# Progressive Covenantalism



## zsmcd (May 4, 2016)

B&H has just released this new title that may be of interest to some of you.

Progressive Covenantalism  "Charting a Mediating Position Between Dispensational and Covenantal Theologies" edited by Wellum & Parker 

This theological system has become pretty consuming at Southern Seminary as shown by many of the contributors. 

As a current member of a SBC church I have had the pleasure of meeting men who are influencing the SBC in many great ways. I am overwhelming thankful for what seems to be a serious return to fidelity to Scripture and church membership/discipline/etc. 

With all that said, in regards to the views of covenantal/redemptive history it seems that many pastors and scholars are drifting away from a classically 'reformed'/particular Baptist view of the covenants and are shifting heavily in this direction.

What are some of the benefits of this 'progressive covenantal' view and what are some of the pitfalls/dangers? How should we address these concerns? Looking for responses from Baptists and reformed folk alike.


----------



## reaganmarsh (May 4, 2016)

Hi Zack,

I had the privilege of studying under Dr. Wellum at SBTS for all of my systematic theology courses. He's an excellent teacher and a humble, godly man who deeply loves the Lord and the Scriptures. 

I still remember him, on the last day of class before finals and graduation, asking us, 'How many of you will seek to enter the pastorate?' Most of the ~200 in the room raised our hands. 'Gentlemen, submit your every thought to the scrutiny of Scripture. Let it shape your preaching, your counseling, your evangelism. Live and die on the authority and truth of the Word. God be with you all.' A sweet memory and a challenge by which I've sought to abide.

That being said, I have come to differ with him on PC. A few thoughts:

Benefits of PC:
-rigorously Christocentric
-significant focus on biblical theology as both informing and aiding exegesis
-a major emphasis on textual authority (i.e., it seeks to be demonstrably under the authority of Scripture)
-recognizes a (minimal) essential unity of the covenants, of which Christ is the final word
-thus unites Scripture as one Book, rather than varying dispensations
-allows for historic premillennial and amillennial positions (I've not yet met a postmillenial PC-er, but I'm still fairly young at 36...)
-seeks to do justice to unconditional election/doctrines of grace, and thus defends Adamic federal headship 

Weaknesses:
-an overemphasis on the diversity of the biblical covenants, which _looks_ a lot like dispensationalism
-for all its emphasis on biblical theology, I don't think it does justice to the unity of the biblical covenants; it interprets Scripture like a closet dispensationalism
-denies that there ever was a covenant of works, which undercuts its Adamic federalism schema
-declines both the existence and the theological organizing category of the covenant of grace

This might get you started!

----

Totally unrelated but funny: I served as interim minister for a small church in the booming metropolis of Pekin, IN for a while during our time at SBTS. When I completed that interim role, we joined Dr. Wellum's Sunday School class at 9th & O Baptist Church in Louisville. He and his wife Karen hosted our class for a potluck fellowship one time, and my wife (Kara) brought a dish that needed to be warmed up in the oven. When she asked Mrs. Wellum if she'd mind, Mrs. Wellum turned bright red and started laughing really hard (to the point of tears). She then opened her oven and took out a stack of dirty dishes she'd hidden there at the last minute! She instantly became Kara's favorite professor's wife, and Kara maintains contact with her to this day! 

We love to tell that story...ha! The Wellums are godly, sweet, and very funny folks, even if we differ on PC.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (May 4, 2016)

The guys at 1689federalism.com seem to think that the much of the PC concern with WCF Covenant theology would be allayed if they looked seriously at the 1689 Federalism of the English Particular Baptists in that day. There are fundamental differences with the WCF version. See especially, Pascal Denault's book on the distinctiveness of baptist covenant theology. http://www.1689federalism.com/the-distinctiveness-of-baptist-covenant-theology/


----------



## zsmcd (May 4, 2016)

reaganmarsh said:


> Benefits of PC:
> -rigorously Christocentric
> -significant focus on biblical theology as both informing and aiding exegesis
> -a major emphasis on textual authority (i.e., it seeks to be demonstrably under the authority of Scripture)
> ...



Thanks for those helpful insights and the great story!


----------



## zsmcd (May 4, 2016)

Jimmy the Greek said:


> The guys at 1689federalism.com seem to think that the much of the PC concern with WCF Covenant theology would be allayed if they looked seriously at the 1689 Federalism of the English Particular Baptists in that day. There are fundamental differences with the WCF version. See especially, Pascal Denault's book on the distinctiveness of baptist covenant theology. http://www.1689federalism.com/the-distinctiveness-of-baptist-covenant-theology/



That was my assumption, but speaking with a few PhD students studying under these PC guys, they outright deny any formulation of a CoW or CoG.


----------



## Beezer (May 4, 2016)

is Progressive Covenantalism the same as New Covenant Theology?


----------



## bookslover (May 4, 2016)

I wonder if this book builds on the case presented by the late Robert L. Saucy in his book, "The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism" published in the early 1990s?


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (May 4, 2016)

Beezer said:


> is Progressive Covenantalism the same as New Covenant Theology?



Basically, yes. From what I can tell, New Covenant Theology has matured into Progressive Covenantalism.


----------



## zsmcd (May 5, 2016)

Jimmy the Greek said:


> Beezer said:
> 
> 
> > is Progressive Covenantalism the same as New Covenant Theology?
> ...



From what I have heard, most PC guys would not identify themselves with NCT, although I am pretty sure they are pretty close in their formulations and I probably couldn't tell you the difference.


----------



## reaganmarsh (May 5, 2016)

PC is basically a different shade of NCT, as far as I've been able to determine. With Zach, most PC guys I know wouldn't identify themselves with NCT; but it seems to me that they claim a distinction without a difference. Both deny the 4th Commandment; both see the moral law as merely a guide to living. While I wouldn't go so far as to call them antinomian -- for example, there is a consistent grateful emphasis on Gal 3.24, from what I've seen -- they frame discussions of the law much like a Lutheran in terms of a very strong emphasis on law vs. gospel, old vs. new, etc. An LBC or WCF approach to the law would be considered insufficient and exegetically/theologically unsubstantiated and indefensible. "Radical newness" was a term often used in these discussions. 

As a side note, something that has been an interesting development with PC is that several of my friends who are favorable toward it have also moved away from a Calvinistic soteriology in favor of a more Molinistic approach. I'm not sure if that's to be attributed to PC (in/)directly, or if these particular brothers just had those leanings all along. Just something I've observed. 

In closing: someone who has read more of NCT/PC writings than me may say I've missed the boat entirely here, and I'm certainly open to correction if I've misread or misrepresented them; such is not my intention (9th commandment).


----------

