What is New Covenant Theology?

Reprinted with permission from Faith Pulpit (Oct-Dec, 2010).

New Covenant Theology (NCT) is a rather new theological movement.1 Its proponents come from the local church rather than academia, and the majority of its adherents are found within the local church. Its proponents include Tom Wells, Fred Zaspel, John Reisinger, and Steve Lehrer.

Some people within the movement have reacted against Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology, and sometimes both. John Reisinger writes, “As New Covenant Theologians, we believe that historic Dispensationalism, as a system, is not biblical…. We are also convinced that Covenant Theology, as a system, is just as unscriptural.”2

Several of its proponents come out of a Reformed Baptist position, abandoning the tripartite division of the law (moral, civil, and ceremonial), infant baptism, and the historic covenants of works and grace. While they abandon these aspects of Reformed theology, most also reject dispensational distinctives, such as the distinction between Israel and the church and dispensational hermeneutics.

One of the bulwarks of NCT is its hermeneutics. NCT has admonished theologians to look beyond their presuppositions, analyze the text exegetically, and craft their theology around their exegesis.3

What distinguishes New Covenant Theology from these other movements? A key component is its primary hermeneutical principle, which they call the “logical priority of the New Testament over the Old Testament.”4 If we understand this aspect of New Covenant Theology, we will have a good grasp of the movement and how it approaches the Bible (their hermeneutics).

In this article we will define progressive revelation, determine what NCT theologians mean by “the logical priority of the NT,” and look at the New Covenant (Jer. 31) as an illustration of their hermeneutics at work.

Progressive Revelation

Most Christians subscribe to a belief in progressive revelation. Wells and Zaspel comment, “The assumption here is that there is advance in revelation as well as an accumulation of sources.5 At another point they state, “Like so many other teachings of the Scriptures, we should expect to find the doctrine of divine law progressively [emphasis mine] unfolded throughout the history of redemption.”6 This understanding of progressive revelation appears similar to other scholars.7 Craig Blomberg gives an illustration of progressive revelation when he writes:

God’s progressive revelation allows for development in Scripture in numerous ways. An excellent example is the OT’s progressive understanding of an afterlife. Initially Sheol seems little more than the grave or a very shadowy existence beyond. But by Daniel 12, resurrection of both just and unjust is articulated, and the NT even more clearly delineates the nature and occupants of heaven and hell.8

These definitions and explanations of progressive revelation are neutral, but how a person applies his concept of progressive revelation affects his hermeneutics. Millard Erickson writes, “If we understand God to have worked in a process of accomplishing redemption for humanity, revealing himself and his plan gradually, we will weight later developments more heavily than earlier ones.”9 The question then becomes, how is this later revelation weightier, and can the later revelation correct or contradict the previous revelation? While some may say “yes,”10 for the purpose of clarifying the difference between progressive revelation and the logical priority of the New Testament, I answer “no.”11

Logical Priority of the New Testament

Wells and Zaspel state, “NT revelation, due to its finality, must be allowed to speak first on every issue that it addresses.”12 NCT proponents contend that in issues where the New Testament and the Old Testament appear to contradict each other, the New Testament is correct and the Old Testament should be understood in light of the New Testament. NCT adherents would not say the Old Testament is wrong, but they would say that our historical grammatical understanding of the Old Testament text is wrong.

Using Luke 24 as an illustration, Carl Hoch explains it this way: “Jesus had to open the disciples’ minds so that they could understand the Old Testament Scriptures. One can conclude that Jesus provided a hermeneutic that would allow the disciples to interpret the Old Testament…. They now had to read it Christologically as seen through the lens of Jesus’ redemptive work as the Messiah of Israel.”13 This Christological lens is the logical priority of the New Testament.

Michael Adams is quite critical of the historical grammatical interpretation of Scripture. He recognizes that the historical grammatical hermeneutic should be employed, but he sees deficiencies in it as well. “I think that type of hermeneutic turns a blind eye to the different literary types found in Scripture and it fails to take into account the progressive nature of revelation in the Bible.”14 Thus Adams at times employs a figurative, or symbolic, understanding of the text. This approach is warranted, he claims, on the basis of Jesus Christ and the New Testament authors.

