The term new covenant theology has been applied to a movement that offers a new approach to the central question raised by systematic theology. It is a novel approach absent in any past historical formulation, even though it bears much resemblance to existing dogma. Its basic presupposition that affirms the in Christ relationship as its answer to the question posed by systematic theology is what makes it unique. It is a most basic answer to the question of how God relates to men, in that it says men are either in Christ or not in Christ. Never before has there been a system of theology that has begun with this premise. Clearly, past theological formulations have expressed this point and have, at times, placed it as a central tenant of their theology. However, as has been shown in the previous chapters’ inquiry into the roots of federalism, antinomianism, and dispensationalism, the mere existence of the in Christ relationship as a tenant of a theological system does not necessarily mean that such systems begin with that premise. What makes new covenant theology novel in its expression of the in Christ relationship is that it affirms that relationship as the most fundamental and germane answer to the pressing question of all theological inquiries. New covenant theology proposes that God relates to men in every age, in every administration, and in every historical expression, first and foremost by way of the in Christ relationship. Men are either in Christ or they are not. This is the answer new covenant theology offers for the prevailing question of systematic theology.
Like any system of theology, new covenant theology has grown up in an environment of existing and often antithetical theological thought. It has formed as a result of the struggles of many in their dissatisfaction with both federalism and dispensationalism. Its earliest struggle was with federalism, because it is first and foremost a theology that shares much of the principles of the Reformed faith. New covenant theology is a theology of grace. It gleans greatly from the same roots of federalism, and claims as its forefathers Augustine, the Reformers, and others who have championed the doctrines of grace in history. Because its earliest proponents came from Presbyterianism and the Reformed Baptist movement, its earliest expression was in contrast to federalism. Only recently has new covenant theology begun to draw away from dispensationalism, as many dispensationalists have taken up residence within its camp.
The early advocates of new covenant theology had their roots in the Reformed faith. Ecclesiastical concern has been the main antagonist that has driven men to raise questions about the existing nomenclature. Questions regarding the place of the Decalogue in the Christian life, the tension between law and grace, the so-called Sabbath of Reformed scholasticism, and the egalitarian oversight of some led to a new dialogue. They began to question whether there was a better way of expressing systematic theological thought. New covenant theology was born from these birth pangs.
New covenant theology is a mere adolescent in systematic thought. It has been housed for a great deal of time simply in the minds of a few men. Over the years it has been expressed in theological writings and conferences, and has become a prevalent phenomenon of American Christianity. Entire conferences address the issue; websites are built around its theme; books and articles are continuously being written claiming to adhere to new covenant principles, yet, to date, new covenant theology has neither been codified nor defined in a definitive way. Whether it will live or die is contingent upon its nurturing care. Whether it will ever achieve a respectable place in theological circles is also uncertain. There remains a clear pathway for new covenant theology to follow if it is to establish itself as a valid expression of orthodox Protestant thought. It must first establish its own identity; then, it must resolve questions of basic theological expression. This book is an attempt to begin that process. It presents a starting point for further discussion for those interested in honestly assessing the verity of new covenant theology. Discussion regarding new covenant theology often degenerates into a debate of Israel and the church or a question of the applicability of the Decalogue to the Christian life. When it degenerates into such a discussion, those in debate find they have no authority to affirm what new covenant theology says or does not say. New covenant theology can only be affirmed, established, and distinguished when its most elementary theological question is answered. Thus, this book seeks to provide an elementary definition for new covenant theology by addressing its fundamental presupposition. In so doing, it is necessary to show how it differs from federalism, antinomianism, and dispensationalism. Often new covenant theology is simply discounted as antinomianism or dispensationalism, even though it is neither. New covenant theology is distinct and unique. It has reached a point in history where it has become necessary for it to be defined and identified as a distinct and novel approach to systematic theology.
