"As most of you already know, Monergism Books is dedicated to upholding a Christ-centered biblical theology, which we believe, Reformed/Covenant theology most closely reflects. If you have been following us for any amount of time you should know that we try, by the grace of God, to carefully choose books and resources to promote and warn visitors about books with theological problems. This is one of those times. We believe that Kingdom through Covenant both misrepresents Covenant Theology and promotes an unbiblical alternative. Of course we are not trying to decide for you what to buy, but rather, encourage you in the right direction when you have a choice in the books you read.
Some might be under the false impression that we oppose the theology in this book because it is Reformed Baptist. But this is not the case. Kingdom through Covenant is not a Reformed Baptist work or Reformed at all. Historically Reformed Theology has been synonymous with Covenant Theology. So-called New Covenant Theology is actually a reaction against confessional Reformed Baptists, Presbyterians and Covenant Theologians in general. We are not against it because it is Baptist. by no means. In fact, We carry and encourage you to purchase Baptist Greg Nichols excellent work of covenant theology because we think that it accurately represents classic Covenant Theology from Baptist perspective. Just to clarify, we will not be selling Kingdom through Covenant or making it avaialble. We regard "New Covenant Theology" as a significant theological error ... but of course you are free to purchase it elsewhere. We appreciate your understanding that we are taking a stand on this issue and we do appreciate your business ... even though it may not be for this particular book. :)
So we recommend Sacred Bond and Nichols book over Kingdom through Covenant"
--------------------------
This is just strange to me. I appreciated the following comments from Ian over at the City of God blog:
"I have been a fan of Monergism.com since it first appeared on the internet, and have found it to be a tremendous resource for Reformed theology. I am extremely thankful for the work that John Hendryx has done for Christ’s kingdom through this website, and I am sure that many, many Reformed Christians are too.
That said, I am perplexed by an email that a friend sent to me this morning that he received from Monergism Books, where it was explained that their book distribution wing will not be selling the recent publication Kingdom Through Covenant: A Biblical Theological Understanding of the Covenants by Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum. The reason for this is that the book espouses “New Covenant Theology,” is in “serious theological error,” and is not Reformed.
Gentry and Wellum, both Calvinistic Baptists, teach at Southern Seminary. They are also Canadians from the Toronto area and teach at my alma mater, Toronto Baptist Seminary. I have had both as professors and can personally attest to the quality of their scholarship, their excellent teaching methods, their godliness–and indeed, their Reformed theology. But this is not the point of this blog post.
Rather, I would like to call John Hendryx and Monergism to consistency. Of course, they are free to distribute whatever literature they choose, and if they believe that Kingdom Through Covenant is not up to their standards of orthodoxy, so be it. But to boycott this book yet leave other like books and links on their site is an error that needs to be remedied. If NCT is indeed “significantly erroneous,” (the email never explains why) then it would behoove Hendryx and Monergism to remove any semblance of this error from their distribution.
They may want to start with Don Carson’s work (books, links). For those who know anything of the debate over NCT, Carson is a key exegetical course for this position. Especially his view of the law understood in Matthew that is expressed in a number of his books. After they remove Carson’s work from their distribution and website, Monergism needs to then turn to John Piper, who also holds to a view akin to NCT. His books and links are everywhere on Monergism’s sites. The list of such theologians tainted with NCT—who must be erroneous according to Monergism’s standards—is long and includes John MacArthur (a dispensationalist); Fred Zaspel; the New Studies in Biblical Studies series edited by Carson that includes Dominion and Dynasty by Stephen Dempster, whose ideas form a large part of the Gentry/Wellum argument; Tom Schreiner (books), who holds a similar view to Gentry/Wellum, especially his Pauline theology and NT theology and commentaries; Douglas Moo (books) who, along with Carson, is another key source for NCT; and ironically works by Stephen Wellum (links) and Peter Gentry (links) themselves.
