Last week I finished plowing through this ambitious 848-page book:
Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum. Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012. 
The book argues for a via media between covenant theology and dispensationalism that the authors call progressive covenantalism (similar to new covenant theology).
Wellum and Gentry routinely distinguish their view from each of the two major systems in a distinctive way:
- Covenant theology holds the genealogical principle (“to you and your children”), which is a basis for infant baptism. Progressive covenantalism argues that the genealogical principle significantly changes across redemptive history.
- Dispensationalism understands the OT land promises grounded in the Abrahamic covenant to still be in force (God will fulfill those promises to ethnic Israelites in the millennium). Progressive covenantalism understands the land not as Canaan but as a type of the new creation.
The book has three parts: Steve Wellum wrote parts 1 and 3, and Peter Gentry wrote part 2. I very carefully read parts 1 and 3 (and re-read about 100 pages of it), and worked through part 2 more quickly.
(I added the red font in the TOC below.)
- 66-page PDF excerpt
- Credo interview: part 1 | part 2
- TGC interview
- Monergism Books won’t sell it. I don’t understand why they won’t sell this when they sell books by Don Carson and Doug Moo.
- Wellum wrote a superb essay in 2006 on baptism as a test case for how to put the Bible together. This book builds on that.
Wellum and Gentry impressively argue their case, which I won’t rehash or thoroughly evaluate here. (See the links above for the gist of their argument. I’m looking forward to reading reviews, particularly the three-part series TGC lined up with Darrell Bock, Doug Moo, Mike Horton with a response by Gentry and Wellum.)
I resonate with much of the book’s argument. But I’ll mention four questions it raises for me (the first two are major, the second two minor):
- Must the OT land promises be an either-or proposition (i.e., either literally Canaan or typologically the new creation)? Can they include both? ***See update at the bottom of this article.***
- How sure are we that the covenants all have both conditional and unconditional aspects and that it’s incorrect to label specific covenants as either one or the other? (I’m eager to see how OT scholars evaluate that argument. I already talked to one, Desi Alexander, who is unconvinced.)
- Must typology be only predictive and never retrospective? Wellum rejects the view that discovers typological patterns “based on analogies and a retrospective reading of later persons, events, and institutions on the Old Testament”; if it is not “predictive and prospective,” he argues, then “it is not exegetically grounded” (pp. 103–4n48). If Wellum is right on this point, then the thesis of my latest book is wrong (see From Typology to Doxology, especially pp. 126–28). (This is a relatively minor point re the book’s argument; progressive covenantalism doesn’t stand or fall on it.)
- Does Wellum rightly critique Don Carson for calling biblical theology a “bridge” discipline (p. 36n34)? This is a very minor point since the authors largely follow Carson’s theological method and theology, but I don’t follow this critique. (a) The point of Carson’s temporal/atemporal distinction is not to say everything about BT and ST, but to delineate at least one of the foundational differences between the two disciplines. Carson argues that in some ways BT is the bridge discipline between exegesis and ST, but not in every way. (b) Is it best to speak of doing ST in BT categories?
This stimulating book repays a crock-pot reading. (It’s still cooking in my crock-pot.)
Update:
- Fred Zaspel reviewed the book on Nov 26, 2012, and Wellum and Gentry responded.
- A few years after writing the above article, I came to agree with Wellum (and Oren Martin) on the land, largely because of how typology works. I was happy to endorse Wellum’s next book on progressive covenantalism.
Hope it’s at least a step in the right direction. “Reformed” thinking needs reforming.
But for me, any position, regardless of who argues it, that boils down to “Yes God said A, the prophet clearly meant A, the readers could only have understood the oracle as meaning A — but He never intended to deliver on A” is a non-starter. For every Christian reason in the world.
Andy: I really appreciate your four questions! And, Dan Phillips, the comment you posted really resonates with me, and provokes a hearty, “Amen, Brother!”
