BuddyOfDavidClarkson
Puritan Board Freshman
I'm curious to see a debate as to the pros and cons of New Covenant Theology as largely championed by Pastor Tom Wells.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by turmeric
Are you a member of Dr. Sproul Sr.'s congregation?
Originally posted by BuddyOfDavidClarkson
I'm curious to see a debate as to the pros and cons of New Covenant Theology as largely championed by Pastor Tom Wells.
Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist
Originally posted by BuddyOfDavidClarkson
I'm curious to see a debate as to the pros and cons of New Covenant Theology as largely championed by Pastor Tom Wells.
pastor wells is my pastor; have you read his book on NCT?
Originally posted by BuddyOfDavidClarkson
Yes and a number of others on the subject as well.
Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist
Originally posted by BuddyOfDavidClarkson
I'm curious to see a debate as to the pros and cons of New Covenant Theology as largely championed by Pastor Tom Wells.
pastor wells is my pastor; have you read his book on NCT?
Originally posted by Average Joey
Hi Matthew,
Tom Wells visits our church maybe at least twice a year.Him and my pastor Mark Webb are good friends.
Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist
Originally posted by Average Joey
Hi Matthew,
Tom Wells visits our church maybe at least twice a year.Him and my pastor Mark Webb are good friends.
tom is a great man who truly loves the Lord. i am blessed to have him at our church and have learned a great deal from this wonderful contributor to the body of Christ.
Originally posted by bob
most advocates of New Covenant Theology introduce it as a new system of Scriptural interpretation, differing significantly from Covenant Theology and less significantly from dispensationalism
The greatest distinction of application would be in considering all of the Old Testament law as pertaining only to Old Covenant Israel. They disregard any form of categorizing the law (moral, civil, or ceremonial) and advocate that the entire package has been abrogated in Christ.
Their biblical hermeneutic then for considering any binding proponents of Old Testimony Scriptures is that it must be repeated in the New in order to be binding.
(As an aside, I have run across some NCTian that completely disregard the Old Testament Scriptures, in fact, I have read a few church covenants that states "We believe the New Testament to be our rule of faith and practice." This is a rather extreme form of New Covenant Theology, but it does exist.)
Originally posted by armourbearer
When our Lord said, "tell it to the church," in order for His statement to have meant anything to his hearers, there must have been a church in existence.
Originally posted by armourbearer
When our Lord said, "tell it to the church," in order for His statement to have meant anything to his hearers, there must have been a church in existence.
Originally posted by BuddyOfDavidClarkson
Originally posted by armourbearer
When our Lord said, "tell it to the church," in order for His statement to have meant anything to his hearers, there must have been a church in existence.
Another explanation is that Jesus is establishing steps of discipline for the institution he declares two chapters earlier in Matt 16:18. The passage quoted above is in Matt 18:17.
Originally posted by armourbearer
Originally posted by BuddyOfDavidClarkson
Originally posted by armourbearer
When our Lord said, "tell it to the church," in order for His statement to have meant anything to his hearers, there must have been a church in existence.
Another explanation is that Jesus is establishing steps of discipline for the institution he declares two chapters earlier in Matt 16:18. The passage quoted above is in Matt 18:17.
The same problem applies to Matt. 16:18 as 18:17. The statement required a church in existence in order to convey meaning to the hearers.
Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist
my understanding is the word here used in the greek was ekklesia which means "called out" and referred to a general assembly of believers. i think the church as being established is reasonable, but to assume the existence of a "church" doesnt seem realistic because the word church would be more specific of a Christian assembly. obviously the only contempory assembly would have been the synagogue. i think Jesus was denoting other believers in Him as the Christ as the "church".