Tom Wells similarly states, “For some years, I have been uncomfortable with what is called ‘Classic Dispensationalism.’ … My discomfort arises from this system’s presupposition that we can know how to read the Old Testament prophecy without being told how by the Lord Jesus. It uses ‘literal’ or ‘natural’ interpretation.”15 In addition Wells advocates a figurative, or symbolic, understanding of Old Testament texts.

The New Covenant

While NCT proponents state that the NT does not contradict the OT, that is exactly what transpires. In Jeremiah 31:31 God states explicitly that the New Covenant is “with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.” Steve Lehrer comments, “If you read the verses that surround this text…it is crystal clear that this New Covenant, in its Old Testament context, is promised to the geo-political nation of Israel at some point in the future.”16

Later Lehrer writes, “The Israelites would have read Jeremiah 31 and thought that the New Covenant restoration was exclusively for them. But when God interprets His own word He tells us that this is simply not the case.”17 Lehrer understands Jeremiah 31 in light of the New Testament, and he understands the New Testament to teach that the church is the recipient of the New Covenant. How is one to understand Jeremiah? NCT proponents say the answer is figuratively, symbolically, or in Lehrer’s words, typologically. He “understands Israel to be an unbelieving type or picture of the true people of God, the church…. Israel never was a believing people as a whole. Israel always had a tiny remnant of true believers in her midst. Israel was not the church in the Old Testament, but they did function as a type or picture of the church—the true people of God.”18

According to Lehrer, the reference to “the house of Israel and the house of Judah” in Jeremiah 31 then refers to the church typologically. He abandons the grammatical and historical hermeneutic. Such an approach is not true progressive revelation. It is simply the extension of NCT’s presupposition of the logical priority of the New Testament.

An Evaluation

Progressive Revelation

An emphasis on the New Testament is commendable, but why does the New Testament need to speak “first” on these matters? If revelation is progressive, then later revelation should not contradict the former revelation. In this matter NCT moves in a different direction from a dispensational (or premillennial) understanding of progressive revelation.

The Logical Priority of the NT

The problem with the “logical priority of the New Testament” is that it opens the door for errant understandings of both the New and Old Testaments. The NCT theologian assumes that his understanding of the New Testament is correct, and he then interprets the Old Testament in light of this understanding. If the NCT theologian’s understanding of the New Testament is incorrect, he would convey that error into his exegesis of the Old Testament.

The New Covenant

Theologians have presented better options than NCT that honor the grammatical historical understanding of both Jeremiah and the New Testament texts related to the New Covenant.”19 These options present a biblical theology of Jeremiah and a biblical theology of the New Testament where contradiction is avoided and a correct understanding of progressive revelation is employed.

A Question of Presuppositions

NCT proponents criticize Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology “because [their] basic presuppositions are either assumed or wrongly deduced from their theological system.”20 Yet as we have seen, New Covenant Theology is guilty of the very same process because it approaches the text, particularly the Old Testament, with the faulty presupposition of the logical priority of the New Testament.

What then should be our approach? We should study the Old Testament first and read the New Testament from the perspective of the New Testament authors. A true biblical theology of the Old Testament will not contradict the biblical theology of the New Testament.

Notes

1 The name “New Covenant Theology” has led to some confusion. NCT is not that interested in the New Covenant. The purpose of the name is to emphasize their hermeneutics. Nevertheless, the New Covenant does serve as an illustration of their hermeneutics at work.

2 John G. Reisinger, Abraham’s Four Seeds (Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 1998), ii.

3 Reisinger, iv. Reisinger adds, “The basic presuppositions of any system of theology must be established with specific texts of Scripture and not with theological terms. Otherwise, our basic building blocks will be the product of logic and not of the Word of God itself.” Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel state, “NCT is a fresh attempt to put the text first.” (New Covenant Theology: Description, Definition, Defense [Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 2002], 22.) Steve Lehrer states, “Our theology cannot be based on counting noses, but on sticking our noses into Scripture and examining and weighing men’s opinions against God’s Word.” (“Is There a Future for Israel in Romans 11?” http://idsaudio.org/ids/pdf/scripture/romans11.pdf [accessed Jan 18, 2011], 9).

