Re: new covenant theology

Zaspel and Wells also talk about the "Law of Christ."
 Which is more open to interpretation, but generally is
thought to have "raised the bar" compared to the OT law.
 An example being adultery, according to Christ it is a
sin just to look at a woman with lust.

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 08:28:33 -0500
  "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
>----- 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 09:47:21 2005