It may be argued that while Monergism carries these authors, they do not carry books directly dealing with the subject of NCT—which, if you check the links above, you’ll see isn’t the case—this argument isn’t helpful. The folk at Monergism would surely believe that theology is interconnected, and that anyone who advocates NCT (or some form relating to it) will have their overall theology impacted by it. A NCT ethic colours their understanding of the kingdom—and Monergism has links to Wellum on the kingdom and even one by Gentry called “Kingdom Through Covenant“! Wouldn’t Schreiner’s commentary on Romans or Galatians have anything to say about the law? Thus, any article they link to or book they sell by someone like Carson will necessarily be tainted by some reading of NCT–thus, Monergism is by implication disseminating erroneous, “unbiblical” theology.
I write this from a Reformed Baptist perspective; meaning I hold to the ongoing validity of the moral law and the Sabbath. I also use traditional covenant theology, albeit from a Baptist perspective (expressed by the 1689 Confession), in my understanding of redemptive history; the one caveat is that I prefer John Murray’s “Adamic administration” instead of covenant of works. I also write as one who serves in a church with a pastor who is openly NCT, and it doesn’t bother me in the slightest. John is one of my best friends, and we’ll debate long into the night over the Sabbath, or covenant of grace, but I gladly sit under his preaching and teaching. I definitely do not consider him dangerous! I should also add that Peter Gentry’s course on the Old Testament at TBS actually served to confirm for me a number of points about covenant theology, in particular the covenant with Adam.
So, if Monergism is to be consistent, which they must be to be faithful to their aims of adhering to some narrow brand of Reformed theology, then they must deplete a significant part of their inventory. As we should all be aware, boycotts serve two purposes: They put those performing the boycott in a bad light; and they inevitably make the boycotted book or film more popular. While I do not wish the former on Monergism; I most definitely wish the latter on Kingdom Through Covenant."
This is just strange to me. I appreciated the following comments from Ian over at the City of God blog:
"I have been a fan of Monergism.com since it first appeared on the internet, and have found it to be a tremendous resource for Reformed theology. I am extremely thankful for the work that John Hendryx has done for Christ’s kingdom through this website, and I am sure that many, many Reformed Christians are too.
That said, I am perplexed by an email that a friend sent to me this morning that he received from Monergism Books, where it was explained that their book distribution wing will not be selling the recent publication Kingdom Through Covenant: A Biblical Theological Understanding of the Covenants by Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum. The reason for this is that the book espouses “New Covenant Theology,” is in “serious theological error,” and is not Reformed.
Gentry and Wellum, both Calvinistic Baptists, teach at Southern Seminary. They are also Canadians from the Toronto area and teach at my alma mater, Toronto Baptist Seminary. I have had both as professors and can personally attest to the quality of their scholarship, their excellent teaching methods, their godliness–and indeed, their Reformed theology. But this is not the point of this blog post.
Rather, I would like to call John Hendryx and Monergism to consistency. Of course, they are free to distribute whatever literature they choose, and if they believe that Kingdom Through Covenant is not up to their standards of orthodoxy, so be it. But to boycott this book yet leave other like books and links on their site is an error that needs to be remedied. If NCT is indeed “significantly erroneous,” (the email never explains why) then it would behoove Hendryx and Monergism to remove any semblance of this error from their distribution.
They may want to start with Don Carson’s work (books, links). For those who know anything of the debate over NCT, Carson is a key exegetical course for this position. Especially his view of the law understood in Matthew that is expressed in a number of his books. After they remove Carson’s work from their distribution and website, Monergism needs to then turn to John Piper, who also holds to a view akin to NCT. His books and links are everywhere on Monergism’s sites. The list of such theologians tainted with NCT—who must be erroneous according to Monergism’s standards—is long and includes John MacArthur (a dispensationalist); Fred Zaspel; the New Studies in Biblical Studies series edited by Carson that includes Dominion and Dynasty by Stephen Dempster, whose ideas form a large part of the Gentry/Wellum argument; Tom Schreiner (books), who holds a similar view to Gentry/Wellum, especially his Pauline theology and NT theology and commentaries; Douglas Moo (books) who, along with Carson, is another key source for NCT; and ironically works by Stephen Wellum (links) and Peter Gentry (links) themselves.
