You are not logged in.
Here is what Fred Zaspel says about the Hermeneutics of NCT. Let me give the definition of it before the quote:
Definition of HERMENEUTIC
1plural but sing or plural in constr : the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible)
2: a method or principle of interpretation
Hermeneutics
Probably the simplest way to describe our distinctive hermeneutic is to say that we consider the New Testament to be the apex of God's self-revelation to date. On one level, of course, all sides will agree with this. But we would argue that traditional Covenant Theology with its generally flat reading of Scripture has failed to appreciate it fully. We would of course argue this on exegetical grounds specifically but also from the general standpoints of the newness of the New Covenant, the heavy "fulfillment" emphasis in the New Testament, (2) the Lordship of Jesus Christ, Jesus' superiority to Moses, our "slavery" to Jesus Christ, the striking contrast between the Old and New Covenants found in the New Testament, and so on. Further, this necessarily brings us into a distinctive emphasis on Biblical theology with its eye to the Christocentric and progressive unfolding of redemptive history. In short, we argue that traditional Covenant Theology has failed to appreciate fully the significant advance that marks this age of New Testament revelation.
http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/h … cs/nct.htm
We could start another thread (which I already have) if you wish. Please compare this brief explanation to your site's usage of New Covenant Theology definition by Wikipedia as your official research on the topic.
Last edited by bob_2 (02-12-11 9:14 pm)
Offline
Hubb,
I went back to the beginning of this thread started by Dexter and read some of your earlier posts. The problem you seem to run into is agreeing to the disconnectivity of the Old and New Covenant and your belief that the 10 Commandments are separate from any covenant and is God's eternal moral law.
Here I think I will let Zaspel speak, since he does it way better than I can. This is in the same document I recently linked:
The Decalogue
Covenant Theology argues that the decalogue is the eternal, unchanging moral law of God. It defined duty before Moses, "outside" Moses in the nations surrounding Israel, and it continues to define universal duty after Moses. It is a rule which remains unchanged and unchangeable. Further, all ten words are of a "moral" rather than a ceremonial or civil character. Other Old Testament laws -- civil and ceremonial laws -- may come or go or be altered with further revelation. But moral law remains constant, and the decalogue is that moral law. Thus, Jesus issued no new moral demands, and when the New Testament speaks of "abolishing" Mosaic law, it has civil or ceremonial aspects of that law in view, not the decalogue. The decalogue is the eternal, unchanging moral law of God.
NCT argues that these presuppositions are exegetically unwarranted. First, it cannot be shown that the decalogue is purely "moral" in character. If pushed, we would argue that the Sabbath has more a ceremonial character to it. Second, neither can it be demonstrated that this supposed three-fold division of Mosaic law -- moral, civil, ceremonial -- is a legitimate hermeneutical tool for the understanding of the "abolition" passages of the New Testament. Third, some of the New Testament passages which speak of the passing away of the Old Covenant speak specifically in reference to the decalogue (eg., 2 Cor. 3). And so in our judgment, the presuppositions of Covenant Theology on this point are just too simplistic. An answer must be found which can take in all the relevant exegetical detail.
Last edited by bob_2 (02-12-11 9:39 pm)
Offline
Bob,
I looked briefly at that website. I cannot respond to it without some study. What I have noted is that even a brief sentence can include several assumptions: Assumptions on what I said and what I mean, Assumptions as to what my current belief is, and assumptions as to what the Bible teaches. It is almost impossible to address all those assumptions in a short post.
Another fact is that my project is a work in progress. I expect that everything written before 2011 will be changed to some degree -- so I don't want to be put into the position of defending everything I have written. At the same time most of what I have written will not change.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
The separation of "Law" as used in the OT is totally antithetical to the Hebrew mind: the Law represnted all of God's rules given them, there was no division. It is only much later, and especially with Adventists, that the separation occured as a convenient way of making the Decalogue the "moral" law and all the 600+ other rules, merely ceremonial, which were done away with in Christ.
Done away with? Not exactly. The SDA church selectively chose some: the dietary rules as being "eternal" while most of the others were only temporary.
Long before the Hebrew Decalogue was given, Hammaruabi's Code was very similar. Most societies had prohibitions against lying, stealing, and murder. But to call the Decalogue a "moral" law implies that one who does not worship God, observes the seventh day, or covets, is immoral. Do we really use that term when speaking of all the world's Christians who do not obey the seventh day? Or they somehow, immoral?
