PC/NCT at SBTS

[zsmcd]

This question is particularly posed to Southern Baptists.

While the Abstract of Principles does not explicitly refer to the Lord's Day as being the New Testament Sabbath, the choice of words does explicitly say that rest from employment is required.

"The Lord’s Day is a Christian institution for regular observance, and should be employed in exercises of worship and spiritual devotion, both public and private, resting from worldly employments and amusements, works of necessity and mercy only excepted."
​

To the best of my knowledge, Progressive Covenantalism/New Covenant Theology proponents such as those at the Southern Baptist Seminary (Stephen Wellum, Peter Gentry, etc.), teach that the Lord's Day requires no such rest and is entirely distinctive from the OT Sabbath, which is entirely done away with, they say, in the New Testament. An example can be found in Wellum's chapter on the subject in the new book on PC.

So this is my question: given that all faculty at SBTS are required to uphold the Abstract of Principles, and to not teach otherwise, why are these men permitted to teach against this explicit part of its contents?

I am asking because most of the men that I know coming out of Southern, as well as many alumni from the past, are moving away from the classic Reformed Baptist understanding of Covenant Theology, the Sabbath, God's Law, etc. and are moving closer and closer to this new understanding of the NT believers use of the OT.

 

[Timotheos]

Here is my take on the issue.

I wouldn't say that SBTS and other SBC seminaries (mine was SEBTS) are "moving away from the classic Reformed Baptist understanding of Covenant Theology, the Sabbath, God's Law" so much as they have left it well behind. Thus there is a resurgence among the more confessional reformed Baptist to recapture the Baptist Covenant Theology that has been long lost. Those in the Renihan camp are doing this well. A further example would be their book entitled Recovering as Covenantal Heritage indicating that it has gone and needs to be re-discovered. Many other books have been published recently to help RBs understand CT w/out relying upon those in the WCF camp to teach it to us (we love you guys, though).

Concerning the AoP and the faculty at SBTS (and SEBTS who also adhere to the AoP), I'm not sure exactly. As theological systems develop, this may be an example of a secondary or tertiary issue in the eyes of the faculty that allows room for leniency. This is only conjecture. Since the AoP has for its ancestor the 2LBC, it is understandable that it resides in the AoP. However, some may argue that it does not need to be. This could also be an example of scruples in which those that dissent must give just cause that it is biblical and not harmful to the core of the confession. Again... conjecture.

 

[Doulos McKenzie]

*bump*

 

[Dachaser]

This question is particularly posed to Southern Baptists.

While the Abstract of Principles does not explicitly refer to the Lord's Day as being the New Testament Sabbath, the choice of words does explicitly say that rest from employment is required.

"The Lord’s Day is a Christian institution for regular observance, and should be employed in exercises of worship and spiritual devotion, both public and private, resting from worldly employments and amusements, works of necessity and mercy only excepted."
​

To the best of my knowledge, Progressive Covenantalism/New Covenant Theology proponents such as those at the Southern Baptist Seminary (Stephen Wellum, Peter Gentry, etc.), teach that the Lord's Day requires no such rest and is entirely distinctive from the OT Sabbath, which is entirely done away with, they say, in the New Testament. An example can be found in Wellum's chapter on the subject in the new book on PC.

So this is my question: given that all faculty at SBTS are required to uphold the Abstract of Principles, and to not teach otherwise, why are these men permitted to teach against this explicit part of its contents?

I am asking because most of the men that I know coming out of Southern, as well as many alumni from the past, are moving away from the classic Reformed Baptist understanding of Covenant Theology, the Sabbath, God's Law, etc. and are moving closer and closer to this new understanding of the NT believers use of the OT.

Are you saying there that they are moving towards new Covenant theology then?

 

[Doulos McKenzie]

Are you saying there that they are moving towards new Covenant theology then?

In all honesty most of the faculty at SBTS have made the jump to Progressive Covenantalism and NCT.

 

[Timotheos]

I think this is simplistic in its understanding.

What is happening at SBTS and other schools is the revival of Biblical Theology. Case and point, SBTS just began a new PhD program for Biblical Theology. Quite innovative.

Rather than skipping from exegesis to Systematic Theology, SBC scholars and conservatives in general are recapturing the meta-narrative approach and thematic schemas of Scripture. Thus many scholars are advocating views that systematicians are trying to put labels on. Gentry and Wellum spend WAY more time on unpacking their biblical theological perspective than they do systematizing the implications. My guess is they have yet to move the results of the BT into a ST.