See also the following postings on this book that may be added to the ones you mention above:
Ian Clary, “Monergism, Kingdom Through Covenant, and Consistency”, 11 AUG 2012 blog post on City of God at http://www.cityofgodblog.com/2012/08/monergism-kingdom-through-covenant-and-consistency/ [accessed 13 AUG 2012].
Jamin Hubner, ” The Kingdom Through Covenant Controversy”, 12 AUG 2012 blog post on Alpha & Omega Ministries at http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=5201 [accessed 13 AUG 2012].
Peter Lumpkins, “Monergism.com snubs two Southern seminary professors’ book”, posted 14 AUG 2012 to peterlumpkins at http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2012/08/monergismcom-snubs-southern-professors-book-by-peter-lumpkins.html#more [accessed 15 AUG 2012].
John Hendryx, “”Kingdom through Covenant” and the Inconsistency of Monergism.com”,
undated post on or about 14 AUG 2012 on Monergism at http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/inconsistency.html [accessed 22 AUG 2012].
Denny Burk, “Wellum and Gentry on “Kingdom through Covenant””, posted 21 AUG 2012, on Denny Burk at http://www.dennyburk.com/wellum-and-gentry-on-kingdom-through-covenant/ [accessed 22 AUG 2012].
Justin Taylor, “Kingdom through Covenant, Baptism and Circumcision, and Other Discussions Worth Having”, 21 AUG 2012 on Between Two Worlds at http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2012/08/21/kingdom-through-covenant-baptism-and-circumcision-and-other-discussions-worth-having/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+between2worlds+(Between+Two+Worlds) [accessed 22 AUG 2012].
Bob Hayton, “New Book on a Middle Position between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology”, posted 22 AUG 2012 on Fundamentally Reformed at
http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/2012/08/22/new-book-on-a-middle-position-between-dispensationalism-and-covenant-theology/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed:+fundyreformed+(Fundamentally+Reformed) [accessed 22 AUG 2012].
To the above list I would also add one that pertains to this book indirectly: Dr. Dan Lioy’s original paper with the label “progressive covenantalism” from 2005.
http://bible.org/article/progressive-covenantalism-integrating-motif-scripture
Wellum writes this (p. 24n7):
I added this comment under Justin Taylor’s post to a related question:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2012/08/21/kingdom-through-covenant-baptism-and-circumcision-and-other-discussions-worth-having/?comments#comments
Students at SBTS have been using the term “Progressive Covenantalism” to describe the teaching by Wellum and Gentry since at least 2004 (that I can directly recall). It has no organic relation to any teaching by Michael Patton [or Dan Lioy]. In fact, Patton claims to still be a dispensationalist, with only two changes (in his mind).
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/08/my-view-of-dispensationalism/
Wellum and Gentry are coming more from the reformed tradition (broadly speaking), not dispensationalism. Progressive Covenantalism seems to capture the essence of a covenantal theology which gives more weight to progressive revelation without letting the theological construct of a “Covenant of Grace” flatten out the redemptive historical progression which comes through the biblical covenants, climaxing ultimately in the New Covenant work of Jesus.
In the parlance of Theological Systems in current Evangelicalism, the term “Progressive Covenantalism” serves very nicely as both a negative and positive term. Negative in saying what it is not, namely that it is not Progressive Dispensationalism nor is it Covenant Theology (classically constructed). Positively it describes the teaching in “Kingdom Through Covenant” by emphasizing that the progressive unfolding and sequential fulfillment of the biblical covenants themselves serve as the backbone of the story of redemption through which the kingdom of God comes.
On that same page that you noted, Wellum identifies their teaching as “a species of ‘New Covenant Theology’” which gives fair deference to those who have wrestled with some of these ideas before them. However almost all who claim the NCT label would not want to acknowledge any pre-lapsarian covenant. As is clear to any casual reader of KTC, The Covenant of Creation is important for their argument. In fact, one of the purposes of including the 60 page lexical analysis of “covenant” as an appendix was to demonstrate the validity of the distinction between “to cut a covenant” and “to uphold a covenant” referenced on pages 155-161, 178, 550 of KTC.
