Introduction
Can churches that embrace New Covenant Theology or Progressive Covenantalism honestly subscribe to the 1689 London Baptist Confession? This question touches the heart of how we understand God’s covenantal dealings throughout redemptive history. While these newer theological movements share much common ground with Reformed Baptist theology, particularly in their view of the covenants and God’s progressive revelation, significant differences emerge around the law of God and the covenant of works. Pastor Cam Porter, Dr. Sam Renihan, and Pastor Jim Butler carefully navigate these complex theological waters, offering clarity for churches wrestling with confessional subscription while maintaining charitable dialogue with brothers who hold different covenantal perspectives.
Got a question on Christianity, Gospel, Scripture, Theology? Submit your own questions here.
Transcript
SUMMARY KEYWORDS Covenant Theology, New Covenant Theology, Progressive Covenantalism, 1689 Confession, paedo-baptism, covenant of grace, old covenant, new covenant, redemptive history, kingdom through covenant, dispensationalism, ethical teaching, covenant of works, law of God, federalism.
SPEAKERS Dr Samuel Renihan, Pastor Cam Porter, Pastor Jim Butler
Defining the Question
Pastor Cam Porter 00:00
Steve, okay, here we go. So this next question has to do with Covenant Theology, our approach to the covenants and redemptive history. The question is, are New Covenant Theology and progressive covenantalism compatible with the 1689?
Just to elaborate on that question a little bit, can you explain the difference between Covenant Theology, New Covenant Theology and progressive covenantalism? And then a follow up question is, can an individual church that holds to either one of the later two positions also subscribe to the 1689 in good conscience?
Understanding the Complexity
Dr Samuel Renihan 00:52
This is a difficult question to answer, simply because these titles are very broad and they represent each title, each name, represents a spectrum of views within itself. So please understand that we are generalizing, and generalizations are generally true and generally untrue.
So it would be easy, I think it’d be fairly easy for someone to poke holes in the things that I say or show exceptions, but I’m assuming there are exceptions in the way that I’m going to generalize, and I just ask people to take that into account.
Covenant Theology Defined
So let’s start with the first term, Covenant Theology. I mean, generally speaking, that’s going to be anyone that sees the covenants as being the major markers of how God has progressively unfolded his purpose of salvation and Revelation and history and scripture. You know that the covenants are his progressive dealing with man to ultimately save the elect, through Jesus Christ.
And in that sense, Covenant Theology would include progressive covenantalism. It would include New Covenant Theology. But the term more narrowly, usually refers to reformed Covenant Theology, or Covenant Theology that also is accompanied by the practice of paedo baptism, or Covenant Theology that tends to look to see one covenant of salvation or one covenant of grace in history that appears in two time periods.
You have the covenant of grace prior to Christ, the old covenant and the covenant of grace after Christ, the New Covenant. But the old and new covenants are the same covenant of grace. They just have different outward forms or different administrations. And so when people talk about Covenant Theology, that’s usually what they mean. That view of one covenant of grace two outward forms, or two outward administrations.
And in simple terms, why infant baptism usually goes with that is that you would say in the old administration, the children received the sign, which was circumcision, and in the new administration, the children received the parallel sign, or the replacement sign, which is baptism. And it seems to have a lot of correspondence and so on.
So that would be reformed Covenant Theology, that would be a dominant view among reformers. And yet there would be quite a lot of diversity, the closer that you look at that, but paedo, Baptist, reformed, Covenant Theology is usually what people mean when they say Covenant Theology.
Historical Context Often Overlooked
And going back in history, you’ll find I just mentioned there’s diversity. There is such a diversity that there are completely other groups that often get left out in these kinds of questions. If you chart this as Covenant Theology, progressive covenantalism and New Covenant Theology were completely missing that in the time of the Westminster Confession, there were those such as the particular Baptists, who were very covenantal in their theology, but they strongly disagreed with that model that I just mentioned earlier, that the old and new covenants are the same covenant.
They believe that the Old Covenant was a different covenant than the new, and that the covenant of grace had been made known and was active in blessing God’s people with salvation in the Old Testament, but it was not the same as the covenant that God made with Abraham or the covenant that God made with Israel through Moses. So there’s so many different views that I don’t want to leave them out either, but moving back to the question itself.
Progressive Covenantalism as Middle Way
Progressive covenantalism. If you read kingdom through covenant, the main book that represents that view by Gentry and Wellum, they see themselves as a middle way. They see themselves as a middle way between Covenant Theology in that broad definition that I already gave, paedo Baptist reformed one covenant of grace two administrations between that and dispensationalism on the other side all this discontinuity, separate destinies for Israel and the Church.
Progressive covenantalism sees themselves as affirming the continuity of salvation and revelation in history with Covenant Theology, but also affirming, I don’t necessarily want to say with dispensationalists, but agreeing with critiques of Covenant Theology that Israel and the church are too closely identified. The covenants are not sufficiently distinguished by Covenant Theology, and so they affirm that unity and continuity of salvation and revelation, but they also affirm greater nuance and distinction with regard to the covenants. So they see themselves as a middle way.
New Covenant Theology Characteristics
New Covenant Theology. I’m the least prepared to describe because it’s the group whose literature I have engaged the least, but I believe that it would be characterized in many cases by things like progressive covenantalism, but to a greater extreme, especially with regard to the covenant of works with Adam in Eden as denying the covenant of works.