4 Wells and Zaspel, 22.

5 Wells and Zaspel, 7, n. 9.

6 Wells and Zaspel, 139.

7 Charles Hodge writes, “What at first is only obscurely intimated is gradually unfolded in subsequent parts of the sacred volume, until the truth is revealed in its fullness.” (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 1 [1871; reprinted by Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA, 2003], 446.)

8 Craig L. Blomberg, “The Unity and Diversity of Scripture,” New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner, gen. eds. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVaristy Press), 71. Also see Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 9, and Geerhardus Vos,Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 15-16.

9 Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2001), 132 (emphasis mine).

10 Michael Adams, “Rethinking the Historical Grammatical Approach to Interpretation,” The Master’s Seminary Journal Blog, posted March 1, 2008 (accessed December 16, 2008).

11 It is noteworthy that the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy’s definition of progressive revelation is the following: “We affirm that God’s revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive. We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.” (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994], 1205).

12 Wells and Zaspel, 7 (emphasis mine).

13 Carl B. Hoch, All Things New (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995), 12.

14 Adams (emphasis mine).

15 Tom Wells, The Priority of Jesus Christ (Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 2005), 81.

16 Steve Lehrer, New Covenant Theology: Questions Answered (n.p.: Steve Lehrer, 2006), 170.

17 Lehrer, 175-176.

18 Lehrer, 66. See also 176.

19 The purpose of this article is not to argue for a specific position concerning the New Covenant but to evaluate the hermeneutics of New Covenant Theology.

20 Reisinger, ii.


Tim Little has served as an adjunct professor of Hebrew grammar at Faith Baptist Theological Seminary since 2004. He earned his BRE from Practical Bible College (now Davis College) and his MA and MDiv degrees from FBTS. His ThM is in progress at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. He is writing his thesis on the hermeneutics of New Covenant Theology. Tim and his wife, Angela live with their two Children in Des Moines, Iowa. They serve at Faith Baptist Church in Cambridge.

8072 reads

There are 11 Comments

James K's picture

While that is interesting, Steve Lehrer should hardly be considered a thoughtful NCT. He has gone off the deep end, IMHBAO. The review was not entirely correct and colored the issue.

For example, he states, "In this matter NCT moves in a different direction from a dispensational (or premillennial) understanding of progressive revelation."

That is incorrect. NCT does not have a set view of eschatology. To indicate NCT is antipremill is false. One of the primary pushers, Fred Zaspel, is pretrib/premill.

http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/eschatology/index.htm

NCT has much to be admired. The work that has been done to help people out of CT is tremendous.

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

placson's picture

Thank you for this very helpful article. Does SI also have an evaluation of Covenant Theology and Dispensationlism?

Charlie's picture

I've been aware of NCT since the book by Wells and Zaspel, but I can't say I've really seen much of it. I'd like to know more about its extent and level of influence. Are the any major seminaries (or non-major seminaries) actively promoting it? Are there fellowships forming around it?

I found the site newcovenanttheology.org, but it had only one post this year, an ironic call for other NCT bloggers who had stopped blogging to get back to it! There was an international database of churches, with I suppose 50-80 churches on the list.

Is there any future to this movement?

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

JobK's picture

http://www.amazon.com/Plowshares-Pruning-Hooks-Rethinking-Apocalyptic/dp...

This book was very useful to me in coming out of Pentecostalism. It is also useful for addressing some of the issues with dispensationalism. The truth is that most prophecies were not interpreted literally or fulfilled literally. This was particularly true of the Messianic prophecies, and was a key reason why the Jews of the time of Jesus Christ so misunderstood them. Because they literally interpreted the Messianic prophecies, they were expecting a political-military conqueror-ruler who would set up an earthly kingdom, not the incarnation of God who would set up a spiritual one.

"We should study the Old Testament first and read the New Testament from the perspective of the New Testament authors."

As if the Old Testament authors didn't have their perspectives. Consider the different perspectives of Chronicles versus that of Samuel-Kings. It treats the Old Testament as "more inspired" and "more reliable" and treats the New Testament in the way that the Pharisees in the time of Jesus Christ did the writings and prophets ... as valid but of secondary emphasis and importance.

