The Beginning
Theological dogma has, since the 16th century, clearly taken its place in Protestantism thought. John Murray notes, “The reformation of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is without question the most notable. It was then that the opus magnum of Christian theology was given to the church […]. It was the golden age of precision and formulation.” [1] Since then the church of the Reformation has labored to express itself in a most definitive manner. It has done so by way of confessional practice, and it has done so through the expression of systematic theology. Systematic theology is the theology of presuppositions. John Murray writes, “The task of systematic theology is to set forth in orderly and coherent manner the truth respecting God and his relations to men and the world.” [2] This is the basic presupposition of this very book. Theology is a discussion of presuppositions seeking to answer this most pressing theological question. Federalism is a system of theology, as is dispensationalism and antinomianism. In this book new covenant theology has been set forth as a viable option for consideration within the discipline of systematic theology. One might question this approach and argue that the methodology of biblical theology is more apropos to the discussion at hand. Some may even be inclined to designate new covenant theology as a biblical theology rather than a theological dogma. This however is not the case. Systematic theology is presupposed in any biblical theology. In other words, new covenant theology’s systematic expression affirms its biblical theological method, the same with federalism and dispensationalism. The approach in this book has been to start at the most germane point in theological discussion.
Theology in its Present Form
Systematic theology is an integral part of Christianity. That integration, though, in the passage of time has given way to theological sloth. Many hold to a system of theology and yet can offer little by way of explanation for what they believe. John Murray writes, “When any generation is content to rely upon its theological heritage and refuses to explore for itself the riches of divine revelation, then declension is already under way and heterodoxy will be the lot of the succeeding generation.” [3] Within the various systems of theology present today there continues to be necessary development, formulation, and definition. History has a way of inscribing dogma within the consciences of men as infallible as scripture itself and this must be avoided. Thus it is imperative that theologians continually question, examine, and affirm what they hold as truth. Many in our day affirm a system of theology and would perhaps die to defend it, having never truly understood it or weighed its conclusions against the greater rule of faith, God’s word. Are the present theological dogmas the only options available? Have we come to a place where we can honestly say that dogma must be either federalism or dispensationalism, that one of the two must be right, or is there room within the discussion of systematic theology for new options? New covenant theology presents itself as one viable option for consideration. As it seeks to assert itself, it will naturally continue to isolate itself. In our day there is an immediate revulsion toward the notion that theological labels, distinctive, and separation are necessary. Yet such distinction is necessary. New covenant theology is a novel approach to the age-old question asked by systematic theology.
The Future
The extreme importance of continued interaction with the basic thesis of this book is evident. Until new covenant theology has an identity all its own, it will continue to be associated with what already exists and will be in danger of being consumed by the existing theological systems. If new covenant theology is an expression of an existing system of theology, then there is no need to discuss it, and it should take up its place within the prescribed norms. If it is not, then it needs to set itself apart. New covenant theology is set forth as a novel approach to understanding the nature in which God relates to men. It has peculiar answers to the most pressing theological questions of our day. It is an attractive system due to its unique view of redemptive progress. The next step in the maturation of new covenant theology must come in the way of further refinement. Working from this basic presupposition, new covenant theology needs to set forth its view of law and grace, continuity and discontinuity, and Israel and the church. It must develop its hermeneutic and deal with specific portions of scripture to demonstrate its interpretive process. Though confessional formulation appears, in our day, to be a practice of the past, new covenant theology eventually must develop a confessional statement of its own. Dispensationalism, which has never been by way of confession codified, has suffered greatly due to its failure in this stead. It has been common and unintelligent and has had to defend its scholarship in the past half-century. Historically, doctrinal formulation led to scholastic matriculation, which in turn led to confessional status. This text is being set forth as the beginning of the formulation of new covenant theology as a viable dogma and due scholarly attention. Federalism, dispensationalism, and antinomianism have established their place in systematic thought. Now, new covenant theology presents its own answer to the most pertinent theological question. Will it be heard?
[1] John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray: 4 Studies in Theology, 4, (Carlisle: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1982), 7.
[2] Ibid., 1.
[3] Ibid., 8.