By Mike Adams, Bill Knaub, Geoff Volker, and Steve Lehrer
Originally posted on In Depth Bible Studies
Statement on offsite articles

This page contains the In-Depth Studies response to the essay by David Wendt entitled, The Problem with Radical Discontinuity . We suggest that you read David's essay in order to more fully understand the context of our reply.

David Wendt’s essay can be reviewed on-line at:

The Problem with Radical Discontinuity ~ Greg Welty

New Covenant Theology and the Unity of the Bible

It must be noted that In-Depth Studies differs with John Reisinger in regards to how an Old Testament believer relates to the Body of Christ and differs on how the Spirit works in the Old Testament (details of this are provided in the following In-Depth Studies reply). NCT and Dispensationalism both view a discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants but differ in many other areas. NCT is not derived from Dispensationalism nor is it a modified form of Dispensationalism (for further study, see the essay by Jon Zens An Examination of the Presuppositions of Covenant and Dispensational Theology). To assert that NCT is a "sister" of Dispensationalism is like stating that those who hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith and its infant baptism view are actually holding to a "modified form" of Roman Catholicism since Roman Catholics also perform infant baptism. Of course, this is completely false and would misrepresent each of these groups.

For those interested in pursuing further studies on New Covenant Theology, a Suggested Reading List has been provided at the end of this essay.

Continuity AND Discontinuity

David Wendt’s essay asserts that New Covenant Theology (NCT) in general affirms "a radical discontinuity between the two testaments" and that this is "contrary to the very flow of Scripture" and the historical Protestant position. Because of this "radical discontinuity", he attempts to establish that NCT has an unbiblical view of the church, salvation, sin, law, Israel and other subjects. For Wendt, it is "Covenant or Federal Theology" which affirms the continuity between the testaments and the unity of the Bible. Those who hold to NCT reject Covenant Theology as a system because it lacks biblical warrant and minimizes the newness of the New Covenant.

NCT does embrace the unity of the Bible. Since the person and work of Jesus

Christ is the focal point of God’s eternal purposes, all of Scripture is linked together by this theme (Eph. 1:9-10; Luke 24:44). Jesus is the grand theme of all Scripture. NCT takes seriously the finished work of Jesus Christ and the fact that Scripture as a whole must be viewed with this emphasis (Heb.1:1-4).

When one examines the issue of how the testaments fit together almost all groups acknowledge some continuity and discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments. While holding to the unity or continuity of all Scripture, NCT views the relationship between the Old and New Covenants as primarily discontinuity. Scripture is clear that the Old Covenant (or First Covenant) was made only with the nation of Israel at Mt. Sinai and the Ten Commandments were the terms of that Old Covenant (Ex. 34:27,28; Deut. 5:2,3). The Old Covenant was a legal covenant which promised life to all who obeyed it and threatened death for disobedience (Ex. 19:4-6; Deut. 30:15-20). Since Israel as a whole was unable to meet the requirements of the Old Covenant (Heb. 8:9), they experienced only the condemning and killing effect of this legal covenant. It is "the ministry that brought death" and "has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory" of the New Covenant (2 Cor. 3:7-11).

With the coming of Jesus Christ one must recognize the vast superiority of the New Covenant when contrasted with the Old. The Old Covenant was the time of promise with types and shadows of the coming Messiah (Heb. 10:1). Israel under the Old Covenant (Mosaic Law) were God’s people in an external and nationalist sense and stood as a type of the new covenant people of God (This is not meant to be an absolute statement. There was a believing remnant in the Old Covenant era. See "Salvation in the Old Testament" below). But with the advent of Christ believers are in the age of fulfillment (Gal. 4:4) and enjoy all the privileges of the New Covenant (Heb. 10:19-23). The New Covenant, then, is not a renewal of the Old Covenant but actually a NEW Covenant which replaces the old one. "By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear". (Heb. 8:13 NIV)

Through the redeeming work of Christ the New Covenant is a ministry of life that actually produces a believing people of God who now have the ability and desire to obey God (Heb. 8:10). Since the New Covenant only contains believers, all members of the New Covenant love God and experience the forgiveness of sins and the removal of guilt (Heb. 8:11,12). Praise be to God that "Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant"! (Heb. 7:22 NIV).

The Historical Context of New Covenant Theology

David Wendt’s essay asserts that "the belief in continuity of the Testaments is the historical Protestant position" and that belief in discontinuity is something relatively new. From Wendt’s perspective of Covenant Theology he views NCT as not yet systematized, and sees contradictions among many of the adherents of NCT.