"NCT is not that interested in the New Covenant."

Pardon me, but says who? The whole point of the movement is the primacy of Jesus Christ and the gospel. It treats the ministry and work of Jesus Christ as the high point of revelation and the apex of history, and everything after that to be "the last days." This is the view depicted by Hebrews, so of course opponents of this view would like to marginalize that book by claiming that it should be read from the perspective of the author only. Of course, if you believe what Hebrews says about Christ's ministry and work revealing the inadequacy of the sacrificial system and the temple, then it makes things mighty tense for the doctrine of sacrifices being resumed in a rebuilt temple during the millennium. So of course adherents to this line of thinking would have the Torah to be primary and binding and "read the Hebrews epistle from the perspective of its writer." If anything, it is the writer who does not appear interested in the new covenant, or should I say does not appear interested in the church.

The Jeremiah 31:31 "controversy" is simply insanity. First of all, it is - or at least should be - known that because of the Holy Spirit inspiration and dual authorship of the Bible, that the Holy Spirit's meaning was broader than the human prophet's knowledge or intentions. Again, consider the Messianic prophecies ... the idea that any single prophet had any idea that they were in reference to the God-man instead of another David and that His reign would be a spiritual one encompassing people from every tribe instead of a restored Old Testament Israel is folly, and again the evidence of this is how badly the Jews of the New Testament times misunderstood those prophecies, even to the point of provoking the Romans into destroying their temple and nation by following a bunch of false messiah insurrectionists. So, even if Jeremiah THOUGHT that he was speaking of Old Testament Israel and Judah, Romans and Galatians makes it abundantly clear that the "Israel and Judah" in view of Jeremiah 31:31 is spiritual Israel, those who believe in Jesus Christ. But as that is extremely inconvenient to the views of the author, again he chooses to make the Old Testament binding and final, and Romans/Galatians to be the opinions and speculations of Paul, as if Paul were some speculating Talmudic rabbi instead of an apostle inspired by God to write authoritative scripture.

The hermeneutics endorsed by this fellow would make the decision of the Pharisees and Sadducees to send Jesus Christ to the cross for blasphemy the correct one, because it would mean that Jesus Christ had no right to teach in a manner that expanded, illuminated and redefined the Torah. According to that hermeneutic, He had no authority to do so, and the people who heed His teachings and the apostolic teachings based on His teachings are in serious error. It would even mean that the decision to execute the prophets (including Jeremiah) was correct, because the prophets BEGAN the mission of enlarging the Torah that Jesus Christ finished.

This hermeneutic requires a real disconnect ... compartmentalizing the elevation of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles in one context (when the church is in view) and the diminishing of the same in another (when Israel is in view). It requires viewing the New Testament as scripture for our time - or dispensation??? - but the apocrypha for times prior (i.e. the Old Testament era) and afterwards (the millennium). A psychologist or psychiatrist might call it split personality disorder or schizophrenia, but the epistle of James - which according to this view should only be interpreted from the perspective of James himself - calls it being double minded.

Full disclosure: I do not adhere to dispensationalism, covenant theology or new covenant theology. I have examined all three and found points of disagreements with all. That said, my objections to covenant theology and dispensationalism are much more severe than they are with new covenant theology. Incidentally, I should state that I cannot endorse Wells as being a capable advocate of this view. Wells wants to make the entire Old Testament figurative and symbolic (which of course would facilitate such nonsense as there never having been a literal Adam and Eve, a longtime canard of theological liberals that has now been adopted by purported "evangelicals" who advance "theistic evolution."). That violates Wells' own professed hermeneutic, for Jesus Christ, the apostles and the New Testament writers most certainly generally - if not always - interpreted the Old Testament literally/naturally.