There is also a minority claiming the NCT label who would deny the positive imputation of the active obedience of Christ. This notion is clearly not what KTC advocates as Wellum makes a strong case for The Active Obedience of Christ on pages 663-670 of KTC.
In my judgment, these differences, among others, provide sufficient warrant for the authors to employ a new label to describe their view, and hopefully will encourage readers to not dismiss their work (with a guilt by association) without first judging the merits of their actual argumentation.
I would like to recommend being careful not to not associate an unpublished paper on the web with this 848 page book written by two careful scholars.
In Dan Lioy’s 2005 paper referenced above by Daniel Viezbicke he connects the title to a prior work in footnote 1: ” The idea for the title of the present article came from the essay by Shelton 2004.” That essay is listed in Lioy’s bibliography as “Shelton, R.L. 2004. Covenant Atonement as a Wesleyan Integrating Motif. Aldersgate Papers. 5:7-36.”
Andy: Must the OT land promises be an either-or proposition (i.e., either literally Canaan or typologically the new creation)? Can they include both?
Don’t all the other types fulfill and cancel the antitypes 100%? If redemptive historical types and antitypes co-exist, then we could still have a physical temple in Jerusalem, human priests, and animal sacrifices co-existing with the ministry of Christ. But He fulfilled and cancelled them all fully not partially, and permanently not temporarily. Now that the new creation has come, the land of Canaan is obsolete.The land of heaven and the new creation are BETTER than the land of Canaan.
Richard: There is also a minority claiming the NCT label who would deny the positive imputation of the active obedience of Christ.
Based on discussions at the former Sound of Grace board, anit-IAO is the majority, not minority opinion of NCT’s. Although John Reisinger and Gary Long believe IAO, most of their followers do not.
Greg,
I appreciate you pointing that out. I haven’t followed all the forum discussions about NCT. I was judging minority/majority more by published works, rather than counting noses per se. But then again, it is hard to tell what truly counts as NCT (as opposed to just claiming that label) and most of the books are published in house or by little known publishers.
The most prominent NCT author I can think of denying the positive imputation of active obedience (but still maintaining the positive imputation of passive obedience…to use his categories) is Steve Lehrer (along with Geoff Volker), but perhaps there are many more.
And while denials of imputation are coming from all over the theological map right now, the specific type of denial, namely just Active Obedience, isn’t exclusive to just NCT. Andy Snider who is on faculty at The Master’s Seminary wrote his ThM thesis in 2002 defending this precise idea (namely that “vicarious active obedience” is unbiblical). And Larry Pettegrew (his ThM supervisor) and formerly a long time professor at TMS stated his denial of imputed active obedience in his review of Piper’s Counted Righteous in Christ (TMSJ 2004).
Of course they argue it lacks exegetical support, but the other premise of their argument seems to be that it is a hold over from Covenant Theology and their construction of a Covenant of Works. Most in NCT and almost all dispensationalists deny any creation covenant, let alone the specific entailments of the Covenant of Works.
But if what you state is in fact the case, that “anti-IAO is the majority” opinion in NCT, then that gives all the more reason for Wellum and Gentry to distinguish their view.
Greg, my understanding is that a promise may be part of a typological trajectory where part of the fulfillment is an already-not yet sort.
Andy, can you give me some examples of those types? Doesn’t the not yet apply to the age to come (new creation), not this age (including a possible millennium)?
I ordered the book 2 days ago. Looking forward to reading it.
Example: aspects of the new covenant.
Stay tuned for more on typology. I’ve been trading emails with Steve Wellum, and he may write a blog post here on typology early next week.
I don’t think Monergism is being inconsistent. The reason they won’t sell this book is because it teaches anti-confessional theology. This book denies covenant theology directly, while other books by progressive covenantalists don’t directly attack CT, so they are sold. Makes sense to me. I applaud Monergism for taking a stand.