Ceremonies, by definition, mark a specific time, place, or occasion to be remembered. As Jesus told the Samaritan woman: "No longer will worship be on a mountain but God will be worshiped in Spirit." IOW, no longer are there special places of worship (as was the temple), nor special times, but now we will worship Him in our hearts. There were many ceremonies observed in Judaism, and they are all listed in Lev. 23. They are called solemn festivals of God for sacred assemblies:
Sabbath
Passover
First Sheaf
Feast of Weeks
First Day of the Seventh Month
Day of Atonement
Feast of Tabernacles
All were to be a day of rest (no work) and were a "perpetual law for you your descendants." (Seven during the year, and all exactly a duplicate of the weekly Sabbath.) In Isarel, even today, they probably have more "holidays" than any other nation, revering these old laws.
All of these were "rest days" and were to be kept in perpetuity.
Why are all of them gnored except one, when they were all made as perpetual laws ?
Do Adventists truly believe and live by the NT or pick and choose certain OT laws and eliminate others? By combining them, they do not adhere to the NT which abrogated the Torah as a guide (as it had always been for the Jews), and accepted the New Way of the Spirit. The Law is no longer our guide, as it was for the Jews, but Christ has REPLACED the Law. He is far better than any Law--and the embodiment of God in person. The Jews had only written rules; Christians have the perfect example. Which is superior? Why return to the Law when we have Christ?
Judaism never required assent to doctrinal beliefs. Only certain acts were required; just as the pagans around them. As long as they offered sacrifices appropriately and didnt kill, murder, or steal, they were upright citizens.
Straddling two systems: Judaism and Christianity, has made Adventism a cross between Messianic Christians and partial Christians (somewhat like Mormonism).
Offline
These are comments from reading A Brief Explanation of "New Covenant Theology" by Fred G. Zaspel. I would applaud the serious intent of Mr. Zaspel in his work. I am concerned with the problems found and the general direction that NCT leads us.
See http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/h … cs/nct.htm
Introductory Remarks: Most “Covenant Theologies” are unnecessarily complicated. Many unsolved problems still exist in NCT. NCT depends much on the scholarship of others. There are six Bible references in this article, but no quotes from the Bible to support statements.
Covenant Theology as described lacks definition of terms. Generally it appears more Biblical than other “theologies.”
Dispensationalism presents different modes of salvation; Two separate peoples; and Law as a thing of the past?
NCT sees Covenant Theology’s view of the Messianic age as dependent heavily on old testament scripture whereas NCT emphasizes the newness of the New Testament. In discussing the unity of God’s nature and purpose, NCT is excellent.
Hermeneutics: NCT sees the NT as the apex of revelation of God, a significant advance. (However, did not this advance in knowledge occur in the first century ad?) At present we may have more knowledge, but less spirituality. Society has generally deteriorated. The Newness and Fulfillment emphases are controversial issues depending on definition. These definitions are critical in looking at the contrast between “Old and New covenants in the NT.
Law vs Grace needs discussion and clarification.
The Decalogue: Agreed that Covenant Theology strongly supports the moral law. NCT challenges the moral character of the law, the three fold division of the law, the implied understanding of the Old Covenant, and the connection of Old Covenant with moral law. These things are controversial.
The Sabbath: NCT sees that Covenant Theology’s shift to Sunday keeping is not in keeping with their claim to honor the decalogue. NCT looks to a prophetic function of the Sabbath as gospel rest; that the Sabbath is Old Covenant; and that the Sabbath finds its fulfillment in Christ. Hebrews chapter four had been used both to negate the seventh-day Sabbath and to support it. Much has been said in other Biblical passages that make clear the Sabbath in the plan of God. Jesus Christ, Himself, has said nothing about His being the fulfillment of the Sabbath, nor of His changing the day of worship to another day.
General Comment: NCT seems more heavy on philosophy than on Bible or Theology. Nothing is said about specific covenants except for general comments on the Old ‘and New Covenants. Nothing is said about the relation of the Christian church to the covenant, or the place of Israel today. (This might be found in a larger book?)
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Bob,
Thank you for your interest in the covenant. I think I have said all that I need to say at this time. I need to put major effort into my website the next several months. And there are other things I need to do -- work in our local church, trip to California to see my oldest daughter, and put in a garden. Being retired does not give a person as much time as one might expect!
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Hubb, you have seen Elaine and I and now Fred Zaspel mention 2 Cor 3, about "the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone". Fred Zaspel if you google his name and NCT knows the scriptural background of what he mentions. Oh well, enjoy your retirement but don't expect us to hold our breath for as succinct a statement as he has made of his study.