The key is knowing when to use a literal interpretation and a figurative/symbolic/spiritual one when dealing with the Old Testament texts, and it happens (obviously) that the best, most reliable and consistent way of solving this puzzle is using the New Testament as an interpretative guide, a map or blueprint, to the Old Testament (again, starting with the epistle to the Hebrews). And as the New Testament most certainly uses the Old Testament as its foundation, going figurative/symbolic with the Old Testament makes the New Testament unreliable (including for the purpose of understanding the Old) and makes the Bible entirely subjective with its meaning determined by the reader. (Which is just as bad as the writer of this piece's attempting to claim that the New Testament's meaning and application should be limited to the intent of the author of each individual New Testament book. The idea that the New Testament books and the Old Testament books had the same co-author ... never mind.)

Reading items such as this now lets me know why so many Christians are going about claiming that so many other Christians are anti-Semites with the blood of Jews who died in the Holocaust on their hands for believing in replacement theology. The dispensationalists who write for the "Christian edition" of the Jerusalem Post can be reliably counted on for two things: to tar fellow Christians as Goebbels, and to fail to actually get around to proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ. I suppose they haven't read "Plowshares And Pruning Hooks" yet, or didn't think much of it when they did.

Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura
http://healtheland.wordpress.com

timlittle00's picture

James K wrote:
While that is interesting, Steve Lehrer should hardly be considered a thoughtful NCT. He has gone off the deep end, IMHBAO. The review was not entirely correct and colored the issue.

For example, he states, "In this matter NCT moves in a different direction from a dispensational (or premillennial) understanding of progressive revelation."

That is incorrect. NCT does not have a set view of eschatology. To indicate NCT is antipremill is false. One of the primary pushers, Fred Zaspel, is pretrib/premill.

http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/eschatology/index.htm

NCT has much to be admired. The work that has been done to help people out of CT is tremendous.

You are correct, NCT does not have a set view of eschatology but their hermeneutic has led the majority of their followers to an amil eschatology. I should have been a little more clear in that quote. Carl Hoch would also not subscribe to an amil eschatology. Nevertheless, the hermeneutic it advocates comes out of Reformed theology and usually leads to an amil eschatology.

Thanks for your input.

timlittle00's picture

Charlie wrote:
I've been aware of NCT since the book by Wells and Zaspel, but I can't say I've really seen much of it. I'd like to know more about its extent and level of influence. Are the any major seminaries (or non-major seminaries) actively promoting it? Are there fellowships forming around it?

I found the site newcovenanttheology.org, but it had only one post this year, an ironic call for other NCT bloggers who had stopped blogging to get back to it! There was an international database of churches, with I suppose 50-80 churches on the list.

Is there any future to this movement?

I expect the movement to grow. It is very distinct from Covenant/Dispensational theology. They are essentially Reformed Baptists. I have a Reformed Baptist friend and was talking to him about NCT and he was very interested in the movement because of the similarities. John Reisinger appeals to Southern Baptists specifically in his book "In Defense of the Decalogue."

There is also the Providence Theological Seminary which promotes the movement. While it is rather new and small, they are actively teaching.

One of the problems is many of their resources appear on blogs which are usually only up temporarily for whatever reason. Michael Adams had a blog luvbrokthru (?) but it is now offline. Adams is also quoted in the wikipedia article on NCT, but that site is now down as well.

These are some of the issues with the movement. Nevertheless, I would be surprised to see the movement disappear.

timlittle00's picture

JobK wrote:
http://www.amazon.com/Plowshares-Pruning-Hooks-Rethinking-Apocalyptic/dp...

"We should study the Old Testament first and read the New Testament from the perspective of the New Testament authors."

As if the Old Testament authors didn't have their perspectives. Consider the different perspectives of Chronicles versus that of Samuel-Kings. It treats the Old Testament as "more inspired" and "more reliable" and treats the New Testament in the way that the Pharisees in the time of Jesus Christ did the writings and prophets ... as valid but of secondary emphasis and importance.

"NCT is not that interested in the New Covenant."

Pardon me, but says who?

There was a lot written here . . . let us discuss 2 points.

I am not saying the OT is "more inspired" or "more reliable." I am saying NCT's hermeneutic treats the New Testament as "more inspired" and "more reliable." The New Testament authors were experts in the Old Testament. They were writing from that perspective, NT believers are not reading the NT from that perspective and as a result they are imposing NT beliefs on the OT. I believe this is the error of NCT.