As discussed above, NCT does embrace the continuity of the Testaments but also sees contrast between the Old and New Covenants. NCT adherents would agree with many of the tenets of the creeds that Wendt quoted in his essay, but would differ on how some of these creeds apply the Law of Moses to the New Covenant era. The London Baptist Confession of 1644 (Article XXIX) is one example of a historical Protestant creed that indicates a distinctive New Covenant emphasis:

That all believers are a holy and sanctified people, and that sanctification is a spiritual grace of the New Covenant, and effect of the love of God, manifested to the soul, whereby the believer is in truth and reality separated, both in soul and body, from all sin and dead works, through the blood of the everlasting Covenant, whereby he also presents after a heavenly and evangelical perfection, in obedience to all the commands, which Christ as Head and King in the New Covenant has prescribed to him.

In church history the Anabaptists are a group which did much to correct the Old Covenant focus held by many of the Reformers (see The Reformers and Their Stepchildren by Leonard Verduin). Although some of the Anabaptist teaching was unbiblical and extreme, they had many helpful insights regarding the doctrine of the church and rightly had a New Covenant emphasis in their teachings.

While those who hold to the NCT approach differ on some details and emphasize different aspects, the same thing is also true for those who embrace Covenant Theology or other systems of theology. New Covenant Theology is also known as the Redemptive-historical approach to Scripture. Those who hold to this view see that with the first advent of Christ we are now in the age of fulfillment. The focus in this new age or New Covenant era is on the redemption that God has accomplished in Christ. Since Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant, one must see the contrast between the Old Covenant and New Covenant eras.

Besides those mentioned in Wendt’s essay (Geoff Volker, John Reisinger, Randy Seiver, Fred Zaspel, and Jon Zens) there are many others who hold to a New Covenant Theology or Redemptive-historical approach to Scripture. Some of these would include Douglas Moo, D.A. Carson, John H. Armstrong, Gary Long, and Tom Wells. Of course, these individuals would differ to some degree on the implications of a new covenant theology. John H. Armstrong would summarize the thoughts of many that hold to some form of NCT when he states:

What troubled me most was the obvious newness of this covenant ratified with the death of Christ, called plainly the new covenant… But my desire for relating the covenants in a way that gave proper priority to the newness of the new covenant, and to the Lord Jesus Christ as the new Moses and as the mediator of a better covenant, all pushed me to study further… I do not believe this theological approach [new covenant approach] is particularly novel or so far removed from major Reformation gains exegetically that it might destroy their great value for those who are earnest students of the Word of God. (John H. Armstrong, ed., Reformation & Revival: New Covenant, 6:3, 1997, pages 11,12.)

Although we at In-Depth Studies are grateful for the teachings of many godly men in church history, the ultimate and final test for the truthfulness of New Covenant Theology is Scripture and not a particular teacher, creed or confession. Let Scripture alone be our standard for truth.

Salvation in the Old Testament

In-Depth Studies holds to the New Covenant Theology point of view that sees the nation of Israel as a picture of the people of God, but not the real thing. That is, as a whole, they were unbelievers. When we read in Scripture about the nation of Israel, we find that they were a disobedient and unbelieving people (Deut. 31:14-29; John 8:42-47; Matt. 8:5-12; 12:38-45; Rom. 10:21). The Old Covenant era was characterized by hard-heartedness and unbelief (Matt. 21:28-32; I Cor. 10:1-11), whereas the New Covenant era is characterized by a new heart and belief (Heb. 8:7-13). So, the Old Covenant nation of Israel served as a picture or type, pointing to a future fulfillment in the Church, the New Covenant people of God (Heb. 7:11-8:6). This view of ancient Israel in no way implies that every Israelite was an unbeliever. Scripture is clear that there was always a remnant of true believers within the nation (Rom. 11:1-10).

The Problem with Radical Discontinuity does not accurately reflect In-Depth Studies’ view of salvation in the Old Testament when it states that "The Church as the 'New Covenant people of God' does not include Old Testament saints". On the contrary, we believe that salvation in any era is always by grace alone, through faith alone, based on the finished work of Jesus Christ alone (Acts 4:12; Rom. 3:21-26; Rom. 4; Gal. 3:6-9; Eph. 2:4-10; Heb. 10:1-14). In this sense, we have always affirmed, and will continue to affirm, that the Old Testament believer is a part of the same Body of Christ as the New Covenant believer. Every true believer is "in Christ" (Eph. 1:3-14; 2:1-10). The only distinction that must be made here is an historical one. The Old Testament believer, while being justified by faith like any other believer, would have no real concept of a New Testament church consisting of believers, both Jew and Gentile. "These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect". (Heb.11:39, 40 NIV Emphasis added) While this is how In-Depth Studies views this issue, we also realize that other proponents of New Covenant Theology may differ with us.

