Old Doxoblogy

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

I Didn't Want To Do It

But I guess I have to. I don't mean to offend anyone with this post, but I've got to tell the truth.

For those of you looking for justification for getting it on with your immediate family, New Covenant Theology isn't for you.
And please don't tell me that this is the normative view of NCTer's.
Also don't tell me it is consistent with what NCTer's teach.

It's not. On the same token, couldn't we say the same thing about Dispies or even Covenantals?
Dispensationalists believe the Law was abrogated.
Covenantals agree that this commandment is not included in the Decalogue, which is the 'summary of the moral law'.

So don't say it. It's ignorant. Both for the NCTer who wants to affirm it, and the NCT detractors who want to create a new strawman for easy beating.

Now can we get back to some real debate concerning what NCT actually affirms and not be distracted by every nutjob who thinks he can speak for NCT?

You know what? Just do a web search for John Reisinger and Fred Zaspel.

Oh yeah, get Five Views on Law and Gospel, and read the chapter by Douglas Moo.

Then tell me what NCT is all about.

15 comments:

J. Wendell said...

So... what is offensive here?

Jason E. Robertson said...

Nutjob... thats a good word :)

Peter D. Nelson said...

Since I have that book Jason and I have read it (including Moo) I thought Moo came from a modified Lutheran view not a NCT view.

bluecollar said...

What just happened?????

bluecollar said...

I've seen that arguement before. That guy is off. What a misrepresentation of NCT.

Jeremy Weaver said...

Peter,
Moo calls his perspective a modified Lutheran perspective because he takes Luther's view on the the relationship of Law and Gospel and tweaks them. In essence, he is promoting a NCT view of the realationship between Law and Gospel.
Moo presents a great argument for a basic disconiuity between Law and Gospel, while maintaining the unity of Scripture as a whole.

John,
I don't know, I just know the blogosphere.

Jason,
Thanks.

Mark,
I'm not sure what's going on.

bluecollar said...

Jeremy,

I liked your's and "Bohemian Baptist's" presentations at "Fido".

Good job

bluecollar said...

One guy thought he had me in a corner and had successfully refuted NCT by asking me if beastyality was ok since it is nowhere stated as such in the New Testament. My answer to him was similsar to yours at "Fido".

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

'Five views on Law and Gospel' is a great book, if a little bit technical for me.

Scott Hill said...

Jeremy it wasn't my intention to set up a straw man over this NCT incest issue. Even if I did set one up it is still standing, because I didn't tear it down.

With NCT being realtively new, I only wanted to know where it stands as a theology. I found it interesting that the only NCT'er who agreed with Steven Leher was himself. Which was part of what I was looking for.

Jeremy Weaver said...

Scott,

The feeling I got from reading your responses to those who said that this is not where NCT leads was that you had attached yourself to this idea, that in order to be consistent in NCT, you must admit a place for incest.

I found that idea totally ridiculous. Even after various NCTer's had commented to this effect, you said,

"To all of you with NCT leanings, it strikes me as funny that you were shocked, appauled, sickened, you pick the adjective, by Steve's conclusion over marrying your sister/brother. I don't see how someone who believes in NCT theology could come up with any other conclusion. As I told Steve on his blog, I applaud him manning up and taking NCT to its logical conclusion. Some of you have called him "fringe", but I don't see that. I thought he was very consistent.

What am I supposed to make of that?

After that comment, it appeared to me that you had already made up your mind about the NCT position before you posted, and that your question, "Is this where NCT leads?", was rhetorical and therefore not a 'real' question.

Jason E. Robertson said...

It is kind of like the Emergent Movement -- it goes one direction, then a book comes out to correct that, then another author tries to correct that. Think about it guys, what makes you think that all of sudden for two thousand years the church has gotten it wrong about the Old Covenant and the New Covenant? Doesn't the "New" in the name of your theology kind of give it away? Oh, it says "new" because it is about the "New Covenant" -- really? It looks to everyone else like a new compromised version of Covenant theology. Maybe the "new" is describing the "theology"? Just asking :)

Jeremy Weaver said...

Actually two thousand years of church history has gotten it right, since, if you will notice, your Bible is divided into 'Old' and 'New' Covenants.

When all else fails, compare it the 'emergent church'.

Wayne Hatcher said...

Just think about that word "New" in the second half of our Bibles. Hmmm, makes you think. Maybe Moses and the Prophets had it right after all. And what about that Luther guy? The nerve of him messing about with the established church of a millennium and a half.
Wayne Hatcher

Breuss Wane said...

Right now NCT suffers from too many voices and not enough consensus.

Noise. Noise.

One of these days folks will get around to hammering out a confession.