| Author | Message | ||
| Praisegod Registered user Username: Praisegod Post Number: 226 Registered: 3-2004  |
BB was mentioning about Israel and replacement theology and Jack Van Impe on another thread. Since Iíd had some similar questions in the past couple of weeks, I was looking into what could be called the well-known broad theological systems for today. Itís funny that as SDA, I knew absolutely NO terms that seems to be commonplace with most Christians. I might have been able to figure out pre-trib, but Iím sure Iíd never have been able to have explained mid-trib, post-trib, preterism, covenant theology or anything like that since Adventists never use those terms. It surprised me when I found out that Adventists seem to be the only ones who believe saints spend the millennium in Heaven. When I started studying my way out of Adventism, once I learned about the Holy Spirit, I was led to studying out the New Covenant. In the course of that I studied all the covenants. I didnít know there were all the systems such as Dispensationalism, Covenant theology or New Covenant Theology. I was just studying. One thing that brought me into looking into this is that our church Bible Study has been on Exodus 20 for the past two weeks. While the pastor has not said anything I disagree with, I have been thinking it would be a lot stronger if heíd explained more about covenants than he did. Iíve been sitting there thinking that some of his baby believers could still be food for SDA fodder if they donít learn more. That led me into looking at the systems to see why he didnít approach it on what seemed a natural way to teach about the 10 Commandmentss, Sabbath etc to me. As I learned about the differences between Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology, it became clearer that perhaps he is at least partially Dispensationalist. Another thing that has made more sense to me after studying is all this talk about Israel. I believe in my part of the country at least, almost everyone is Dispensationalistóat least everyone who is a passionate, born again Christian who I meet. Well, I canít believe in the two systems of salvation approach expounded by them. One for Jews and one for Gentiles and that the temple in Jerusalem will be rebuilt etc. However, Iím also different in my beliefs than I was as SDA because Iíve found Romans 9-11 and it seems that there is definitely something special about the Israeli people. My questions: Does your church teach any particular theological system? (Well, maybe they do and you donít know it.) What do you believe differently now (if anything) about Israel than you did as Adventist? If youíve not heard these terms, here are links explaining some of the differences: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/DeafPreterist/compare.html http://www.desiringgod.org/library/theological_qa/law_gospel/disp_cov_ncov.html (from John Piper) Praise GodÖ | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 614 Registered: 7-2003  |
Thanks for the great links Praise God! I learned something new today! (I love that). I have never been very convinced of the dispensational system, despite it's wild popularity in North America. I I knew I couldn't call myself a convenant theology person either because of it's similarities to Adventism (i.e. dividing the law into parts, the declogue as a Christian standard, and only one covenant). Up till today I didn't know what to call the system that seemed to make the most sense according to my study of scripture. I had started to think it was a view largely unique to former SDAs, the restructured WWGOG, and a couple of other people like Bob George. I'm delighted to have a name for it. "New Covenant Theology" (NCT), I like that! Thanks PraiseGod! CriV P.S. Thank you very much to Richard for modifying my picture......I no longer look quite so bloated..... | ||
| Bb Registered user Username: Bb Post Number: 66 Registered: 7-2004 |
Chris, I posted a question on the other thread and I see it should be here. And Praise God, I am enundated with the dispensationalism at my new church. I just can't seem to take hold of that either so I will have to study those links. Thanks! | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 705 Registered: 7-2003  |
I guess if you get more than a snippit of dispensationalism, and it has many forms, maybe it might make more sense. I've sat under teachers who know greek and hebrew and are convinced at "most" of the dispensational directions. One correction or clarification, however. I have NEVER heard in the dispensational teaching of two methods of salvation...that seems to be something those against dispensationalism try to use to discredit those who hold to that theory, but I keep asking people who hold the view if they see a second way to salvation and they all say no. I don't know what others teach, but in the dispensational teachings I've heard, the jews have to come to recognize Christ as their messiah just as anyone else does. I also don't have a problem with the idea the jews want to rebuild their temple...afterall, the old covenant is still applicable in their mind and to fulfill their obligations, they are supposed to be doing sacrifices on that