NOT ALONE After serving twenty years as a missionary with a dispensational mission board, I became an Institutional Chaplain for the Michigan Department of Corrections. For the first time in my ministerial life, I didn’t have to sign a doctrinal statement to secure or keep my job! It was then that I felt free to explore other points of view on eschatology and hermeneutics, among other doctrinal issues. The convictions I have arrived at after forty-seven years of ministry and deep study of God’s word turn out to be very nearly what you have articulated to be “New Covenant Theology.” I had read a few books by a-mil authors, which gave me a different paradigm for viewing prophecy, but I couldn’t buy the Covenant Theology of the authors. The book “Kingdom through Covenant” by Gentry and Wellum gave further insight and confirmed much of what I had already arrived at through my own studies. But it was my own study of and meditation on the Bible itself that brought me to where I am. Yes, it’s all about Christ! It is exciting to know that I am not alone in my convictions. Funny thing is, I didn’t know this viewpoint had a name!
Sir, true dispensationalism does not contravene New Covenant Theology in any way unless people choose to just generate controversies. Rather, it justifies it. True dispensationalism is simply talking about the era in which people live and what divine instruction is expected of the people in that era. The new covenant theology of salvation by grace and washing by the blood does exist inside a dispensation known as the dispensation of grace of Christ or the Chruch Age Eph 3:1-7.
This has been a fascinating lecture, as more or less a progressive dispensationalist I agree with so much of New Covenant Theology and greatly admire and respect its recognition and reverence for the centrality of Christ in salvation history. As a dispensationalist I affirm these truths also but would further point out that the great advancement in the unfolding of salvation history doesn’t end with what we’re experiencing spiritually right now as members of the Body of Christ. Essentially the kingdom promised to Israel will be the final piece in the unfolding of God’s plan of salvation and will even bring redemption to the political realm on a global level. Ethnic, national, territorial Israel is the chosen host of this kingdom as per the Old Testament promises and the spiritual component of this coming kingdom is the same as the mystery that has been revealed to us today in Christ. So I would say to New Covenant theologians... why contain the benefits of Christ’s blessings to anything less than their full intended extent? The full intended extent will only bring further glorify to Christ, to limit Christ’s grace to the impact we’re seeing in the church age only I believe as a progressive dispensationalist falls short of the full extent of what God has planned for humanity’s redemption.
At the end of all things Christ comes with the church the bride and along with God who makes HIS Tabernacle among saved humans on new earth. Rev 21,22. No more ethnic Israel there.
Yes under the Old Covenant, you could be born physically into it. Under the New Covenant, you an only be born spiritually (Jn. 3) into it. So it negates infant baptism.
You mention John Reisinger. You should listen to his sermon called "the gospel in the sabbath". There he brilliantly explains that the "sign" of the Sabbath was actually a promise of the new covenant; that is, that there would be a spiritual sabbath rest in Christ. [Rom 4:4-5 KJV] 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. [Heb 4:10 KJV] 10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God [did] from his.
It seems the new covenant theology views the OT covenants like dispensationalist with the exception of covenant with Israel. Is that an accurate statement?
This is the best explaination correct interpretations...thank you ... i eager to have any notes or video on Romans 9-11 ... specially this time when so much fake propgation and theology are being scattered stand with Israel ...
I like it all except when it’s taught forever not being forever. Christ is priest forever in the order of Melchizedek and Aaron priesthood exists forever under Christ. Israel is a nation as long as the sun exists and David’s throne is forever with Christ seated upon it.
westminister is not THE finalization of covenant theology . The SCRIPTURES are and knowledge of scriptures not man's thoughts . and there is no baby baptizing in new covenant . not once did any go and baptize baby's . they spoke of repentance and be baptize in name jesus . to repent means you gotta know what your doing . . the whole hose hold instance it says they accepted or belive and were . baby's have no believe or understanding .
And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like LITTLE CHILDREN, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Even at that hour of the night, the jailer cared for them and washed their wounds. Then he and EVERYONE in his household were IMMEDIATLEY baptized.
Concerning baptism vss circumcision, as much as i am 100% nct i believe that Paul does draw a parallel between the two in Colossians 2:11-13, but the application is simple. Circumcision was applied under Abraham to a new born. Baptism is applied to a new born in Christ, and the “ cutting off of the flesh “ is a spiritual reality in that context.
One covenant of grace two administrations. Each administration had different structures and purposes. Circumcision is not baptism and communion is not Day of atonements. Interesting to see your video.
