by Angus Harley


In the light of recent interviews of Stephen Wellum, I wanted to present yet another Progressive Covenantalism (PC) voice that repeats Wellum’s point of view on NCT. Wellum has for a while now identified solely with PC, and has explicitly rejected NCT. Even though Wellum has said these things for years now, and even though he has in very recent days said the same things again and again, quite a number in NCT continue to think of Wellum as a NCTer. To help these NCTers see that PC has given up on NCT, I will now quote comments by two other prominent PCers: Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas. There are only two quotes that I could find in their book, and I have placed one after the other in full.

BOTH QUOTES

“There have been other options presented as alternatives to the systems chosen in this book. However, for various reasons they were not deemed to have broad enough appeal in wider evangelicalism for representation in the current project. Below are overviews of Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology and new covenant Theology, two views that occupy the middle space between the traditional covenant and dispensational views but positions that we think have not cultivated the status as serious contenders as progressive covenantalism has.”

“New covenant theology. New Covenant Theology (NCT) is the name given to a view that has developed as a grass roots movement through self-publishing houses, small pastor’ and church conferences, websites, and podcasts over the last thirty to forty years. In general, NCT fits theologically somewhere between covenant theology and dispensationalism, and depending on the representative of NCT, it can be considered fairly similar to either progressive covenantalism or progressive dispensationalism. Like progressive covenantalism, NCT explicity argues for credobaptism. As a theological system, NCT is very difficult to define since it lacks definitive scholarly representation and, with the diversity of advocates, it is clearly not monolithic. NCT rejects the superstructure of covenant theology, namely the covenant of works/grace framework, but it also departs from dispensationalism in asserting the hermeneutical priority of the NT over the OT. Some in the NCT movement reject the covenant of redemption (though affirming one eternal plan of redemption), the covenant of creation in Genesis 1-3, the gracious nature of the Mosaic Covenant, and the imputation of Christ’s active obedience, four points that progressive covenantalism affirms. Despite the efforts of some NCT has remained primarily on the nature of the law and its fulfillment in Christ, rejecting the tripartite distinction of the law, and has not developed a full-orbed theological system.”1 [emphasis theirs]

THEIR EVALUATION

As PCers, both men do not accept NCT as their theological model, and both clearly and definitively distinguish it from PC. In fact, the most that they concede is that theology of some NCTers is “fairly similar” to PC. Not “similar”, mind you, only “fairly similar”. The writers underscore the general nature of the similarity by saying in the same breath that NCT is “fairly similar” to Progressive Dispensationalism (PD), also. It just depends which NCTer is in mind, apparently.

The nature of PC’s rejection of NCT is over four differences in theology. NCTers reject: “the covenant of redemption…the covenant of creation…the gracious nature of the Mosaic Covenant, and the imputation of Christ’s active obedience”.

However, the distance between both groups is greater still because NCT is a local assembly, grassroots, body, with no proper academic voice, for “it lacks definitive scholarly representation”. Whereas, PC has a broad appeal to Evangelicalism in general, and has, by implication, proper scholarly representation. Unlike NCT, PC is, by implication, one of the “serious contenders” of Evangelicalism.

Furthermore, NCT has limited itself to mainly the same doctrinal themes: “the nature of the law and its fulfillment in Christ, rejecting the tripartite distinction of the law”. As a consequence, NCT “has not developed a full-orbed theological system.”

NCT also rejects Covenant Theology’s (CT) covenantal superstructure, and it goes beyond Dispensational Theology (DT) by the view that the NT has “hermeneutical priority over the OT.”

SOME COMMENTS ON THEIR EVALUATION

All my comments below are limited to what Lucas and Parker say above.

I think their evaluation of NCT is accurate on the whole, for NCT is not a scholarly movement, but grassroots, and it does not have a fully-formed theological stance. Nor is it a ‘player’ in Evangelicalism. The four theological areas of distinction are also accurate (although some NCTers will not accept some of the four concepts that were mentioned). Moreover, NCT does reject CT’s model of a covenantal superstructure, and also promotes the primacy of the NT interpretively speaking. Moreover, a few in NCT have an affinity of sorts for an interpretation accommodating Premillennialism into NCT. Also, NCT is credobaptist. Finally, NCT does in general limit its focus to a few doctrines.

Both men are to be ‘commended’, loosely speaking, that they have declared themselves as being PC only and have a totally different model to NCT. The only point of agreement between PC and NCT that is explicitly stated is credobaptism. No other doctrine is mentioned. 

I would say, however, that the premillennial/dispensation element is on the decrease in NCT, and that by far and away the dominant eschatological hermeneutic is Amillennial. 

It is apparent that Lucas and Parker consider that the academic path is the way to go. NCT will be irrelevant until it is academically viable. Nor as an ecclessiological model does NCT hit the mark, they say. Added to this that NCT concentrates on limited doctrines.

From the above it is patently obvious that not only do Lucas and Parker consider NCT to be failing in all the ‘important’ categories, but both scholars go out of their way to put the biggest distance possible between them and NCT, for the only point of concurrence is credobaptism.

For PC, the future looks like this: it will labor hard to mark itself out as a top scholarly ‘player’ worthy of all academic plaudits. It will do so by deliberately stressing its covenant-theology hermeneutic, as only it will make them academically and ecclessiologically newsworthy. It will continue to ignore NCT, and will continue to consider it an irrelevance. Any doctrines or aspects that PC actually has in common with NCT will not be noted in that context, except to grudgingly concede marginal doctrinal overlap here and there.

Why any NCTer would wish to defend PC as a form of NCT is beyond me: not only does PC openly identify as PC only, it rejects NCT; more to the point, PC goes out of its way to dissociate from NCT because it is, essentially, the untouchable caste and PC is the brahmin caste. As to some NCTers, I am reminded of the apostle Paul’s logic to the Corinthians: when he was a child, he thought and spoke as one; but now as a man, he thinks and speaks as a man. The era of the child is over for NCT: it is no longer a broad-umbrella group. It is time for many NCTers to put on the mind of the man to see that NCT is its own system, distinct to PC, and that PC has cast off NCT.

1Brent E. Parker, Richard I. Lucas, “Introduction to Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuuity of Scripture,” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture, eds. Brent E. Parker, Richard I. Lucas (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2021): Kindle.