site. If you do any research into it on Jewish websites, you will find that they do indeed hope to rebuild their temple in it's old location (where the muslim dome of the rock is). I think that's one of the reasons the jews and muslims conflict so much...there is no acceptable compromise to that site for either group. I don't consider myself dispensationalist as some seem to describe it. I've studied enough of each major view to find things I agree with and things I disagree with (except preterist...can't find anything there I can think of off hand). However, I don't find the dispensational view the great heresy many seem to, but again, I've heard the teaching top to bottom, not just the snippits some seem to misquote or misapply. If you talk to the pastor/teacher I've heard teach it, there is not a single symbolism in Revelation that he does not find a reference for in the OT....no visions, or anything else...just one interpretation of the symbols based upon the OT. I do see some presumptions at points that I think could be read multiple ways, and he is honest enough to say others see that verse differently, and I respect that. I'm not educated enough in the original texts to say I can figure out all the symbolisms with 100% certainty. But as praiseGod mentioned above, I can't help but see Romans 9-11 as something that will apply towards the literal jews before the second coming...I don't think it refers to the church since the church already recognizes Christ as messiah...so in that sense, I think dispensational view is dead on as I've heard it taught...my pastor that I've heard the most on that doesn't follow the Left Behind stuff. Though he will tell you he has read over 200 books on revelation and daniel, he sticks strictly with his understanding of scripture ... I'm not even sure he uses the term dispensational. I'm still fascinated a group of fictional books can lead to such controversy. I enjoy the TV version of the 10 Commandments, but there are certainly parts that are not in scripture and some that directly contradict scripture. But that's me. I know many on this forum are adamantly opposed to anything dispensational. I didn't have a chance to look at the links yet, and am not familiar with the term new covenant theology, but I look forward to learning something new too.  | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 189 Registered: 7-2004  |
Thanks for the links, Praise God. I read through them and was also happy to find a label I can fit into--new covenant theology. Now I just need to find a list of local churches that believe that way! I also did a google search on new covenant theology (nct) and came up with a couple SDA websites that refute nct and was amazed at how they present it in the first place. Here are the links: http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/covenant1.html http://www2.andrews.edu/~samuele/books/sabbath_under_xfire/3.htm Here's a quote from the first link that sums it up well:
Why do they think we believe God had a learning curve and that's why the old covenant had to be replaced with the new? (By the way, the New Testament calls the old covenant "inferior", we didn't make that up!) Also, why do they think we see people being saved differently based on which covenant they lived under? I think we see it as always by faith in Jesus (either by what He would do, or by what He did do depending on which side of the cross we lived). Despite their inaccurate accusations, I think they actually do believe that very thing: a big red flag to me early on re SDAism, was that SDA's seem to see people being saved in different ways at different times, and I know that's false! For example, depending on who you talk to, either since 1844 or just before the second coming, people will be required to reach sinlessness whereas it wasn't previously required. Or what about Sabbathkeeping will eventually be required for everyone, but isn't now. These were some of the very reasons I began to see SDAism as wrong, because I know the Bible teaches everyone is saved in the same way and the requirements are the same no matter when they live or when they die. | ||
| Freeatlast Registered user Username: Freeatlast Post Number: 279 Registered: 5-2002 |
That quote is totally bogus! The New Covenant never makes the claim that there are "two different plans of salvation", there has only always been one - BELIEVE IN THE PROMISES OF GOD AND BE CREDITED AS RIGHTEOUS ON THE MERITS OF THE MESSIAH. "God finally figured out..." ???!!!! That borders on blasphemy. There is nothing from eternity to eternity that God has not foreknown and purposed for His own glory. | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 190 Registered: 7-2004 |
What I find most irritating about the SDA websites that can't even accurately portray what the new covenant theology teaches, is that it can make SDA's smug that yet again they're right and everyone else is wrong. Many SDA's will only read SDA material, and so their only way of knowing what others believe is what the SDA's tell them. So now they can say they know what new covenant theology (nct) is and can see that it's definitely not Biblical. Of course that version of nct is not Biblical! But who will ever inform them that's not really what proponents of nct teach? | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 616 Registered: 7-2003 |