It may be argued that while Monergism carries these authors, they do not carry books directly dealing with the subject of NCT—which, if you check the links above, you’ll see isn’t the case—this argument isn’t helpful. The folk at Monergism would surely believe that theology is interconnected, and that anyone who advocates NCT (or some form relating to it) will have their overall theology impacted by it. A NCT ethic colours their understanding of the kingdom—and Monergism has links to Wellum on the kingdom and even one by Gentry called “Kingdom Through Covenant“! Wouldn’t Schreiner’s commentary on Romans or Galatians have anything to say about the law? Thus, any article they link to or book they sell by someone like Carson will necessarily be tainted by some reading of NCT–thus, Monergism is by implication disseminating erroneous, “unbiblical” theology.
I write this from a Reformed Baptist perspective; meaning I hold to the ongoing validity of the moral law and the Sabbath. I also use traditional covenant theology, albeit from a Baptist perspective (expressed by the 1689 Confession), in my understanding of redemptive history; the one caveat is that I prefer John Murray’s “Adamic administration” instead of covenant of works. I also write as one who serves in a church with a pastor who is openly NCT, and it doesn’t bother me in the slightest. John is one of my best friends, and we’ll debate long into the night over the Sabbath, or covenant of grace, but I gladly sit under his preaching and teaching. I definitely do not consider him dangerous! I should also add that Peter Gentry’s course on the Old Testament at TBS actually served to confirm for me a number of points about covenant theology, in particular the covenant with Adam.
So, if Monergism is to be consistent, which they must be to be faithful to their aims of adhering to some narrow brand of Reformed theology, then they must deplete a significant part of their inventory. As we should all be aware, boycotts serve two purposes: They put those performing the boycott in a bad light; and they inevitably make the boycotted book or film more popular. While I do not wish the former on Monergism; I most definitely wish the latter on Kingdom Through Covenant."
----------
Also see this post from Alpha and Omega Ministries.
Also see this post from Alpha and Omega Ministries.
I have never been a big Monergism shopper, but don't intend to buy anything else from their store. But hey, there is no such thing as "bad publicity," right?
8 comments:
Monergism does carry a pdf of Gentry's SBTS journal article, "Kingdom Through Covenant:
Humanity as the Divine Image," which forms the basis for chapter 9 in KTC and his SBTS journal article, "Daniel’s Seventy Weeks and the New Exodus," which forms the basis for chapter 14 in KTC. Monergism also carries the pdf of his SBTS article, "The Atonement in Isaiah’s Fourth Servant Song (Isaiah 52:13-53:12)," which is in several footnotes, I believe.
I'm almost done with Wellum's first three chapters, but have flipped through it (which is why I remember the articles were cited).
Thanks Adam!
Blake,
You raise some good evidence to point up the inconsistency here.
One more thing, though. If Monergism is going to make the "dangerous" claim, it's incumbent on them as a basic principle of Christian charity to lay out specifically what's dangerous. You don't throw out accusations like that without warranting them.
It would be great if you could write something up that specifically asks for such a charitable gesture. They haven't used the word heresy to my knowledge, but what else warrants censure from the body of Christ in the name of protecting her spiritual integrity (cf. 2 Tim 2:23, etc.)? I suspect that if done well, you might even find a sympathetic ear in the likes of Justin Taylor....
Hey Tyler,
I wish I had time bro - but like you I have stacks of books around me calling my name. Did you notice that I didn't write any of this post? I copied and pasted!
Blake,
I don't know if you've read Nichols' book or not, but it's fully of historical theology, which is really lacking in KTC. It looks really good on its interaction with historical theology. I hope to read it.
AE
"no such thing as bad publicity, right?" I can honestly say that this post made me look more into the book and Lord willing I will be picking it up pretty soon. You should get some sort of commission.
AE, I do not own that one.
Kevin, let me know what you think whenever you get around to it!
Thank you for your obvious passion for the gospel and willingness to engage on this issue... I wanted to interact a little with the "inconsistency" charge made here are elsewhere which I think may be a little bit simplistic and not take into consideration all factors involved with this specific book ... “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 previous article (http://bit.ly/QF1mwh),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 about CT can be demonstrated to be wrong and make up the bulk of their argument against CT then the entire thesis of the book may be shaky ground. If their whole argument has gone wrong at such a fundamental level of
misrepresentation of the theological system they critique, then they may have made a fatal error in their critique. 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 must be are 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. Replacement theology? If they really understood CT then they would never have used this word, since not one in the CT camp would recognize themselves as such.
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 about the problem described above, 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.
Post a Comment