Humm, is this diagram really stating what a person espousing that position would agree to or is it defining a position without respect to what the conversation is in that theological position? NCT, CT, DT_Diagram see also www.disciplemaking.net
This chart of mine is used to explain the overall landscape of the relationship Ecclesiology (doctrine of the church) to Eschatology (Doctrine of last things or end times). Along the spectrum of Ecclesological position that people take today is Classical Covenant Theology (CCT) at one end and Classical Dispensational theology (CDT) at the other end (CCT————————–————-CDT), with several options in the middle (one of which is New Covenant Theology (what is what I currently hold at leas in one the various branches). All sides would claim that they hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible. To help one understand this a little better one needs to
Here are 2 good videos showing how we should hold to our theological systems with humility. The problem with Dispensationalism and Covenantalism is that they cannot critique themselves with Scripture. This video will help you understand how to deal with the unity and diversity within Scripture. —— —- see also www.disciplemaking.net
Here is a great article on a correct understanding of interpreting the Bible according to its canonical context. This helps all students of Scripture undrstand what is meant byLiteral interpretation,Bifurcation of the material in the two TestamentsTheological CorrespondenceProgressive RevelationTypologyGrammatical-historical InterpretationThe Unity of the covenantsI love some of these quotes in this article including: Why could not the Old Testament revelation be thought of as the grain of sand, which, after entering the oyster of progressive revelation, has the pearl of additional and deeper concepts added to it without necessarily canceling out the original grain of sand (Fuller 1957, 233)? The history of exegesis
Here is a good overview of What Is New Covenant Theology? | NCJ CT = Covenant TheologyNCT = New Covenant TheologyDT = Dispensational Theology some of the salient points include: New Covenant Theology is not new Covenant Theology. New Covenant Theology is basically a biblical-theological understanding of the purpose of Scripture, an explanation of its primary theme, a way of describing how the Bible itself puts together its various parts. New Covenant Theology does not question the integrity or motives of those who hold to CT and DT. Covenant Theology assumes two covenants between God and man: The Covenant of Works and The Covenant of Grace. Covenant Theology believes
The Master’s Seminary Journal discusses New Covenant Theology (CT) Reading opposing viewpoints has helped me in understanding the differences in CT, NCT, and DT. The Volume 18, Number 2, Fall 2007 of the Master’s Seminary Journal is extremely helpful in defining terms, making proper theological distinctions when it comes to this kid of theological discussion. While I don’t buy into a particular version of NCT yet, I do lean toward NCT with some exceptions. Unlike versions of CT and DT, NCT makes Christ the priority of the Scriptures. Read this critique and disagreement of NCT in the Master’s seminary Journal – fall, 2007 issue – which is dedicated
Theological Systems Compared: “ Dispensationalism – Progressive DispensationalismCovenant Theology – New Covenant Theology Legend:DISP – DispensationalismPD – Progressive DispensationalismCT – Covenant TheologyNCT – New Covenant Theology Definition of Terms:Physical Israel – physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and JacobSpiritual Israel – the elect of God, all those in Christ, whether Jew or GentileUniversal Church – all the elect of God from all timeVisible Church – a local assembly of baptized believers in Christ, joined by covenant for worship and fellowship (These statements are generally true of those who hold to a specific system of theology, however this list is not to
Here is a good comparison between Dispensational Theology, Progressive Dispensational Theology, Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology: Theological Systems Compared � TIME in the Word Ministries see also www.disciplemaking.net
I appreciate Dr. R.K. MacGregor Write for writing up this response to Dr. R. Scott Clark’s Theses on Covenant Theology. It is God-centered, Bible saturated, Grace-loving,and passion producing Theology. I have generally came to embrace the basic themes associated with what Dr. R.K. MacGregor Wright is teaching here, as I see it as the most biblical way of understanding how the Bible fits together. These responses will help clarify a Biblical framework necessary for interpreting Scripture accurately, a Biblical understanding of and relationship to God’s Covenants and the Law.• R. Scott Clark 1.pdf• R. Scott Clark 2.pdf• R. Scott Clark
Here is part 3 of: The Parable of the Two Trains: Old/New Covenants (3) by Pastor Mark Webb. In the first article I sought to illustrate Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism using the figure of trains, tracks, and engineers.Covenant Theology was depicted as one train (i.e. God’s people) running through history on one track (i.e. one covenant of grace) picking up passengers as it goes. At the appropriate time, Christ replaces Moses as engineer (i.e. a change of covenant administrators). Dispensationalism was depicted as two separate trains (i.e. Israel and the Church) running one at a time through history on two
I am first of all a disciple and follower of Jesus Christ. I affirm Evangelical Christian beliefs as well as Gospel driven in philosophy of ministry. I am married to Ann and am raising 2 wonderful boys – Jonathan and Andrew. My purpose is to build disciplemaking disciples that are becoming fishers of men in fully displaying of God’s Glory in all things. Learn more