Bb, I replied in another thread, but I see it actually belongs here so I'll repost. Bb, the most honest answer I can give you is, "I don't know". I wish I could say something more profound, but I am extremely hesitant to be dogmatic on any of this. Here are a few musings: 1. There is a reasonable argument to made for saying that the land (particularly it's borders and size) related promises that God made to Israel were fulfilled during the reign of Solomon. In other words, I don't know that we have to look for a war beteen the modern Israeli state and the Arabs in order to confirm that God fulfilled his promise to give them a land with certain borders. Nor do we necessarily need to push this into the millenium. 2. The promises made to Israel were conditional. God told them many times that if they rejected Him, then He would drive them from the land. By and large the majority of those living in the modern Israeli state are still in rebellion because they reject the Messiah. Perhaps the modern Iraeli state was created by divine fiat, and perhaps it is primarily a human creation. 3. I don't get to excitable about all the talk of building a new temple. A lot of the talk you see on websites is wild rumor not based in fact. It's hard to imaging this ever happening without starting WWWIII because they would have to bull doze the Dome of the Rock to do this. Could this happen? If that's truly in God's plan, sure it could. But I can't see why God would want to rebuild the temple when Jesus fulfilled all the temple stood for and God rent the curtain at his death. We are now the temple of God's Spirit so rebuilding a physical temple to continue the sacrificial system seems blasphamous to me. 4. In my mind, I think there is a strong argument to be made from the book of Romans for a large influx of Christ believing Jews being grafted back into the true Israel before the end. I don't think we need to see the Jews as a completely seperate entity in God's plans to see the fulfillment of this. 5. As far as promise fulfillment goes, I tend to think that nearly every promise in the OT was fulfilled in Christ. Christ didn't setup the earthly Kingdom that people were looking for, but he did setup a very real spiritual kingdom and we certainly see the NT writers speak of the fulfillment of several OT promises in a spiritual way. Who knows? I sure don't, just a few thoughts. I trust God to do all this in His own way and His own time and maybe someday it will all be clear to us. In the meantime, I pray that eschatology will cease being a devisive issue among believers. CriV | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 314 Registered: 10-2004  |
Yes, that is what they love to do, is set up straw men, so that SDAs will be more convinced than ever that they have "The Truth." It's very deceptive. In that sermon by Frank Gonzalez that I posted clips from, he made it sound like all "Sunday-keeping" Christians believe that Sunday is the Sabbath, that there is no resurrection, that all human beings (even the wicked) "inherently" have eternal life, and that they don't believe the verse that says "every eye will see Him"! He says we believe in "the pagan idea of the immortality of the soul"! Well, the SDAs believe in the pagan idea of ceasing to exist when you die! That is what is totally pagan. Jeremy | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 112 Registered: 8-2004 |
Hmm. I've been looking at the links (thank you Praise God and Raven for posting them), and also did some searching online on my own. Most of what I read leaves me simply with the sense that here is another whole field I want to study as soon as possible. In most cases what is described as "New Covanant Theology" sounds very close to what I understand. But I ran across one site that claims "New Covenant Theology" and seems to be WAY off. Anybody have any thoughts on this? http://www.nccg.org/038Art-Differences.html I'm thankful that God has promised that the Holy Spirit will guide you INTO all truth, not just dump it on you all at once! And I'm thankful that God is so patient with us as we stumble as we are learning to walk with Him! helovesme2 | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 617 Registered: 7-2003 |
Uh yeah, the group at that website is strange indeed. I just scanned for about 30 seconds and see that they teach several ideas that are very close to Mormanism. I would go so far as to say they are probably some offshoot of the Mormons. Evidently they believe in such things as: each of us here preexisted before we came to earth, a Mormon sounding idea of eternal marriages, POLYGAMY!!!, denial of the Christian view of the Trinity, and an open Cannon allowing for ongoing authoritative revelation equal to scripture. This is definately a strange group. My guess is they are to Mormonism what Branch Dividians are to Adventism. All four groups teach heresy, just to differing degrees. Chris | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 315 Registered: 10-2004 |