Lately, the concept of new covenant theology has become appealing to those questioning many of the postulations of dispensationalism. The predominance of Arminian theology in dispensationalism has left many dispensationalists vying for a place where they may express their allegiance to the doctrines of grace and, at the same time, affirm their presupposed view of ethnic Israel. Synonymous with the progressive dispensational movement has been the crossover of many dispensationalists who claim to be in allegiance with new covenant thought. Hence, the camp of new covenant theology is being filled with dispensational Calvinists and non-dispensational Calvinists alike, both seeking a definition for new covenant theology. The problem is the two groups are working from two different presuppositions. Non-dispensationalists are working from the in Christ presupposition, and the dispensationalists are working from the dispensational presupposition. The incongruity of thought is evident, and confusion arises because of the agreement both sides have with the doctrines of grace. Many dispensationalists are primarily interested in finding another option to express their understanding of God’s relationship to men, but new covenant theology cannot be their safe haven. As long as they hold to their fundamental dispensational presupposition, they cannot agree with the non-dispensational presupposition. In other words, either new covenant theology is simply another expression of dispensationalism, or it is an entity all its own. It is the premise of this book that new covenant theology is distinctly different from dispensationalism and must be kept separate. The dispensationalist must seek a place for himself within the boundaries of dispensationalism as long as he affirms the prevailing ethnic presupposition that God relates to men as Israel or not Israel. New covenant theology is not dispensationalism because it does not accept that presupposition but operates from a wholly different premise. New covenant theology is its own dogma.
The pathway to the maturation of new covenant theology, if it lives on as an expression of reformation orthodoxy, will travel the course of refinement. It has at length expressed itself in polemic fashion against the presupposition of federalism, and, lately, against that of dispensationalism. It needs now to assert itself in the positive. The next chapter will define new covenant theology from its most basic theological premise. From that point of definition, those who affirm the basic presupposition of new covenant theology will have to seek to provide answers to the peripheral questions raised in the development of systematic theology. This will be the scholastic phase of development for new covenant theology, a step resisted by many who hesitate to hedge a free theological expression into codified language. However, if a system of theology is to be a viable option for Christians, it must take this next step, much like an adolescent growing up must set himself apart as his own man.
New covenant theology need not reinvent the wheel. It simply needs to reformulate much of the good that already exists in theological dogma. This is, after all, what the Reformers did in their break from Rome. Richard Mueller writes:
The development of Protestant doctrine, therefore, in the great confessions of the mid-sixteenth century and in the orthodox or scholastic systems of the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was not a development from kerygma to dogma but rather a development consisting in the adjustment of a received body of doctrine and its systematic relations to the needs of Protestantism, in terms dictated by the teachings of the Reformers on Scripture, grace, justification, and the sacraments. [1]
A great deal of new covenant dogma can be borrowed from the existing body of Reformed thought since there is much agreement between the two. In so doing, it will glean from a broad spectrum of Protestant thought. A lot can be transferred from federal theology and the thinking of Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, and the later reformers. As it grows, new covenant theology will offer a distinct and unique view of the relationship between law and grace, between the biblical covenants, and between the matter of continuity and discontinuity. Its greatest contribution to theological thought in our day will be its emphasis upon the centrality of the in Christ relationship to all of God’s work. It will offer new insights into hermeneutics, ecclesiastical practice, and Christian liberty. Its emphasis on Christ will be its greatest identifying mark. It will address experimental religion in a way not expressed in past formulations of piety. It may even come to pass that new covenant theology will one day be set within a confessional form. Wherever it goes from here, it will succeed in offering the Christian a new and fresh perspective of the age-old question of how God relates to men. It will offer an answer to the question that has not yet been considered. Those who may hedge and say new covenant theology’s newness detracts from its credibility are reminded that federalism, dispensationalism, and antinomianism are all novel in ecclesiastical history. They are all the children of the reformation, and new covenant theology presents itself as perhaps a third-generation child of Protestant systematic theology. It offers its contributions to Protestant dogma as a next step in the continuing reformation of the church.
Where then is new covenant theology today? It is not found in a single confession or creed. It is not exclusively contained within a particular denomination. It is not allied with a theological institution. It is spoken of in various theological conferences and discussions and has its early expression in the few sparse writings of men. It has been suggested that new covenant theology is a derivative of John Bunyan’s treatise on law and grace. It has also been suggested that new covenant theology strongly agrees with the London Baptist Confession of 1649. New covenant theology is clearly Baptist theology, but it is not Anabaptist or Reformed Baptist theology. Again, what makes it unique is not the fact that it is Baptistic, Reformed, or congregational in practice; it is unique because of its prevailing presupposition. Agreement can be found between new covenant theology and practically every expression of Reformation Protestantism. Most recently new covenant theology has been expressed in two books written by John G. Reisinger, entitled Tablets of Stone and Abraham’s Four Seeds. A biblical view of the principles of new covenant theology is therein contained. To date, anyone wanting to study new covenant theology is limited in resources. That is changing, however, as many are beginning to express the thought of new covenant theology. It remains in the minds and hearts of many seeking a viable alternative to the existing expressions of theological thought.
[1] Richard Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 1, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House), 15.