Re: new covenant theology

----- Original Message -----
From: "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>; """"ASA"""" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: new covenant theology

> George said:
>
> "The issue is not whether or not believers in the New Covenant era are
> under law. The issue is which law are the believers under in this present
> era."
>
> In general, NCT seems to be a variety of Reformed theology. I am not
> Reformed, though I have found the ideas of some Reformed theologians, such
> as Barth & Torrance, very helpful. "
>
> But you obviously dont find Calvin helpful. ;)

I didn't say that. I was not trying to give an exhaustive list of Reformed
theologians who I have found helpful.

> So what law are the believers under in this present era in your view?

In both its theological use (pointing out sin) & its civil use the 10
Commandments still apply to Christians. The idea that there is a
distinctive "3d use of the law" that applies to Christians, in which that
law is a guide for Christian, is more strongly emphasized by the Reformed
than by Lutherans. The emphasis of the latter tends to be that the "3d use"
is really the 1st 2 uses applied to Christians.

& if I may reply here also to your other post:

A quote from Wells and Zaspel:

>" The large amoung of baggage (presuppositions) that any of us bring to
>the Scriptures depends in large measure on which part of Scripture we,
>subconscioudly no doubt, read first, or treat as logically prior. And
>here, it seems to me, is the danger. If the processs really has been
>subconscious, it may very well be controlled by systematic theologies that
>we admire or by the creeds and confessions to which we adhere, or by other
>sources of prejudice on our part, without ever realizing what is happening.
>That might be all right, if we genuinely have a predispoition to let the NT
>control our thinking, though even then it would be better to discern what
>we are doing. But if we are working from the premise of the priority of
>the OT, we are certain to go astray. That is why I (Wells) think we must
>certainly read the rest of Scripture in the light of the apex of
>revelation, which is the NT."

Though I pointed out some areas of disagreement, I didn't mean to suggest
that I rejected NCT in toto. I certainly agree that the OT should be read
in the light of the NT. But I would be more specific & say that _all_ of
scripture, NT & OT, is to be read with the understanding that Christ, &
specifically Christ crucified, is its center. & if that's called a
"systematic theology, creed or confession," so be it. I would prefer to
call it a fundamental hermeneutic principle which itself is derived from
scripture.

Shalom,
George
Received on Thu Mar 3 08:30:02 2005