Progressive covenantalism has concerns about the terms that are used and has some differences, but they affirm completely that God made a covenant with Adam, and that our Fall is a result of that covenant being broken and so on. They don’t use the terminology covenant of works, but New Covenant theologians, it’s my understanding, many of them, or some of them, deny completely the covenant of works.
And progressive covenantalists do not believe that the 10 Commandments oblige us today as the 10 Commandments as the law given to Israel, but they affirm the ethical, the moral teaching of those commands that comes to us, whereas New Covenant Theology, I think, is even more extreme, perhaps at least, about the ways in which they reject the 10 Commandments coming to the church today.
Understanding the Historical Development
So I can’t speak with much experience or knowledge about New Covenant Theology, but it’s my understanding that they would kind of take some of the differences of progressive covenantalism, but to a greater extreme. But even that sounds like progressive covenantalism was first and then it was taken to a greater extreme by New Covenant Theology, when it’s actually the other way around.
It’s actually the other way around. New Covenant Theology was already in play, and had been for some time before progressive covenantalism came around in 2012 I think it was when Kingdom Through Covenant was published, and the authors of Kingdom Through Covenant, Gentry and Wellum, have stated themselves that they do not want to call themselves New Covenant theologians, although they have sympathies with some of the concerns of New Covenant Theology and they overlap with them to some degree, but they see themselves as swinging a bit closer to Covenant Theology than New Covenant Theology.
So would you say that those are – are you familiar with New Covenant Theology? Would you say? How would you characterize it, or are there more things that are distinctive about them?
It’s a somewhat nebulous group, not because they have nothing to say, but because what really identifies them? Kingdom Through Covenant has given a very identifiable identity. It’s a little redundant, but it’s given a published sort of core belief for progressive covenantalism, and that’s worked in their favor, not that, if you’re a progressive covenantalist, you agree with every page of that book. It’s a really big book, but it’s identifiable.
Whereas, if someone asks you, what are sort of like, the confessional or core documents that identify New Covenant Theology. Maybe I’m just ignorant of them, but I think it’s been a less definable theology, a less definable movement, which I don’t mean as a criticism. It’s just the nature of the thing.
Pastor Butler on New Covenant Theology
Pastor Jim Butler 08:53
I think, though, that it did start off as trying to be a mediating position between traditional Covenant Theology and dispensationalism. Same sort of intention, same sort of end in view. But yeah, I think in my reading, I haven’t seen it as clearly articulated.
And I think pastor Barcellos makes that observation in Defense of the Decalogue. He’s basically arguing against it and saying it is somewhat tough to nail it down, because there hasn’t been a systematic presentation of it where I think that the Wellum and Gentry book does that for progressive covenantalism.
Compatibility with the 1689 Confession
Dr Samuel Renihan 09:30
And it’s always difficult when someone defines themselves negatively. We are not that. But what are you? And so progressive covenantalism has given the positive, this is what we believe. And so it’s much easier to speak about them.
The last part of the question is, are New Covenant Theology and progressive covenantalism compatible with 1689 confessionalism? And with regard to progressive covenantalism, the main thesis and teaching, like their view of redemptive history and so on, is largely very compatible with 1689 reform Baptist theology, or what, or 1689 federalism, you know, if we want to use that term and bring that into discussion.
You know what the way they see God working through the covenants and many, many things about the covenants. We should thank them for their work. There’s a lot to be gleaned from them, and there’s a lot of similarities. Yes, I have criticisms about the way that they deal with the covenant with Adam and other things, but by and large, their view of redemptive history, God’s purposes, plans and the covenants, is very, very close.
But the 1689 confession doesn’t get very specific about those things. So if that’s where we’re looking, it would be pretty compatible with the 1689.
Areas of Serious Disagreement
But in other areas, it becomes less compatible, and even pushes it to a breaking point, I believe. Chapter 19, chapter 19 of the law of God would be the main one. The covenant of works issues would be there. But the most would be the law of God, and especially with regard to the fourth commandment, that’s really where we’re going to have a serious disagreement.
And you would have to take more than just an exception to the confession at that point, I think you just would not be able to confess chapter 19, or much of it, with regard to that. And New Covenant Theology, all the more as I understand it.
So could a PC, progressive covenantal church subscribe to the 1689? Probably not fully, probably not with full subscription. But they’re very close in many ways, at least that’s my understanding. And I’ve read Kingdom Through Covenant. I’ve engaged that literature, so I feel a degree of confidence in saying those things, and they’ve been open about that, you know, they don’t hide that. That’s their view. And they don’t hold to the 1689, you know.
The Need for Charitable Dialogue
But I think they are very friendly to it, and we need to be careful about the way we speak about them, because if they don’t want to use the terms covenant of works or covenant of grace, we shouldn’t necessarily assume they reject all that those terms mean or such things.
I know that for I believe it’s Dr Gentry, no, Steven Wellum has expressed frustration at times, on his part, that people assume you don’t use the term covenant of grace, so you reject the covenant of grace. And he’s saying, No, you know that’s not true. And so I personally, I’m speaking for myself. I wish that progressive covenantalism used more of the traditional terms, spoke the language a bit more, be easier to see where the agreements and disagreements are, but they said what they wanted to say in the words they wanted to say it, and we need to read them and be charitable. So,
Pastor Cam Porter 13:09
Yeah, terrific. Thank you, brothers.
Want more theological Q&A?
Explore the full Ask FGBC archive: https://www.freegrace.ca/ask
Got a question on Christianity, Gospel, Scripture, Theology? Submit your own questions here.