Granted, they haven’t written entire books devoted primarily to that subject. But they do “directly attack CT.”
Hi Andy,
I’ve never commented on a blog post before, so I hope I’m doing this correctly.
I just wanted to offer a response to your question about unconditional vs. conditional covenants. I have not read Gentry and Wellum’s book, so I’m not familiar with their particular argument. But I hold the view that each covenant has conditional and unconditional aspects. (I don’t know if I count as an Old Testament scholar yet. :-) I also know that Dick Averbeck at Trinity holds this view, as does Andrew Schmutzer. For me, it is important that we inform our descriptions of the covenants with more texts than just the classic Genesis 15, 17; Exodus 19-24; 2 Samuel 7; etc. Thus the Mosaic covenant (or whatever you want to call it) is developed extensively in Deuteronomy and the Davidic covenant is developed extensively in the Psalter. For example, in the curses and blessings section at the end of Deuteronomy, you get the promise that the Israelites will be sent out of the land if they do not worship Yahweh/obey, but there is also the promise that, if they repent, they will be brought back into the land. I take this kind of language to mean that the Israelites are always God’s people and that doesn’t change (unconditional), but that the blessings of the covenant are contingent upon worship and obedience (conditional). The Abrahamic covenant, in the context of Genesis 17, does seem to have certain contingencies. Abraham is told to walk before Yahweh and be blameless and he is later told to circumcise himself and all his males. The discourse structure is set up in two sections, both indicated by the emphatic (or rather topicalizing) use of the independent personal pronoun. We may translate Gen 17:4 (woodenly), “As for me, behold my covenant with you: . . .” What follows in vv. 4-8 is what God promises to do for Abraham. Then, in v. 9, what Abraham must do is topicalized by another instance of the independent personal pronoun (second person in this case: “As for you: you shall keep my covenant . . .”), and what follows is what Abraham must do in the covenant. Abraham is to “keep” the covenant (the same terms get used in Deuteronomy); in this case, this meant circumcision. Strikingly, in Gen 26:4-5, you get a clear cause and effect relationship in the grammar: “I will multiply your (Isaac’s) seed like the stars of the sky . . . because Abraham listened to me and kept my obligation: my commands, my statutes, and my teachings.” The point of course is that there was some sort of conditionality in the Abrahamic covenant in the language of the text, as far as I can see. I want to be careful for speaking for Dick or Andrew, but I am certain that I have heard them say similar things about these texts.
Of course, Prof. Alexander is a fine scholar as well and I may be missing something that he is seeing. But I just don’t see how the old stark contrast between conditional and unconditional covenants works out in the language of the texts. And I don’t see how taking each covenant as having elements of both is in disagreement with any other part of the Bible.
It looks like an interesting book and thanks for drawing it to our attention.
I hope you and your family are well and loving Jesus.
God’s blessings to you,
CH
Question: Does anyone know if Dan Lioy may have erred on either the title or the source data for this work he referenced by Shelton? Is it one of the following?
R. L. Shelton, “Covenant Atonement as a Wesleyan Integrating Motif,” Tercentennial Convocation on Wesley’s Birthday, October 1-3, 2003, Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, Kentucky, published in The Asbury Theological Journal 59:1 and 2 (Spring-Fall, 2004).
R. L. Shelton, “Covenant Ethics as a Wesleyan Integrative Motif,” Aldersgate Papers: A Wesleyan Journal of Theology 5 (September, 2004; Summer, 2005 in Australia).
R. L. Shelton, “Covenant Ethics as a Wesleyan Integrative Motif,” Asbury Journal of Theology (Summer, 2005).
Source: Larry Shelton – Research Bibliography, on George Fox Theological Seminary at http://www.georgefox.edu/seminary/faculty/bio/SheltonRschBib08.html [accessed 25 AUG 2012].