I noticed that that church is located in Sweden. It seems that New Covenant Theology means something very different to them than it does to most people in the US! Jeremy | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 113 Registered: 8-2004 |
Here's link on "New Covenant Theology" that seems to be closer to the genuine one: http://www.ids.org/ids/wnct.html | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 618 Registered: 7-2003 |
Interesting link. That's kind of an interesting twist because the folks at IDS subscribe to Reformed Theology (Calvinism), but not to Covenant Theology as nearly all Calvinist do. Interesting. Who knows, maybe New Covenant theology will start to make inroads in all sorts of traditions. I certainly hope so, because New Covenant theology seems to me to be the only way to really make sense of the Christian's relationship to the Mosaic Law. Chris | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 316 Registered: 10-2004 |
Actually, the first link that PraiseGod posted (http://www.angelfire.com/ca/DeafPreterist/compare.html) claimed that NCT is "always" Calvinist! " [DISP] May be Arminian or modified Calvinist. Almost never five-point Calvinist. [CT] Always Calvinist. Usually five-point Calvinist. [NCT] Same as CT." Jeremy | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 620 Registered: 7-2003 |
Interesting.....thanks Jeremy. Funny, I would consider myself to be in the NC camp, but I have some issues with full 5 point Calvinism. Maybe there's an inconsistency somewhere there that I'm not seeing???????????? Is there anything that would require NC theology and Calvinism to go hand in hand? Chris | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 318 Registered: 10-2004 |
I don't think so, but then again I have not researched NCT very extensively. Jeremy | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1350 Registered: 12-2003  |
Wow, thanks so much for the links! A lot of things began to make sense to me. I almost completely agree with NCT--I have trouble even seeing how the other views can support themsleves. There are a couple of areas where I do see some validity in the others, though--for example, I see Romans 9-11 suggesting that there will be a time when there'll be an influx of believing Jews grafted back into the "olive tree" that symbolizes God's people (it symbolized Israel in the OT, but for Israel to be grafted back, it has to be God's people) as Chris also stated above. Further, I can see that the promises of the land might yet have some fulfillment in the future. After all, the land promises were not part of the Mosaic covenant; they were given to Abraham. God gave Abraham the promsies of Seed, Land, and Blessing--and those were unconditional promises. While I have many questions about it, I can see the possibility that the millennial kingdom might be part of the fulfillment of the covenant promising land to Abraham's descendants. While I have trouble seeing a resumption of the temple services and the Mosaic covnenant in general as being part of the fulfillment of Ezekiel's and Isaiah's prophecies, I can see the possibility that Ezekiel's prophecy of the dry bones gathering together but being without life and then finally coming to life might have something to do with Israel and the (according to Paul) coming phenomenon of their being "spiritually awakened" when many will choose Christ. I'm with you on the rigidity of five-point Calvinism, Chris--but I do find myself being 'way more convinced of the absolute sovereignty of God than I've ever been. I'm not sure any one "system" of theology has all the answers--primarily because there are distinct gaps in what the Bible reveals, particularly in the area of eschatology. But overall, I'd say NCT describes me best and (from my viewpoint!) makes the most biblical sense! Colleen | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1451 Registered: 11-2002 |
Jeremy, are you really as cute as that picture? | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 319 Registered: 10-2004 |
No, my dog is cuter than I am.  Jeremy | ||
| Bartdanr Registered user Username: Bartdanr Post Number: 8 Registered: 11-2004 |
Hi All, To me, there is a chasm of belief between SDA Eschatology and other systems--be it Dispensational, Covenant Theology or New Covenant Theology. I would feel far more comfortable with any of those systems with which I disagree than with the SDA eschatological system. I have to admit that my views of these things change over time. For a while, I was a strong Dispensationalist; however, I disagree with some of it now. Still, I don't ever think that I "abandon the faith" if I believe in a particular eschatology (except for one in which the literal second coming of Christ is rejected.) Unfortunately, many people get very defensive about their belief, and will almost view a person who disagrees with them as a heretic or unbeliever. Arguments about eschatology (especially relating to current events like the modern state of Israel) can even lead to church splits.  I do find the subject fascinating, however, and with people who aren't going to brand each other apostates and heretics for believing in a particular eschatology, it's an enjoyable thing to discuss--or even debate. In Christ, Daniel | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1356 Registered: 12-2003 |
