By Randal Seiver

Preface

People often ask me to define the differences between the message that I preach and that of other sovereign grace believers. Sometimes they say, "We can sense that there is a difference in your preaching, but we aren't sure what it is." Sometimes people want to know where we "fit in" among those who love the truths of God's sovereignty in salvation and providence. One of our purposes in this booklet is to provide a brief answer to these questions.

Some of us have begun to believe that it is not necessary to be a classic Dispensationalist or a classic Covenant theologian. Though there are strong points in both these positions, we believe that both systems are in error since they draw logical conclusions based on faulty presuppositions.

We do not adhere to the tenets of Covenant Theology in the classic Reformed sense. Yet, we do not accept all the conclusions of historic Dispensationalism. We do not accept the idea that believers today are under the old covenant, written on tables of stone at Mt. Sinai. Yet, we reject the Antinomian notion that believers are without law altogether. Is there a name that accurately reflects the position that we hold? Should we call ourselves "Reformed Baptists"-- a seeming contradiction in terms--even though we differ in many of our emphasis from those who use that title? If we are not Reformed Baptists, then what are we?

Though we continue to search for an accurate label, we are able to define, at least in a preliminary way, the distinctives of our position. For the lack of a more suitable designation, we will call this position "New Covenant Theology." This term is intended to call attention to our emphasis on the believer's present enjoyment of new covenant blessings. It also highlights our insistence that the new covenant really is a new and better covenant that replaces the old covenant.

New Covenant Theology differs from both historic Covenant Theology and historic Dispensationalism in regard to the new covenant. Covenant Theology has viewed the new covenant as merely a new administration of an overarching "covenant of grace." Dispensationalism, on the other hand, has usually argued that the new covenant was a covenant God promised to the nation of Israel and that He will fulfill it in the future for that nation alone.¹ It may have application (sometimes regarded as "partial fulfillment") to the Church, but its primary fulfillment is to ethnic Israel in the future.

We contend that the cross (the redemptive work of Christ) is the watershed event of redemptive history and is, therefore, the heart of New Covenant Theology. It is my purpose in this booklet to define, more fully, the distinctives of this position and explain its practical effects on the Church's preaching, practice and praise.

This, like every other theological system, will require additional refinement. For that reason, the reader should view this work, not as the last word, but merely as a starting point for further discussion.

1 The proponents of the Dispensational view have differed widely on this issue. J. Dwight Pentecost has identified the three main Dispensational views as follows: 1. J.N Darby's view that there is only one new covenant that is to be fulfilled exclusively for Israel in the future. It has no application to the Church at all; 2. C.I. Scofield's view that there is only one new covenant, but that it has a dual application; one to Israel in the future and one to the Church in the present; and 3. The view of Chafer, Walvoord, Ryrie and others, that there are two new covenants; one made with Israel and one made with the Church. J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, (Findley, OH: Durham Publishing Co., 1959), pp. 121-5.