Last edited by bob_2 (02-14-11 1:21 am)
Offline
Bob,
look at my website, articles #23.6 and #23.7
or start with this link: http://www.everlastingcovenant.com/article.php?id=112
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
OK, I did look at that, but you ignor this verse and talk over it:
2 Cor 3: 11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
I suppose your arguement is going to be "that which remaineth " is the way you and the SDA church believes, eh????
Last edited by bob_2 (02-14-11 2:46 pm)
Offline
Bob,
I will look at that verse. Meanwhile, why don't you give me your take on the verse! Do you have comments on the rest of what I s aid in those two articles?
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Bob,
At the time of Christ the law had become corrupted. People were keeping the law by rote, as a system of works. This included the moral, civil, and ceremonial law. In their minds it was all lumped in the law of Moses, or just “Moses.”
In the sermon on the mount, Jesus pointed out that God required a righteousness much exceeding that of the Pharisees (Matthew 5:20). Jesus taught a law from the heart. We see this again in 2 Corinthians 3.
For people to focus on the law written in stone, to keep the letter of the law and ignore the spirit and meaning of the law – it was a ministration of death (of condemnation rather than salvation). This included the sacrificial system, which was done away, as well as all other aspects of the ceremonial law that pointed forward to Christ. All this was fulfilled, ended, abrogated and nailed to His cross.
Jesus came to initiate the kingdom of grace. His focus was on the changed life through grace, rather than on rote keeping of laws. The vail, (which was looking to Christ through the sacrificial system, was “done away in Christ”). It was by grace that the spirit was put back into the law and men were empowered to keep it
That which was done away was a focus on law; and that which remained was Jesus Christ and His grace to keep the law from the heart (vs 11). By beholding Him, (now freed from the vail), we are changed into the same image (vs 18).
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Bob,
We have evidence that God intended the people to keep the covenant and the law by grace. There was a preamble to both (Exodus 19:4; 20:2) promising the people the strength God used to deliver them from Egypt to empower them to keep the law. The concept of loving God above all else and one's neighbor as oneself is also found in the Old Testament.
Since writing was not common, there was probably a strong oral tradition, and much communication and learning was by this oral method. the Levites and the Priests were supposed also to teach the people.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Hubb, in your post 162, I would read those texts as singling out a people for His First Covenant with man, Abarhamic promise was a covenant also but seem to be, especially in the NT, The Promise.
In post 161 you seem to be grasping at straws when in
Exofus 34: 27 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” 28 Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.
and
Deut 5:1 Moses summoned all Israel and said:
Hear, Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. 2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 It was not with our ancestors[a] that the LORD made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today.
Which both show that the 10 Commandments were the words of the covenant. We know there are 603 more laws of details of how this Law was to be kept.
Hubb, what you seem not to realize, NCT is letting the Bible speak for itself, not SDA's Covenant Theology or Dispensationa Theology are not able to clearly state how the Bible tells the Salvation story with out EGW or assumptions unique to SDAism.
Try giving your interpretation of
Heb 8:13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
Last edited by bob_2 (02-16-11 4:44 pm)
Offline
Hubb:
What covenant has been made obsolete?
"For this is the covenant that I will make with the House of Israel....I will put my laws into their minds and write them upon their hearts."
Where is it mentioned that the Law given Moses was to be written on their hearts? It was comprised of letters engraved on stone and all they had to do was obey those laws. There was nothing said about the Holy Spirit nor grace given them; merely doing right acts and refraining from prohibitive ones was all they were required to do.
Under the New Covenant, the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth and there is no longer laws to be our guide, as Christ has replaced the Law. In the first covenant, without the Law people would have no guide to right living; under the New Covenant, we have been given the Holy Spirit and its fruits: love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, etc. Where are these mentioned in the Old Covenant Laws?
Under the Old Covenant, as long as one did not lie, steal, cheat, murder, or break the sabbath, he was doing right. Under the New Covenant, these will not be done because we are to love one another: no one who loves another as himself will steal from him, lie, cheat, or murder. Nothing was ever mentioned about sabbath, it was a non-subject under the New Covenant. Only under the Old Covenant was it a law.
Offline
Elaine,
You have been with those "scholars" so long that you have forgotten the very basics of Christianity. I don't know if you are interested at all, but you would benefit by going through a complete series of Bible studies. Check with your pastor, and he will help you or find someone who will.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Bob,
It looks like we are in a contest of interpretations of texts -- both of us using the same texts. The different interpretations we come up with are within the very different context we each have for Bible study. I won't fault you for your interpretations, and I can see that you will never see things as I do. Maybe we should find another topic to discuss that has nothing to do with the Sabbath, the NCT, or the law.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Hubb, Adventism was literally in my mother's milk. My dad was an evangelist and I sat through dozens of presentation of all the unique SDA beliefs. In addition, in 12 years of SDA education, what could I have possibly missed?