What is the Church?

The Old, or Mosaic Covenant had both an historical beginning at Sinai (John 1:17; Gal. 3:17) and an historical ending (Matt. 11:13; Gal. 3:23-25; Heb. 7:12; 8:13; 10:19, 20). The Church in its present New Covenant form had an historical beginning at Pentecost. Tom Wells addresses the newness of the church in historical redemption by stating:

But was the church a new thing in history? Many have denied it, finding the church in the Old Testament all the way back to Adam. Covenant theology has often identified Israel and church, so that they could not exist sequentially. When then, did the church begin?

The evidence of the New Testament founding of the church seems ample. In the mind of the Lord Jesus as revealed in Matthew 16 the church could not have preceded His ministry. The evidence here for the newness of the church falls along two lines. First, Jesus uses a future verb in speaking of His church, "I will build My church" (16:18). In His eyes, the church appears to be yet future and this is almost certainly what He means. In view of the fact that many commentators hold that the church has existed throughout the history of fallen mankind, it is surprising how nearly unanimous they are on this point. (Tom Wells, What Is This Thing Called The New Covenant? Reformation & Revival: New Covenant, 6:3, 1997, page 28. John H. Armstrong, ed.)

The Old Testament prophets predicted a future age of the Spirit (Jer. 31:31-34; Joel 2:28-32) as did the Lord Jesus Himself (Acts 1:4-8). The Apostle Peter announced the historical beginning, of that predicted age when he said, "This is what was spoken by the prophet Joel" (Acts 2:15,16 quoting Joel 2:28-32 NIV). Prior to that day, the Holy Spirit had not been given in that way (John 7:37-39). We do believe that the Holy Spirit was active throughout the Old Testament (Num. 11:16-17; I Sam. 10:1-9, 13:14; Hebrews chapter 11).

In the scheme of redemptive history, something new started in Acts chapter 2 that didn’t exist in its present form prior to that time, which needed Peter’s explanation to those Jews who observed it. The Church, in its present New Covenant form of Jew and Gentile had its historical beginning (Eph. 2:11-22). The Apostle Paul called this union of Jew and Gentile a ‘mystery’, kept hidden from previous generations, but revealed to us through the Apostles and Prophets of the New Covenant (Eph. 3:3-6; cf. Col. 1:25-27). To the Ephesian believers, he said, "and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms." (Eph. 3:9,10 NIV Emphasis added).

We at In-Depth Studies do not hold to Covenant Theology’s view that Israel is the Church in the Old Testament. Nor do we hold to the Historic Dispensational view that the Church is a parenthesis in redemptive history while God continues His work with Old Covenant, believing Israel. We see continuity throughout Scripture of type and antitype, shadow and reality, promise and fulfillment (Heb. 11:39,40). Acts 2 inaugurated something new and different from that which preceded it. The predicted age of the Spirit had begun. Historically, we are living in that age (I Peter 2:9, 10; Heb. 8:10-13). It is the age of fulfillment of both Old Testament and Old Covenant types and shadows. It is the age of the promised Spirit, fully realized in the Church (I Cor. 10:1-13; II Cor. 3:7-18; Col. 2:13-17; Heb. 3:1-6; 10:1-18).

The Battle Over Theological Terms

It was asserted in The Problem with Radical Discontinuity that believers who hold to NCT should neither call themselves "reformed," nor should they claim to hold to the doctrine of "federalism". We believe that we can legitimately use these terms. The reason that we use this special jargon is to help us to explain and illuminate the truths of God’s word. There is nothing sacred about these words even though they carry with them ideas from a history that we cherish. But when we use these terms there is a danger of abusing language in two ways. First, we can use a term and empty it of all content so that it becomes a wax nose, which we mold to whatever shape that suits us. This is what the liberals were doing with the term "Christian" when J. Gresham Machen rightly took them to task in his book Christianity and Liberalism. The second danger is holding onto the meaning of a theological term so rigidly that no one but you and your two friends can use the term to refer to yourselves (and soon you will not be so sure about your two friends!).

In our use of the terms "reformed" and "federalism" we have tried to avoid both dangers. The word "reformed" has both a technical and a popular definition. The technical definition is "Of or pertaining to or denoting the Protestant churches that follow the teachings of Calvin and Zwingli" (The American Heritage Dictionary). The popular meaning is simply those who hold to the five points of Calvinism and who believe that salvation is only found in Christ and acquired by grace through faith alone. We are using the term in the popular sense when we refer to ourselves as "reformed".