FYI: Larry Shelton (R. Larry Shelton) is Richard B. Parker Professor of Wesleyan Theology
Director of MATS and MDiv Programs at George Fox Theological Seminary, Portland, OR.
FYI: “The Asbury Journal is a continuation of the Asbury Seminarian (1945-1985, vol. 1-40) and The Asbury Theological Journal (1986- 2005, vol. 41-60).”
I just received the following:
Hi, John,
Thank you for the email. It may be that the bibliographic information has changed since I first researched and wrote my essay. That said, I obtained the article by Dr. Shelton directly from him, including the bibliographic information associated with it. I no longer have a copy of the latter, though I anticipate a competent religious academic reference librarian might be able to help you locate and obtain a copy of the same.
Best regards,
Dan Lioy, Ph.D.
Institute of Lutheran Theology
Thanks for drawing attention to Kingdom through Covenant as it was a joy to edit and to augment Dr. Wellum’s chapters as his research assistant.
Before briefly addressing the 4 questions that were raised, I’d like to point out that while the Dan Lioy article uses the terminology of progressive covenantalism and rightly speaks of the progressive unfolding of the covenants, there are still many areas of clarity that are needed. Lioy still speaks of the covenant of the works and the covenant of grace (p 85-89) and affirms that there is one covenant with many manifestations (p. 89). This is not all what Wellum and Gentry are doing and they are clearly distinguishing their views from the varieties of covenant theology. Lioy seems to be following the covenant theology here without laying out where he would differ. Moreover, this comment, “The inclusion of non-Jews is not by exclusion or displacement of Israel and the abolishment of God’s promises to them” (p. 100) seems to suggest that some dispensational orientation is still operative in Lioy’s thinking. So while there is much research and good points in Lioy’s article, I do think that his is more of a hybrid approach in appropriating certain aspects of covenant theology and dispensational theology whereas the Wellum/Gentry progressive covenantalism is a true via media in formulating a system independent from CT and DT even as they interact and critique both systems.
As for Andy’s 4 questions:
1. Given the escalation and heightening that is characteristic of biblical typology, I believe that if the land is shown to be a type with the new creation or new heavens/earth as the anti-type, then it will be very difficult to demonstrate that there is still awaiting a promise of land associated with the land of Canaan in the future. Further the NT does not point us to look for a land of Canaan in the future, but to the heavenly city (Heb 12:18-24; 13:13-14; Rom 4:13). Even Gal 4 speaks of the present Jerusalem being in slavery, but the Jerusalem above is our mother. I do not time to develop all of this, but there is a web of theology connected to the land, for the theme of land is connected to rest, Sabbath, temple, city, and inheritance. Once these biblical-theological connections are made, it is very difficult to see how a literal land of Canaan (with what geographic borders?) still awaits Israel in the future.
2. A previous post already argues for why we should see all the covenants as having unconditional and conditional aspects. It is true that some of the covenants may place the accent on one or the other (Mosaic Covenant emphasizing more the conditional), but Gentry’s proposal needs to be carefully studied, and I think TD Alexander is going to have marshal exegesis and clear theological rationale for trying to overcome this understanding of the covenants.