The OP does a good job revealing places where they have yet to reconcile the results of the BT w/ a ST or confessional statement.

 

[Doulos McKenzie]

I think this is simplistic in its understanding.

What is happening at SBTS and other schools is the revival of Biblical Theology. Case and point, SBTS just began a new PhD program for Biblical Theology. Quite innovative.

Rather than skipping from exegesis to Systematic Theology, SBC scholars and conservatives in general are recapturing the meta-narrative approach and thematic schemas of Scripture. Thus many scholars are advocating views that systematicians are trying to put labels on. Gentry and Wellum spend WAY more time on unpacking their biblical theological perspective than they do systematizing the implications. My guess is they have yet to move the results of the BT into a ST.

The OP does a good job revealing places where they have yet to reconcile the results of the BT w/ a ST or confessional statement.

Well they have constructed a confession http://idsaudio.org/ncbf/pdf/NCBFconfession2014.pdf

 

[Dachaser]

I think this is simplistic in its understanding.

What is happening at SBTS and other schools is the revival of Biblical Theology. Case and point, SBTS just began a new PhD program for Biblical Theology. Quite innovative.

Rather than skipping from exegesis to Systematic Theology, SBC scholars and conservatives in general are recapturing the meta-narrative approach and thematic schemas of Scripture. Thus many scholars are advocating views that systematicians are trying to put labels on. Gentry and Wellum spend WAY more time on unpacking their biblical theological perspective than they do systematizing the implications. My guess is they have yet to move the results of the BT into a ST.

The OP does a good job revealing places where they have yet to reconcile the results of the BT w/ a ST or confessional statement.

They would be focusing then upon Biblical theology itself?

 

[Timotheos]

Well they have constructed a confession http://idsaudio.org/ncbf/pdf/NCBFconfession2014.pdf

And this is something else I thought of including but left out. Those actually pushing for the new label "NCT" are not starting from the same place that the SBTS guys are, I do not believe. They may end at or near the same point, but their motivations for the journey are different as I understand it.

 

[Timotheos]

They would be focusing then upon Biblical theology itself?

Gentry and Wellum's large tome was subtitled "a biblical theological understanding of the covenants." So they are not looking at covenant theology as the abstract system but rather the system of covenants the run through the course of the Bible. Just as I wouldn't call O. Palmer Robertson's book on covenants a treatise on systematic covenant theology but rather a biblical theological look at covenants in the Bible.

As I said, there is a renewed interest in biblical theology (putting it mildly), especially in the SBC. From the Gospel Project out of Lifeway to SBTS new PhD in BT to new journals focused on BT to the series New Studies in BT (not SBC related but many SBC writers have contributed) and so on... BT has become quite the force to reckon with in the evangelical theological world.

EDIT:
Here is one more example of SBTS new found thrust in BT, aside from many of their profs putting out monographs on BT (Schreiner and Hamilton being the foremost along w/ Gentry and Wellum). A recent edition of the Southern Baptist Theological Journal had an issue dedicated to BT: http://equip.sbts.edu/category/publications/journals/journal-of-theology/sbjt-201-spring-2016/

 

[Doulos McKenzie]

And this is something else I thought of including but left out. Those actually pushing for the new label "NCT" are not starting from the same place that the SBTS guys are, I do not believe. They may end at or near the same point, but their motivations for the journey are different as I understand it.

But their conclusions are almost identical. Does the journey matter if the destination is the same? Well yes, but I still think that the NCT and PC are headed to the exact same destination which is abig deal.

 

[Timotheos]

But their conclusions are almost identical. Does the journey matter if the destination is the same? Well yes, but I still think that the NCT and PC are headed to the exact same destination which is abig deal.

As it pertains to the Sabbath and the OP above, the major difference is motivation. Now the OP pointed out that the AoP seems to hold to a form of sabbatarianism which may go against the conclusions of PC. This will be interesting to see how this works out in the wash.

 

[reaganmarsh]

As an SBTS grad, I concur that PC/NCT doesn't sit well with the AoP, as mentioned above.

I studied under Dr. Wellum and he is a brilliant, godly man who emphasized repeatedly in class that CT "flattens the distinctions" between the biblical covenants. PC was his solution, which he argued better accounts for continuity and discontinuity between the covenants. He is fascinated with BT and usually tried to show something of the relationship between BT and ST in his lectures.