I agree, Daniel. I realize, also, that I've learned an awfully lot of the "big picture" of God's work among humanity from our women's ministry leader Elizabeth Inrig who was trained as a dispensationalist. While I don't subscribe to all her beliefs, especially those concerning eschatology, still her view of history as having different "times" during which God interacted in different ways but from the same sovereign love and mercy and justice has been extremely helpful in seeing sovereign connections between all the major events in the Bible. While NCT makes the most "sense" to me, I certainly see dispensationlism as contributing some really valuable understandings. Actually, I'm remembering Melissa's post yesterday and realizing that when you hear a dispensationlist teach (if they're truly grounded in Scripture), they don't sound as rigid and exclusive as the outline of their beliefs suggests they might be. But then, I suspsect many dispensationlists also gradually alter their own understandings, as we all do, as they study the Word. Colleen | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 198 Registered: 7-2004  |
Colleen, I just have to smile to myself sometimes reading your posts. Once again you have described, far more eloquently than I could, almost the identical conclusions that I have been reaching over the last 7 or 8 years. For a long time I didn't bother looking for which groups might match the conclusion that I was reaching, nor have I ever been a big fan of Christian radio ministries (or any radio "talk" programs) so I had no real sense of who I might have the most in common with belief-wise. It has really only been in the past year that I have started looking at that more closely. | ||
| Praisegod Registered user Username: Praisegod Post Number: 231 Registered: 3-2004 |
I find it so interesting that even though we didn't know terminology, many of us ended up understanding Covenants in the same way. Like Chris, I was delighted to finally have a "name" to go along with most of my beliefs--NCT. Like Jeremy said, I do question having to be a 5 point Calvinist to believe in NCT. It was a month or so ago, perhaps, that we were talking about our purpose as formers. Loneviking mentioned that he felt our understanding of the New Covenant was somehow significant. I believe he's right but I don't see the big picture yet. I do believe an improper understanding of covenants can be the Achilles heel of Adventism if we continue to educate as directed by the Holy Spirit. I, too, would like to know if any particular chuches have a NCT understanding of Scripture. Anyone know? Praise God... | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1360 Registered: 12-2003 |
I think, again, that it depends upon the individual pastors. We heard the senior pastor at Fullerton Evangelical Free Church give a sermon on Sabbath observance two summers ago at Hume Lake Christian Camp. (He's the one we talked to and to whom we sent Dale's books.) Our pastor at Trinity Evangelical Free Church, Gary Inrig, on the other hand, was trained as a dispensationalist, but he does not interpret the Bible according to Dispensationalism but according to the Bible itself. He definitely has changed his understandings of many things over the years as he has studied and talked with other people. For example, I'm told that in the early to mid 90s, he preached some sermons that sounded pretty connected to the law. Today, he would never preach such a sermon. He is a deep and avid Bible scholar, but he has also had the honesty to listen to the former Adventists who have been coming to his church, read, and study some more, and his sermons are clearly new covenant now. Yet his dispensational background gives shape and clarity to many issues that perhaps a new covenant focus might miss. It does seem to me that the more one studies the Bible, the more the New Covenant becomes clear, and the more the sovereignty of God and our dependence upon Him is emphasizesd. Colleen | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 315 Registered: 7-2000 |
The churches that I've found with a very strong 'NCT' would be the Church of Christ and the Christian churches. | ||
| Bob Registered user Username: Bob Post Number: 50 Registered: 7-2000  |
I agree, Loneviking. I attend a Christian church, and I know from several conversations with my pastor that he is very clear on the New Covenant. Bob | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 1008 Registered: 3-2004  |
Isn't it amazing how God has changed us. As SDAs we would not even think of non-SDA churches as Christian and now I see us saying that this one or that one has a strong "NCT" tendency and that our pastor is very clear on the New Covenant. As SDAs it was how did they keep the Sabbath and their belief in EGW. When I visited SDA church, before I decided to not rejoin, I would not remember the message that was preached, but if it was a warm friendly church or not. Most of the ones I visited were not warm. It is just so good to see this being discussed in a friendly fashion. It shows me how God has changed us and again how awesome He is. Diana |