3. The problem with the prospective vs. retrospective aspect of typology has to do with what we mean by retrospective. Certain types may be retrospective in the sense that we come to know them (epistemological retrospective) through later revelation that the original OT audience or readers may not have seen clearly. But if they are retrospective in an ontological sense, then surely they are not God-intended anymore, and now we are making analogical readings leading towards allegory. Just because some types are recognized retrospectively does not mean that the types themselves were not prospective and intended by God. Adam is a type of the one come (Rom 5) for example. Your comments then are confusing: what exactly do you mean by retrospective? I would encourage you to refer back to Moo’s article on the Problem of Sensus Plenior and carefully read page 197. Moo seems to make the same point that Wellum is. Furthermore, see my ETS paper on typology, which can be downloaded here: http://www.credomag.com/2011/12/05/brent-parker-the-nature-of-typology-and-its-relationship-to-competing-views-of-scripture/
4. This point was important as this footnote about Carson was not present in the original draft. I encouraged Wellum to put this in as we had discussed Carson’s description of Systematic Theology in private and in the classroom. For clarity, Wellum is not critiquing Carson on his point about biblical theology as a bridge discipline. Look at the footnote again; Wellum affirms Carson’s comments about BT as a bridge. The difference, however, lies in the fact that Wellum sees BT as the first step of doing ST. ST is constructed off of BT. To do a theology of the church for example, how can that not incorporate the trajectory and storyline of Scripture? In that sense the temporal framework of the Bible is very important for formulating a theology of the church. But Carson does say that ST asks and answers primarily atemporal questions (see also Current Issues in Biblical Theology BBR 5, p. 29) and we believe that needs to be tweaked slightly because ST is the application of God’s Word to all areas of life and thus has a two components: (1) building a BT framework from the storyline of Scripture and (2) constructing a biblical worldview-construct to address all other worldviews, etc. In the end this was a minor point as you rightly point out that the theological methods are extremely close.
Thanks again for posting on this important book as I do hope people will give it a fair hearing and actually make biblical arguments before rejecting parts of it.
Thanks, Brent. Very thoughtful reply.
Steve is planning to share a response early next week that I can put on my blog, and we’ve already teased out some of the points you raise.
1. I still don’t know of a compelling reason or set of reasons that the land promises exclude Canaan. I don’t think that the two options are incompatible.
3. You’re right that I misunderstood what Steve meant by “retrospective typology.” We were operating with different definitions. He plans to clarify that in his follow-up next week.
Related: I’m familiar with that article by Doug Moo. I updated it two years ago as I drafted an article that Doug and I coauthored for a book that should come out next year. The article is titled “The Problem of the New Testament’s Use of the Old Testament” and should appear in volume 1 of “But My Words Will Never Pass Away”: The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures (ed. D. A. Carson; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
4. So you’re to blame! I may encourage Steve to disregard your advice next time! :-)
I am not sure why the anti-paedobaptism consequences of the abrogation of the genealogical priniciple should be held hostage to one’s view on the “active obedience”
I agree with David Gordon (and many others) that once you say “the covenant of grace ” and you want to include in that concept all the biblical covenants, thus “flattening them out” and ignoring the differences for the sake of what you have already decided is “essential”, then you are going to miss the significance of redemptive-history. The children of Abraham had two mothers, and thus there were many who entered that covenant by birth only and not by faith.
To be specific, if the Abrahamic covenant is an objective promise to anybody that –if and when they believe the gospel— they will be saved by the righteousness of Christ, then what shall we say about the “genealogical principle”? Is that principle temporary and no more in force now that the promise to Abraham that he (Abraham, not us) would have many children and that one of those children would be the Redeemer, now that this promise has been fulfilled, and Christ has been circumcised on day eight, died for our sins and raised for our justification?
If that genealogical principle is not temporary but continues until there is no more marriage and family, then how is that promise/ principle different from other temporary promises to Abraham
And if there are no such other promises and no discontinuity, why would anybody think that one ceremonial sign (circumcision) is replaced by another ceremonial sign (water baptism)?
Of course paedobaptist don’t deny that the “circumcision of Christ” is the fulfillment of the circumcision sign, but they still insist that the genealogical principle will remain in place.
Abraham’s non-elect seed were in the covenant with Abraham, but not in the new covenant, and certainly not in some ahistorical “the covenant of grace”. Paedobaptists either equate the AC with the new covenant or put it into their “the covenant of grace”. Some like Hodge wrote about two covenants with Abraham, one in which only the elect were included. And there’s Doug Wilson on the other end saying that election becomes non-election because of the conditionality of “the” covenant. And then there’s David Engelsma saying that election and “the” covenant ARE the same, but of course the Protestant Reformed are not only talking about “the” new covenant but about “the covenant of grace”.
covenant theology says the genealogical promise expanded to include female infants
“the land promise can be expanded to the whole earth, not stopped, and thus even so the genealogical promise cannot be stopped”
so covenant theology says that the land promise has not yet been kept?
can anybody (Jack?) give me your four minute response to that argument from ct?
