NCT hermeneutic

Status
Not open for further replies.

JesusIsLord

Puritan Board Freshman
Hi guys I'm part of a bible study on Monday nights and we are reading through John resingers " Abrahams four seeds". However, I have been having a lot of objections to the book and one of them is the hermeneutic. The leader of our group was trying to explain to me that the apostles left behind for us a hermeneutic in the New Testament, which is that the new interprets the old. (They give examples of acts where Peter says that Joel 2 is being fulfilled there in their midst and Hebrews 8 where the writer says when God says he is making a new covenant with house of Israel, he means the church) now I have no problem with the NT writers re interpreting the old, however I think it's the exception not the rule, right? I'm sorry if I'm a bit confusing but after last nights meeting I left so confused that I felt like giving up on the whole book. Has anyone dealt with NCT before? Thanks guys
 
There are a few issues for you to face.

I don't know what your theological background or commitments are. The author you are reading advocates "New Covenant Theology." This is different from "Covenant Theology," or similar confessional Baptist positions, which is the general commitment of this PuritanBoard. It's not dispensationalism either, but a sort of half-way house. One of the hallmarks of NCT is its aversion to the abiding validity of the moral law, summarized in the (OT) Ten Commandments. NCT tends to find most of the moral law explicitly repeated in the NT, but notably diverges from the churches of the reformation on the Sabbath.

That goes to the question of hermeneutics. It is true that the apostles' have the correct hermeneutic; however, NCT does not accurately represent that hermeneutic. If Peter is correct that Joel was predicting what was happening in Act.2 (he certainly is), then Joel was ALWAYS predicting it, and NEVER proclaimed otherwise, regardless of what anyone may have thought. The apostle's do not, strictly speaking, "reinterpret" the OT to say something consistent with a "New" approach in Jesus Christ. They explain how the whole OT--from history to wisdom to prophecy--always pointed to the fulfillment that comes to pass in Christ, in the NT.

As far as the Bible study goes, if it is being led under your church's auspices, I don't know if your church as a whole is led by those of this particular persuasion, but if so there is also the matter of your dutiful submission to elders. As a regular member you shouldn't undermine lawful church authority, even when its leaders are in error, for the greater harm it does to the body. If you are among the leaders yourself, then privately (or if necessary) openly addressing an error in an effort to correct it is appropriate to your status. You may just wish to leave the Bible Study to avoid making waves.
 
I have no problem with the NT writers re interpreting the old, however I think it's the exception not the rule, right?

Two thoughts:
1. Rather than saying that the New Testament writers reinterpret the Old, it's better to say they reveal what the Old Testament was pointing to all along.
2. This approach to the Old Testament (that its fullness is revealed in the New) is the rule, not an exception. Like the New Testament writers, we too ought to always read all parts of the Old Testament through a Christ-aware lens.
 
According to your profile your church holds to the Westminster Standards. If this is the case, this teaching is not in accord with these documents, so you should let your elders know what is being taught by whoever is leading the book study.
 
According to your profile your church holds to the Westminster Standards. If this is the case, this teaching is not in accord with these documents, so you should let your elders know what is being taught by whoever is leading the book study.

No, the above is a false inference concerning what this church confesses: http://www.harvestbibleaz.org/what-we-believe.html
Mr. Moncada may profess personally to hold to the WCF, but the church where his membership is held is a NCT church.
They have their own confession: http://www.harvestbibleaz.org/confession-of-faith.html
 
According to your profile your church holds to the Westminster Standards. If this is the case, this teaching is not in accord with these documents, so you should let your elders know what is being taught by whoever is leading the book study.

No, this would be wrong, concerning what his church confesses: http://www.harvestbibleaz.org/what-we-believe.html

He may profess personally to hold to the WCF, but the church where his membership is held is a NCT church.
They have their own confession: http://www.harvestbibleaz.org/confession-of-faith.html

Gotcha. I must have misinterpreted who the "we" is: "My church affiliation is to Harvest Bible church in Gilbert Arizona. We are non denominational but adhere to the westminster confession."
 
Gotcha. I must have misinterpreted who the "we" is: "My church affiliation is to Harvest Bible church in Gilbert Arizona. We are non denominational but adhere to the westminster confession."
I admit, that's a reasonable conclusion. I would have tended to the same, but it's always best to find an authoritative source when possible.

Perhaps the church has even taken multiple paths until the present.
 
Sorry for the confusion gentlemen, the church I attend does not adhere to the Westminster confession, I once thought they did but have been corrected by the elders. They adhere to NCT alone. I should change my status in order not to cause confusion. Some more clarification as well, The bible study is led by one of the elders and I just spoke with him this morning about my issues with the book and his answer was not helpful. He mentioned that I should reread the first part of the book. I think the best thing for me to do is to no longer attend the bible study
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top