Gentry-Wellum (KTC) vs. Carson-Schreiner

“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 the previous article, it’s case against CT is largely a straw man. It builds its whole 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”. Since both of these ideas can easily be demonstrated to be false and make up the bulk of their argument against CT, then 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 perhaps need to be re-thought through. It is reasonable to assume that to be really qualified to critique someones theology, you cannot misunderstand and/or misrepresent what that theology teaches. In this case, 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.

That does not mean we disagree with Gentry and Wellum entirely. We have 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 misrepresents our view.

So why do we 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, 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.

Related Articles:
Two Ways in Which Kingdom through Covenant Misrepresents Traditional Covenant Theology by J. W. Hendryx
Covenant Theology is Not Replacement Theology by R. Scott Clark
Progressive Covenantalism by Steve Hays
Progressive Covenantalism's View of the Visible/Invisible Church Distinction: A Biblical/Theological Problem by J,. W. Hendryx