Thank you for this discussion. I appreciate your love of our Lord and obvious passion for the gospel.
Per the charge of Monergism being inconsistent … while I can understand if someone has not read the book why they would draw this conclusion but it does not really take into account the specific ideas and problems this particular book presents. “Kingdom through Covenant” is a book which spends a great deal of its effort in critiquing traditional Covenant Theology and offering its alternative whole Bible system. As as been demonstrated in this article (Two Ways in Which Kingdom through Covenant Misrepresents Traditional Covenant Theology ,)
it’s case against CT, is largely a straw man since It builds its argument with the understanding that CT is “replacement” theology and that CT rejects any idea that there is a “qualitative progression in the manifestation of grace through redemptive history.” It is reasonable to assume that to be really qualified to critique someones theology, you cannot misunderstand and/or misrepresent what that theology teaches. For example, those who erroneously teach that Covenant Theology is “replacement” theology have not really understood it at its most basic level, and therefore their qualifications in critiquing it may be called into question, however educated they may otherwise be.
Since no covenant theologian would identify themselves as believing in replacement theology (a charge made multiple times in the book), and since this, and the idea that there is no qualitative change in grace from OT to NT make up the bulk of their argument against CT, then I believe the entire thesis may be on shaky ground. If their whole argument has gone wrong at such a fundamental level of misrepresentation of the theological system they critique, then the most significant arguments of the book may perhaps need to be re-thought through.
That does not mean we disagree with Gentry and Wellum entirely. Monergism has posted their articles for years on various topics, and we are very happy to agree with KTC in vital areas such as the active obedience of Christ, the covenant of creation (or works) which many other branches of NCT do not embrace. And we agree on many other crucial areas of christology and soteriology. So KTC is a vast improvement upon other forms of NCT. Nonetheless, we cannot actively promote a book which so blatantly misrepresents the CT view.
So why does Monergism carry so many articles and books by folks within the Progressive Covenantal camp? Isn’t this inconsistent? We have read and benefited by authors such as D.A. Carson and Tom Schreiner, and they have seemingly been great deal more careful, as far as I could read. Instead of spending so much time making a negative case against CT with the obvious misrepresentations, they seem to spend a lot more time building a positive case for their understanding, a great deal of which we happen to agree with. So even if we disagree with a theological point or chapter, we still think there is much that one can benefit. Now if anyone can find anything which resembles the same egregious errors and misrepresentations of traditional Covenant Theology that are found in KTC in their writing, then we will reconsider our promotion of them. But I have yet to encounter them. Until then, there is more positive to glean, than negative to withhold. And we are pretty sure that if a book misrepresented your system, to that degree you would withhold and warn people against it as well.
Hi Andy, I know this is an old post, but I’m looking for the best way to inform people about a new website. I appreciate your blog and the resources it provides.
There is another “biblical middle way” between covenant theology and dispensationalism, but it is over 300 years old. Regretfully, it was largely forgotten because the works were not republished.
17th century particular baptists developed a covenant theology that was quite distinct from WCF. Among other things they
1) Identified the covenant of grace with the new covenant exclusively
2) Saw the church as the true/spiritual Israel, but saw national Israel as a type of the church
3) Agreed with Wellum’s concerns about how to view the Abrahamic covenant
It is regretful that their writings are not more widely available. Wellum’s work would have benefited greatly from interacting with them.
A recent website was created featuring 5 videos to help explain this view and compare it to WCF, dispensationalism, NCT/Progressive Covenantalism, and 20th century reformed baptists. Though these were the editors and signatories of the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith, their views were actually quite different from much of what has been written by reformed baptists over the last 50 years.
http://www.1689federalism.com