This is what I missed: there was no discussion of the NT Gospel, Paul's missionary journeys must be diagrammed in great detail but his message was never discussed. "Bible Doctrines" was the "proof-text" method and no questions outside the text was allowed. D&R was also diagramming dates and events. IOW, no discussion whatsoever on Sabbath (it was taken for granted); The IJ dates were taught, plus the uncertainty of salvation if one's name were called up at an inconvenient time.
Those are not all, but what have I missed that is today in SDA Bible studies?
Offline
Elaine,
you are now an adult -- you should go back and find the Christ who died for you, and find the Gospel that He taught.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Hubb,
As a young person it is difficult to ask questions when you have not lived long enough to realize that there is much more in history, especially of the Christian church, to realize even the questions to ask. Most folks who question what they have been taught in most any area do not do so when that is all they have learned. The large majority of religious believers, whether Jews, Muslims, Roman Catholics or protestants, have little reason to question their taught beliefs.
Maturity brings increasing knowledge and often uncertainty rather than certitude. The old saying: "a 16 yr-old knows everthing, but in his 20s he realizes that his parents are pretty smart after all!"
After spending years studying Christian history in graduate school, there was so much more than Adventism ever taught (and probably still not in college classes). An eye-opener for certain. All religions are man-made and have been a human device since history began. To claim that one, and only one is THE TRUE one is ludicrous.
Offline
Elaine,
Jesus Christ, his story given throughout the Bible, is our only hope. He is the One and Only. No one else has conquered sin and death, and no one else can offer eternal life. The religion of Christ is not man-made; it is revealed. The Bible is the only book that can change the lives of men and nations.
Why not try an experiment: for a month put aside all the "scholars." Don't touch them. Put their books out of sight. After all, they have nothing to offer. Then first thing every morning, make yourself comfortable in front of your desk, turn on a heater if needed, and open your Bible. Then pray: "Lord speak to me through the Bible I read, give me a message I need." Then read and pray for an hour. It doesn't matter where you start -- but I'd suggest starting at Matthew. the story of Jesus is given from four different viewpoints for a reason.
Do this every day for a month. Remember, first thing every morning -- before TV, email, newspaper, everything.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
It is true, the Bible is the only book that TELLS ABOUT Jesus, but from many and various angles by many and various writers. Limiting all one can know about God, or Jesus, from a book which neither had contributed a single word must, of necessity, rely on people's ideas and opinions about God.
Reading the Bible demonstrates that there were many pictures of God. The Gospels were written much later than Paul, and neither he nor any of the Gospel writers can definitively be shown to have witnessed Jesus, but their reports were at least second-hand: they would never hold up in court as being eye-witnesses. Even their stories cannot be harmonized in their details and each Gospel writer added or deleted from other writers.
Why is someone who never saw or heard God (no one has seen the Father) superior to someone today who makes similar claims? God has been claimed, or blamed, for many private and personal diasters, as well as much good fortune. Who is to know for certain?
The one thing I believe was summed up by Jesus in his identification of who would be welcomed in His kingdom: Matt. 25: 31-46. Where was religious doctrine, except as it was lived, mentioned in this? This opens the pearly gates to all, regardless of their belief system, who have actively loved their neighbor, which is the demonstration of the Golden Rule that precedes any formal religion.
Offline
Mormons can say the same things about Joseph Smith's writings: They read it with a prior acceptance that his words are straight from on high. It all depends on one's prior belief.
Offline
Hubb, with all due respect, it is so obvious that you have an end that justifies your means. Your warning about disconnectivity of the Old and New Covenants is an example that you go look for a text, out of context, and EGW statement in or out of context to build a story that suit you and the SDA church. Try letting the Bible speak for itself. That is the strength I have found in NCT. When the Reform Theologians like Luther and Calvin are mixed in to "Solo Scriptura" you begin to realize the agendas of individuals. But remember this definition of "pretext":
Text, without context, is pretext
The Westminister Confession is another example of pretext.
Offline
Hubb, in response to your post #162:
Romans 11:17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
The issue here is the acceptance of the Messiah and what he stands for. The broken branches at the base of the vine were not what God wanted but they were broken of due to their unbelief.
Offline
Hubb, forget for a moment the agenda of your "Everlasting Covenant" forum and let these words roll through your mind and see if you can believe that the Old Covenant is what is being taught. Is it not at an end with Jesus first Advent???
Gal 3: 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.
21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
23 Before the coming of this faith,[j] we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Offline