There is no "sign" of the new covenant because it doesn't need one. You said that everything in the OC was a big arrow pointing to the NC. That's what "signs" were. They were part of the "promise" to Abraham which is now fulfilled. Some etymologists assert that our english word "oath" comes directly from the Hebrew "owt" translated "sign". Hebrews tells us to make every effort to "enter His rest" for the gospel was preached to Israel as well as us but they entered not, due to unbelief. Therefore, the sabbath was the gospel preached in advance to them and they refused to enter the rest. The seventh day rest each week was merely a perpetual "sign" (Ex 31 13) eventually tucked into the law that pointed directly to Jesus and the spiritual rest He would provide from that law. The mandate now is to "humble yourself and do no work" in order to be saved. Or just "believe on the Lord Jesus and be saved" "Sign" is "owt" and "owt" is the alef and the tav with vav in between. Jesus is the alef tav, or alpha omega. Vav is the ancient Hebrew pictograph of a nail. Aleph is always a silent letter and is a pictograph of a strong ox, tav is a pictograph of a cross. Jesus is right there in the Hebrew word "owt" which translates spiritually to a silent sacrifice nailed to a cross. Jesus fulfilled the sign of the Sabbath by becoming our spiritual rest. The "sign" of the Abrahamic covenant, circumcision was also fulfilled by Christ. He came "in the flesh" and was "cut off" to usher in the "Spirit" which occurred on Shavuot or pentacost. Shav is "seven" and ot is "sign". Therefore, pentacost is the "sign of sevens". The Promise to the Fathers was in actuality.....the "Spirit". This is why Paul says we no longer live according to the flesh (law) but we live according to the (spirit)....male and female both circumcised of the heart in Christ. Again....there is no sign of the new covenant. All the signs have been fulfilled in Christ.
I agree with you here as to a "sign". Having rejected Dispensationalism (which contradicts Scripture at many points) and then Covenant Theology, I found Scripture wholely Christotelic (Eph. 1:1-11; Eph. 4:9-15; John 1:1-18; Col. 1:13-20; Col. 2:1-17; Heb. 1:1-13) and then I had the joy of discovering the community of New Covenant Theology that teaches that very thing. Yet I do see Jesus giving us a symbol of the New Covenant in His blood, the cup of the Lord's Supper (Mt. 26:26-28; Mk 14:22-24; *Lk 22:14-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-26) by which we remember Him and His work regularly.
The rest the bible is referring to is not necessarily to be meeting on Saturday for church service or worship. Rather, it is to enter the Lord's eternal rest. Heb 4:9-11
@dangoehring Sir dispensationalism does not contradict scriptures at all. It actually depends on what angle you are viewing from. The dispensationalism that I believe is rooted in scripture. It is true that some theologians take their doctrines overboard into heresy at times. I also disagree with the extreme dispensationalism view. This can not negate the fact that there was a dispensation during the antediluvian age & the time of the patriarchs known as the dispensation of conscience. Then came the dispensation of the moasiac law Ex.19-23 (the old covenant). Now, we are in the dispensation of the grace of the law of Christ by His Holy Spirit in the Chruch (the new covenant or testament). We are currently still living in this dispensation now (Eph3:1-7; Heb1:1-2). After this, there will be a dispensation of the Wrath of God that will be short-lived for 7 years ( Rev2:22; Rev.7-11) Then, the dispensation of the millennial reign of Christ (Isa 65:24-25; Rev20:4-6) The final one is the eternal dispensation after the great white thrown judgment, the new heaven & new earth known as the new Jerusalem, which will be ushered in Rev. 21 & 22.
By humbly accepting to be immersed aka baptism, the hearer of the Gospel is answering the command of Jesus as a repentant believer to "fulfill all righteousness" and/or is the repentant believer simply being obedient to Jesus in accepting baptism? If some refuse immersion and refuse repentance where does that leave them? Looking for scripture answers
Westminster Confession is not the standard for Covenant. I am 1689 London We are Covenantal and the other does not speak for us. Infant Baptism is a hang over from Catholic days.
And he still never addressed 1689 Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology. Us Reformed Baptists are sitting here saying, "He hasn't said a single thing that even addresses my view, let alone refutes it."
This is about NCT, not other hermeneutic systems. 1689 Federalism, as espoused by Barcellos and company, fine brothers to be certain, is CT light. I'll pass. NCT is a more Biblical hermeneutic, IMO. Not that 1689 is heretical, just wrong.
SIR, BABY BAPTISM OR NOT A CHILD THAT CANNOT GENUINELY DISCERN GOOD FROM EVIL. THEREFORE IF THEY DIE IN THEIR INFANT STATE , THEY GO BACK TO GOD WHEN THEY DIE. IF RAPTURE TAKES PLACE, THEY WILL ALSO GO TO HIM WHEN HE APPEARS.
this guy is so messed up invisible church that you don't know . man he doesn't know the bible . the true ecclesia of God you will know them by there fruits aka deeds aka ways aka how they conduct their self . in Romans when Paul says not all are isreal that are isreal but the elect obtained it . bc some were of faith some were not . . Paul didn't say but hey we don't know nor can we tell . the whole thing of Romans all throughout was to say a remnant in Pauls day was saved such as the 7000 with elija God held back . and so by doing that all isreal the remnant was saved . Jacob wasn't utterly blotted out .