PC of the SBTS variety is decidedly antisabbitarian.

Also, SBC interest in BT is evidenced in 2 other editions of the SBJT: Vol 10, No. 2 (Summer 2006) entitled Biblical Theology, and Vol 12., No. 4 (Winter 2008) entitled Exploring Biblical Theology.

 

[zsmcd]

This will be interesting to see how this works out in the wash.

Yeah, that was the point of my OP. I don't exactly know how subscription to the AoP works at SBTS, but one would think that if the school was claiming to hold their faculty to it than how can several of them 'get away' with teaching, publishing works, and preaching against it. I don't know if they have contradicted it in any other place than the one I mentioned on the Lord's Day, that's just the one that stuck out to me the most.

Also, knowing bits and pieces of both sides and without equating the two in degrees of error, I find it interesting that some of the reasoning behind PC conclusions are similar to that of some in the Federal Vision camps. For example, I have met with a few PhD students of Wellum and have met with some faculty who lean in his direction, and they like to emphasis their desire to use 'biblical language' versus 'systematic language' which seems be something I see a lot of from FV advocates. One PhD student of Wellum, for example, despised the term "covenant of grace" because it wasn't biblical language. This is something that I see at times in FV guys who want to try and use terms like regeneration, baptism, election etc. with their 'biblical' rather than 'systematic' meanings.

 

[reaganmarsh]

Dr. Wellum, in class, emphatically: "We must put a moratorium on the term 'covenant of grace.' It's not in the Bible. Instead, we should speak of 'the one plan of God.'" Not surprising that his doctoral students followed suit.

(That sounds like I'm throwing Dr. W under the bus, but such isn't my intention. I disagree with him, but don't at all mean to disrespect him. Behold the beauty and limitations of internet theological discussion).

I understand and even appreciate to some degree his point that the term isn't in Scripture, but we defend both the teaching and terminology of the Trinity. Granted, the COG isn't dealing in the realm of theology proper. It is, however, a consequence (and to some degree, an expression) of the economic relations of the Trinitarian Persons one to another.

 

[Dachaser]

As it pertains to the Sabbath and the OP above, the major difference is motivation. Now the OP pointed out that the AoP seems to hold to a form of sabbatarianism which may go against the conclusions of PC. This will be interesting to see how this works out in the wash.

Would you mind explaining this in more detail as to what would be their differences on the Sabbath?

 

[arapahoepark]

Would you mind explaining this in more detail as to what would be their differences on the Sabbath?

The Abstract Principles state a more Reformed Baptist view as noted above. Many at SBTS (thought not all) adhere to NCT and deny that the Sabbath is binding.

 

[Pilgrim]

As an SBTS grad, I concur that PC/NCT doesn't sit well with the AoP, as mentioned above.

I studied under Dr. Wellum and he is a brilliant, godly man who emphasized repeatedly in class that CT "flattens the distinctions" between the biblical covenants. PC was his solution, which he argued better accounts for continuity and discontinuity between the covenants. He is fascinated with BT and usually tried to show something of the relationship between BT and ST in his lectures.

PC of the SBTS variety is decidedly antisabbitarian.

Also, SBC interest in BT is evidenced in 2 other editions of the SBJT: Vol 10, No. 2 (Summer 2006) entitled Biblical Theology, and Vol 12., No. 4 (Winter 2008) entitled Exploring Biblical Theology.

I am not familiar with any form of Progressive Covenantalism or NCT that isn't decidedly antisabbatarian from a doctrinal standpoint.

Was there anyone on the full time faculty at SBTS who held to the 1689 (or even the teaching on the Sabbath) other than maybe Dr. Nettles (who recently retired) and maybe Dr. Haykin? I've been told that Dr. Whitney may hold to a "Lord's Day" view but not a strict sabbatarian view. Many others are antisabbatarian as has been noted. Dr. Schreiner (who has been said to be the originator, more or less, of PC) was one of the first conservative faculty members hired under the Mohler regime, which would seem to be a signal that the Sabbath issue wasn't really a concern. (He, Dr. Ware and some others were not from a SBC background, something that even some Calvinistic men were critical of.)

As far as confessionalism among Southern Baptists goes, it seems that the part on the Lord's Day has practically been excised from those statements, if not formally, by men who would tell you that they hold to the Abstract, the New Hampshire Confession or the 1689. But the same apparently can be said for the PCA.

There is also a disturbing trend toward some Calvinistic Southern Baptists observing Lent and various other things that to my understanding have basically no precedent whatsoever in Baptist history except maybe among liberals.