Concerning my statement above, John Reisinger states that Jer. 31 is not a key text for the movement in his book "In Defense of Jesus, the New Lawgiver" on pg 55ff. I believe Michael Adams made a similar statement on his blog which is no longer available when he was responding the Master's Seminary articles which were written in 2007. I believe many think of only the New Covenant when the movement is mentioned because of the name. In reality, the movement is defined by much more than one's understanding of the New Covenant and I believe that is why their proponents made such statements.

I am sorry but D. Brent Sandy's book "Plowshares & Pruning Hooks" is a terrible resource for addressing "issues in dispensationalism." He really commits a straw man logical fallacy. While "literal interpretation" has been variously defined, dispensationalists do recognize the use of the figurative and symbolic. Charles Ryrie clearly writes, "Symbols, figures of speech, and types are all interpreted plainly in this method, and they are in no way contrary to literal interpretation" (Dispensationalism Revised edition, 81).

James K's picture

Thanks for the response Tim. You are correct about the reformed baptist thought. The NCT seems to be an exegetical attempt to understand theology. Much of what they hold to though is part of the stale theology of CT.

If they were consistent, I believe they would reject the supersessionism that most of them have just always known.

Carl Hoch is a progressive dispensationalist if I remember correctly. There is alot in common between NCT and PD. That is a good thing IMHBAO.

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

Joel Shaffer's picture

Quote:
Carl Hoch is a progressive dispensationalist if I remember correctly.

One of my favorite profs in seminary. And yes, he was a progressive dispy.......

Charlie's picture

timlittle00 wrote:

I expect the movement to grow. It is very distinct from Covenant/Dispensational theology. They are essentially Reformed Baptists. I have a Reformed Baptist friend and was talking to him about NCT and he was very interested in the movement because of the similarities. John Reisinger appeals to Southern Baptists specifically in his book "In Defense of the Decalogue."

There is also the Providence Theological Seminary which promotes the movement. While it is rather new and small, they are actively teaching.

One of the problems is many of their resources appear on blogs which are usually only up temporarily for whatever reason. Michael Adams had a blog luvbrokthru (?) but it is now offline. Adams is also quoted in the wikipedia article on NCT, but that site is now down as well.

These are some of the issues with the movement. Nevertheless, I would be surprised to see the movement disappear.

From where do the NCT people draw the bulk of their constituency? I noticed that Zaspel went to BJU and Denver Baptist, traditionally dispensational and not very Calvinist schools. It seems that he, at least, moved toward Reformed positions but stopped short of fully Reformed theology. John Reisinger, too, wasn't Reformed when he began pastoring, but came under Reformed influences later. I haven't been able to find bio on some of the other proponents. Are most of the NCT men, then, first-generation "Reformed" Baptists from generally non-Reformed backgrounds? Or, are they successfully drawing proponents from more traditionally Reformed backgrounds?

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

jkrygier's picture

Most of the NCT folk, of which I am one, are Baptists, not associating titularly with the Reformed Baptists particularly over the issues of strict Sabbatarianism and Covenantal Theology. Yes, some key NCT'ers were 1st generation Reformed Baptists and many were 2nd generation. A few have come from Presbyterial background. There is no single Millennial position. Academia has encouraged the work of NCT at the grass roots from the pulpit , particularly Kirk Wellum from SBTS at the 2009 Bunyan Conference. This conference has been around for more than 20 years and has been a gathering place for many NCT advocates to exchange ideas. NCT has teachers worldwide, including Australia, Philippines, England, Ireland, Romania to mention a few.
Here are some links to current papers, mini-conferences, blogs and so on regarding NCT.
[url ]http://www.earthstovesociety.com
[url ]http://christmycovenant.com/
[url ]http://www.solochristo.com/eTreasure/blog.html
http://www.breusswane.blogspot.com/ Vossed World
http://fbceny.org/blog/ Contemplating Christ Our Covenant
[url ]http://fbceny.org/NewCovenantBaptistFellowshipEvansNY/Conferences/Confer...

Help keep SI’s server humming. A few bucks makes a difference.