Regarding the term "federalism," it is a term that has historically been used to refer to the fact that both Adam and Christ represented a people. We do not believe that the idea of covenant is necessarily implied in the use of the term. So when we use the term "federalism" we simply refer to representation. Romans 5 is the primary place to which one turns to examine the doctrine of federalism. In verses 12-21 the immediate imputation of Adam’s sin is contrasted with the immediate imputation of the righteousness of Christ. As much as theologians want to push the idea of covenant to the forefront in this passage, it is conspicuously absent in word as well as concept. The two concepts that stand out are immediate imputation and representation. "For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous" (Rom. 5:19 NIV). We contend that if you read this verse and understand that both Adam and Christ are necessarily "covenant heads" of their people, you are guilty of eisegesis or reading into the text. What we can legitimately glean from this text is that both Adam and Christ represented a people and their performance before God was imputed to the people they represented. It is also true that Christ is the head of the New Covenant which He has made with His people, but this is not the argument of Romans 5. In summary, we understand Romans 5 to teach that both Adam and Christ legally represented a group of people. We believe that this is a primary text for federalism and the doctrine of covenantal headship is conspicuously absent.

How to Resolve Theological Issues

The bottom line in working through issues with one another or critiquing the beliefs of other brothers (or even non-Christians) is that we must love our neighbors as ourselves. We need to strive to believe the best about our brothers. Paul says that love is not only patient and kind but that love believes all things and hopes all things (I Cor. 13). We need to go out of our way to represent our brothers accurately. We need to take time to ask every necessary question rather than making assumptions. We need to put our brother’s good above our own. This is the love to which our Lord calls us! "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another" (John 13:34, 35 NIV). As we attempt to respond to David Wendt, we earnestly desire to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). This discussion must be more than an academic pursuit. We are responsible before God to bless each other with the love of Christ. On the 12th of February we will hold an Evening of Theology to discuss the issues presented here and in David Wendt’s essay. This is an opportunity for us to be like the Bereans in searching the Scriptures, but also to be like Christ in loving our brothers - especially those who disagree with us.

Suggested Bibliography for further study of New Covenant Theology

John H. Armstrong, ed., Reformation & Revival Journal: New Covenant, 6:3, 1997, 247 pp.

Greg L. Bahnsen, Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Douglas J. Moo, Wayne G. Strickland, Willem A. Vangemeren. The Law, The Gospel, and The Modern Christian: Five Views, Zondervan, 1993, 416 pp.

D.A. Carson. Matthew. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, Zondervan, 1995, 599 pp.

J. David Gilliland. Jonathan Edwards on Biblical Hermeneutics and the "Covenant of Grace", New Covenant Media, 1998, 37 pp.

Carl B. Hoch, Jr., All Things New: The Significance of Newness For Biblical Theology, Baker, 1995, 365 pp.

Douglas J. Moo. The Epistle to the Romans, Eerdmans, 1996, 1012 pp.

John G. Reisinger. Abraham's Four Seeds: A Biblical Examination Of The Presuppositions Of Covenant Theology And Dispensationalism, New Covenant Media, 1998, 151 pp.

John G. Reisinger. But I Say Unto You ..., Crown Publications, Inc., 1989, 85 pp.

John G. Reisinger. Tablets of Stone, Crown Publications, Inc., 1989, 106 pp.

Randall O. Seiver. In These last Days, New Covenant Media, 1998, 254 pp.

Randall O. Seiver. The Cross: The Heart of New Covenant Theology, Galatians 6:11-16, Sound of Grace, 1992, 35 pp.

Randall O. Seiver. The Fullness of Time: A Biblical-Theological Study of Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, Sound of Grace, 1991, 72 pp.

Leonard Verduin. The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, The Christian Hymnary Publishers, 1991, 292 pp.

Fred G. Zaspel. New Covenant Theology and the Mosaic Law: A Theological and Exegetical Analysis of Matthew 5:17-20, Word of Life Baptist Church, 1994, 22 pp.

Fred G. Zaspel. The Theology of Fulfillment, Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1993, 39 pp. (* Contact Sound of Grace for this publication.)

Jon Zens. "An Examination of the Presuppositions of Covenant and Dispensational Theology," "As I Have Loved You": The Starting Point of Christian Obedience," Studies In Theology and Ethics:, 1981, 73 pp.

Jon Zens. "Crucial Thoughts on ‘Law’ In The New Covenant," Baptist Reformation Review, Spring 1978, pp. 7-17.

Jon Zens. Moses in the Millennium: An Appraisal of Christian Reconstructionism, Searching Together, 1988, 52 pp.

Jon Zens. "This is My Beloved Son, Hear Him!": The Foundation For New Covenant Ethics and Ecclesiology, Searching Together, Summer-Winter 1997, 97 pp.

Jon Zens. "What Is A ‘Minister’?", Searching Together, Autumn 1982, pp. 8-21.