 

[Pilgrim]

Well they have constructed a confession http://idsaudio.org/ncbf/pdf/NCBFconfession2014.pdf

To say that "they" have constructed a confession is a misunderstanding at best. It is stated at the outset that this is authored by the elders of one particular church, and the proprietor of that site is considered to be somewhat of an outlier on some issues, from what I understand.

I've seen some within the NCT camp state that there are about 6 identifiable strains of CT. They seem to spend about as much time fighting amongst themselves these days than debating anyone outside their camp. They might be able to agree on the relatively brief 1st London Confession or something else relatively brief, but I seriously doubt a large number of NCT folk could agree to something of the length of the WCF or 2nd LBCF.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Absolutely true; the PCA is effectively antiSabbatarian.

But the same apparently can be said for the PCA.

Ditto the PCA. Nonconformity was Sabbatarian and against the liturgical calendar but both succumbed in the slide into liberalism. This redefines Presbyterianism; Hodge said you are not Presbyterian if you reject the doctrine of the Lord's Day as the Christian Sabbath (sorry, I don't have the ref; if anyone does, I'd like that).

There is also a disturbing trend toward some Calvinistic Southern Baptists observing Lent and various other things that to my understanding have basically no precedent whatsoever in Baptist history except maybe among liberals.

 

[Dachaser]

I am not familiar with any form of Progressive Covenantalism or NCT that isn't decidedly antisabbatarian from a doctrinal standpoint.

Was there anyone on the full time faculty at SBTS who held to the 1689 (or even the teaching on the Sabbath) other than maybe Dr. Nettles (who recently retired) and maybe Dr. Haykin? I've been told that Dr. Whitney may hold to a "Lord's Day" view but not a strict sabbatarian view. Many others are antisabbatarian as has been noted. Dr. Schreiner (who has been said to be the originator, more or less, of PC) was one of the first conservative faculty members hired under the Mohler regime, which would seem to be a signal that the Sabbath issue wasn't really a concern. (He, Dr. Ware and some others were not from a SBC background, something that even some Calvinistic men were critical of.)

As far as confessionalism among Southern Baptists goes, it seems that the part on the Lord's Day has practically been excised from those statements, if not formally, by men who would tell you that they hold to the Abstract, the New Hampshire Confession or the 1689. But the same apparently can be said for the PCA.

There is also a disturbing trend toward some Calvinistic Southern Baptists observing Lent and various other things that to my understanding have basically no precedent whatsoever in Baptist history except maybe among liberals.

I have been in Baptist churches about 20 years, and have contact with various different groups, and have yet to meeta Baptist church or group that observes lent or other more traditional activities?
And most, if not all of them, would see the lord's day, Sunday, as the Christian Sabbath?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I have been in Baptist churches about 20 years, and have contact with various different groups, and have yet to meet a Baptist church or group that observes lent or other more traditional activities?
And most, if not all of them, would see the lord's day, Sunday, as the Christian Sabbath?

David,

Are these questions or opinions that you want to be confirmed? If the latter, please formulate these sentences as actual questions. Not all your responses need to end with a "?" unless they are actually questions.

If I did not know better I would assume that each and every statement you make must be a question as if you are unwilling to actually commit to an opinion.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

These were Reformed Baptist churches? Otherwise I that is surprising. So, the churches you have been in didn't do Christmas or Easter services; and they would affirm it is breaking the fourth commandment to no only work on the Lord's Day, but to play and recreate, or go to the mall or movies, or do little league sports, etc.?

I have been in Baptist churches about 20 years, and have contact with various different groups, and have yet to meeta Baptist church or group that observes lent or other more traditional activities?
And most, if not all of them, would see the lord's day, Sunday, as the Christian Sabbath?

 

[Dachaser]

These were Reformed Baptist churches? Otherwise I that is surprising. So, the churches you have been in didn't do Christmas or Easter services; and they would affirm it is breaking the fourth commandment to no only work on the Lord's Day, but to play and recreate, or go to the mall or movies, or do little league sports, etc.?

They all did a good Friday/Christmas/Easter service, and the pastors and Elders and the laity all took differing views on the Lord;s day, as some of them used it to rest and focus in on God the entire day, while others decided to go fishing, have a picnic, attend other events, go to see ball games etc...

I think that is due to the sense that while i would see myself as being a reformed baptist, my local church itself is baptist...