not do, and concerning the Covenant of Law...He replaced it with the New.


Hebrews 7

11If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

12For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

There was a change in Priests (we have a Better one than that found under the Law) and we have a changing of the Law, His Preistly duties far superior to the "shadow work" of the Levitical Priesthood.


Okay, I will stop there in hopes that a conversation concerning the New Covenant might be desired, as well as a discussion concerning Perfection as found in Hebrews.

But have you spent much time in study concerning the subject? At least take a look.

Well, we each have our beliefs. But as we see the writers often say "therefore," even so we can begin our journey toward understanding in the New Testament, and then see what it is "there for"...lol.

We do not give man the law to lead him to Christ, we can take him directly to Christ, and then show him the shadow and picture of Christ in the law.

God bless.

 

Let me begin with I am SBC. Now, theory, in relation to Christianity, an exercise in futility and nothing more and yes, that includes the most popular ones. I am not, nor will I ever be, a Calvinist nor any other ist unless we can call a strict follower of scripture a Biblicist. All of these theories elevate man, the finite, up to the level of God, the Infinite and that is nonsense!

 

I do not see why. Does God still perform the ministry of convicting of sin, righteousness, and judgment...through the law?[/quote]
Yes, without the Law there is no sin! The Law has never and will never save any of us, all are saved by faith in Jesus, even the Jew. The Law was and is our teacher. You might want to spend a couple of months in daily study of the letter to the Romans by Paul.

Yes and Iḿ so grateful that He has come but I cannot see how that affects the Law.

Jesus, the Christ taught us that not one stroke or title of the Law and the prophets would pass until all was completed and it can only be concluded, after much study, that Jesus came, not only to die but, teach us the proper application of the Law and the word of the prophets.

In Mal. 3:6a we find the truth of the matter and all we think and conclude must be reconciled with it. Since God never changes, your thought are incorrect and violate the Word of God and we must never teach such a thing.

 

I'm of a mind that you are wrong, but I also know that I will never convince you...

You have indeed laid down a theological framework when you make the statement that "we take the Scriptures at their face value just the way it was given from God," even if you don't realize it. Yours is but one of the several theological positions that congregations have taken down through the ages.

And, though I admire your zeal and faithfulness, I doubt that every word you post here on the board is purely driven by the Holy Spirit. If SO MANY have problems with your posts, you are in essence saying that only you have the Holy Spirit to guide you while all the rest of the people here do not. I hardly think that is true, especially when so many of us are involved with vital church minsitries where we walk with the Spirit on a daily basis in order to do what God revealed in the Scriptures.