Talk:New Covenant Theology
|WikiProject Christianity / Theology||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Religion||(Rated Start-class)|
I found this article after I found the other article New Covenant (theology). This article is more recent, while the other article is just a stub. But the other does have content that is not included here. I suggest merging the two. RelHistBuff 10:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It appears a disambiguation page is needed instead so I remove the suggestion. RelHistBuff 10:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- A merge is not appropriate. The "New Testament (theological)" article is explaining the basic term (NT) as it is used in referring to the biblical concept and the notation for the latter segment of the Bible contra the Old Testament. New Covenant Theology is a technical term specifically made as a distinction from the Covenant Theology held in Reformed circles. Jim Ellis 19:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the 'Baptist' in the summary text to 'Reformed', since most Baptist churches I know are either 'agnostic' or somewhat loosely dispensational. Washi 17:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I changed it back. It is specifically found among Calvinistic Baptists and is opposed to "Reformed" Baptists, who hold to Covenant Theology as well as the "dispensational" Baptists. Jim Ellis 19:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Now I've merged the former "Theology" section with "Theological Background" and wrote a new Theology section based on material from Lehrer's book. But the Background section needs a little love... Washi (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- POV still present. Cariactures the covenant theology view - O. Palmer Robertson, etc. would not say that Israel and the church are the same in everything. There is developmental change as well as continuity - there has to be change or else covenant theology would go against the shadows/fulfillment typology framework of Hebrews. The whole move to Biblical theology in Reformed circles shows that we recognize discontinuities. Evan Donovan 04:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- the section we are discussion doesn't even do what it says on the tin. Reading it over again the heading says "Theological background", but the text underneath is more of a summary, which manages to man-handle quite a few different positions and concepts anyway. I did a lot of fleshing out of the article last year, because there wasn't much of it, but to be honest I don't think I did a very good job and the page needs a lot of work doing to it. The page could also be organised better. Does anyone have any suggestions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Petemyers (talk • contribs) 21:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
- sorry for not signing my last post! Petemyers 21:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
comment re "Recent History" section
Based on my reading, it seems to me that most of the distinctives of NC theology were articulated in the 1500's by Anabaptists. This fact is sometimes overlooked, perhaps because most modern NC thinkers are Calvinistic and the Anabaptists of course weren't.
Two of the sources I'm thinking of are by Leonard Verduin: The Reformers and Their Stepchildren and Anatomy of a Hybrid.
--Betterpromises 16:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Chris Scarborough.
The highlight of confessional truth is the 1646 First London Confession. These people did not consider themselves protestants, believed in predestination as some anabaptists certainly did before them, and separated themselves from all form of papistry, from law preaching and eternal generation that they considered false doctrine. I stand with these as being the only definitive antidote to Presbyterianism, and I view the 1689 confession as a falling away from the 1646 confession. If you read the writings of these 1646 Baptists, you would agree that they would consider 1689 as a falling away. bgamall
I updated the link from Geoff Volker's name to point to http://ids.org/ids/contact.html instead of http://www.ids.org/ids/about.html. The previous URL is a broken link. I made this change a few weeks ago; however, it was undone. If the new URL is inappropriate for any reason, I would suggest removing the link completely rather than using the old, broken URL. --Phylae 06:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I've got an even BETTER idea regarding this section: why not have a section before it that actually explains what the heck NCT IS before getting all nutty into the modern controversies or thinking. I mean, would you expect the first paragraph after the index on Christianity to be "Christianity is currently undergoing a revolution in thinking with the introduction of..." I mean, someone reading that is still left wondering WTF is this Christianity thing? Otherwise this article is left looking very much like an ivory tower, deep discussion on the minutae of theology without providing an overview. That's my ten cents, my two-cents is free. Aragond 14 August 2009 (UTC)
William Gadsby's Catechism
As I was gathering some confessions together, I found William Gadsby's Catechism and based on its heavy NCT leaning, perhaps it should be linked on the Wiki? (http://www.the-faith.org.uk/gadsby.html) Totwell (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why someone has added the view of the cross as a New Covenant Theology distinctive. The title states that these distinctives are distinctives within "evangelical" theology. Now, maybe that shouldn't be the point of reference, but both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, as the other major systems, both agree with this point on the cross. As such, it makes no sense to put this as a distinctive here. It's not a distinctive of New Covenant Theology.188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The whole section containing the brief paragraphs about the Abrahamic Covenant, Old Covenant, New Covenant, Israel, etc. has apparently been copied and pasted from http://ids.org/?page_id=12. I don't want to make any rash deletions of a large section so I'm asking the rest of you, is there any possible reason that this information might have been legitimately copied or should it be deleted? --Thumb10.40 (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think the use of IDS.org is OK, although Wikipedia may prefer a published book as a source instead. It is Geoff Volker and Steve Lehrer's website, who are two of the main proponents of NCT. Washi (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
What do the major NCT proponents say about *themselves*?
Do the major NCT proponenets like Fred Zaspel and Doug Moo consider their position to be largely the same position as articulated by the Anabaptists, or do they consider it to be new? Currently the article ties NCT to the 1500s... which may or may not be true, but I don't think the article at the moment reflects the way that the NCT position has and does perceive itself. Petemyers (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Question on "ownership"
Why do supporters listed "own" the idea that the New Testament supersedes the Old? It seems to me that is what all Christians say. What Christian says otherwise? Student7 (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Dual-covenant theology, the Apostolic Decree, etc. Also, NCT seems to make a point of "abrogated" whereas as you say most other Christians use the term superseded with many adhering to what is called a "soft supersession" (the New Testament is an addition to the Old Testament, not its replacement). 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- I find this confusing and don't understand what NCT believes as far as the Old Testament and New is concerned that is different from other Christians other than a bunch of words that seem to mean whatever the speaker/listener wants them to mean. This is not hard theology IMO. Student7 (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
NCT wants too desperately to dump the old law, but they soon see the problem, much of it gets repeated in the New Testament anyway. Obvious conclusion: you can't be a Biblical Christian and dump the old law at the same time. You may get to dump some, but that's a different issue, see Biblical law in Christianity for details. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Desperate might be a very apt word here, for Paul wrote that the Mosaic law is indeed the law of despair. Jesus must have been similarly "desperate" to modify and add to the Mosaic covenant. I don't know the rules of the Mid-East at that time, but it is possible that changing a covenant legally nullifies and replaces the old version, but the old one might still require fulfillment. Washi (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
A bit bizarre
The article starts off strong enough, but degenerates into rant about a paragraph or two down. At the very least it should state that "NCT believes that..." The editors seem totally unfamiliar with anyone else's position except for the Jewish people, possible. Student7 (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)