"The Narrow Road": Blogs By Shane Kastler

A Defense of New Covenant Theology & a Critique of a Critique of It

By Shane Kastler

[Note: Recently I exchanged a couple emails with a brother who wanted to discuss our theological differences. He is a Baptist that holds to Covenant Theology, while I'm a Baptist that holds to New Covenant Theology. If you're uncertain of the differences our exchange should help.  He also references a video that defends his position. I watched it and critiqued it in our exchange as well. The video in question is also included for those who would like to see what I critiqued.  Here's my portion of the exchange. I kept his name out of it to protect his privacy.]

Dear Friend,

Thanks for writing. Yes, I am aware of various nuances in historic Baptist theology as it pertains to Covenant/ Administrations. And I am familiar with the website you sent and have watched some of the videos in the past. I think they are helpful in some ways and it is good to discuss these issues. However, some of the videos clearly show a distorted caricature of NCT. For example, James Renihan's assertion that NCT is “brand new” and that it is really “just an extreme version of Dispensationalism” would indicate that he either doesn't really understand what NCT teaches. Or he is purposely misrepresenting it in “straw man” fashion so as to more easily attempt to refute it. I would hope for the former and would give him the benefit of the doubt. If he truly believes that NCT views are “brand new” then I assume its because they are simply “brand new” to him. He wasn't taught them in seminary and he has never studied them until recently. But just because they are new to him doesn't mean they are new. His assertion that “we've never had such views in 2000 years of church history” is easily refuted by the very existence of the 1646 London Confession. Clearly such views existed 350+ years ago. And obviously those of NCT beliefs would say these views existed prior to that, being rooted in New Testament scripture.

 

Furthermore, the assertion that NCT rejects any notion of “moral law” is incorrect. What NCT does refute is the idea of the Ten Commandments as “the unchanging moral law of God.” And on a deeper level, NCT rejects the notion of dividing law into categories such as moral, ceremonial, civil, dietary, etc. NCT would treat the law as a unit and see it as fulfilled in Christ. Of course when matters of fulfillment are considered, there is a common knee-jerk reaction on the part of Covenant Theologians to imply that NCT teaches anti-nomianism and a rejection of any moral standard. Again, this is a “straw man” exaggeration that has no basis in truth.

It is regarding the Ten Commandments/Moral Law argument that CT and NCT have their greatest schism I believe. It is perplexing why CT Baptists hold so doggedly to this notion, which is no where taught in Scripture itself. Of course CT Presbyterians must find a way to link OT Law with the New Covenant because its the only way for them to justify infant baptism, which they link with circumcision. When CT Baptists cling to the “Moral Law” argument they are unwittingly siding with Presbyterian doctrine contra Biblical doctrine. While the CT Baptist would disagree over mode of baptism, he nevertheless accepts and embraces the Presbyterian rationale for it by clinging to the OT Law argument of the Westminster confession, and enshrining it himself in the 1689 London Confession.

Renihan's statements about how NCT just hasn't “thought through” the issues, was a little bit condescending in my opinion. As was his assertion that eventually NCT people would either fall deeper into doctrinal error, or they will come to their senses and embrace CT.  But once again, I think this is due in part to his recent discovery of NCT and his misunderstanding of it. He states that if one holds to NCT, we wouldn't know “which sins” to tell our pagan neighbors to repent of. This is a surprising statement to hear from him. Of course, our deeper problem, beyond “individual sins” is that we have a NATURE that is sinful. We are born in outright rebellion against God on all levels. It is this very nature that we should repent of, not simply “individual sins.” If my neighbor is an adulterer; and I encourage him to repent of his adultery, and he does........ is he then saved? Of course not. He might clean up his sex life; yet still die in his sins. He needs to repent of the fact that he is a sinner who does not live to the glory of God. I have no doubt whatsoever that Dr. Renihan knows this. So, as I stated above, his statement is either a deliberate misrepresentation of NCT. Or his statement is rooted in an honest misunderstanding of what NCT teaches. Once again, I would assume the best.

As for Richard Barcellos, I've read many of his critiques of NCT and found him repeatedly committing the same faux pas as Renihan, namely “straw man” arguments that misrepresent NCT's position. But I believe John Reisinger did an excellent job of addressing Barcellos' concerns in his book “In Defense of Jesus: The New Lawgiver.”

 Having said all of that........ I do believe that CT Baptists and NCT Baptists have much more that unites us than divides us. And hopefully we can proceed with sharpening one another for many years to come. We Baptists hold to our beliefs strongly. But I would hope we could still hold to our positions while displaying genuine Christian love for one another.

As for your other question regarding Renihan's claims that the 1646 and 1689 signers all held to the same theology: I wouldn't find it surprising that some of the 1646 signers held to some aspects of CT, though not all of them. Very rarely is there complete agreement on doctrinal statements. With that said, one would have to examine the actual statements of the 1646 and 1689 documents and make determinations based on that. I believe the 1646 is more Biblically accurate than the 1689. Even if it were written by exclusively CT Baptists (which it was not), I would still find it more accurate, in some ways, because it is more vague than the 1689, which makes bold assertions based on Westminster rather than Scripture.

So Dr. Renihan's research as to what the signers held to is a bit of a polemic “red herring” in my opinion. Because it doesn't matter in determining which doctrinal statement is more accurate. Furthermore, I (and I'm sure you as well) would say our goal is to be as faithful to Scripture as possible. I hold to the 1646 as more accurate than the 1689; though I do not consider the 1646 to be infallible. Our goal is to examine these documents in light of Scripture. In many areas both doctrinal statements are perfectly accurate. In some ways, the 1689 is not. And I believe the 1646 would come closer to Scripture than the 1689 would.

To sum it up, spending time researching what the signers of the documents might have believed might make for interesting discussion; but has no bearing on which document is more Biblically faithful. Examining both documents in light of Scripture would be much more profitable. When I examine the two, I find the 1646 to be more accurate and thus I hold to it.

I hope that clarifies my position for you.

Many Blessings,

Shane Kastler

 

Christian Martyrs

By Shane Kastler

If you watch the news for even a few moments, you realize that Christians around the world are hated. Public executions of Christians are becoming more frequent. And not surprisingly, many Christians are concerned and even terrified. Yet Jesus tells us to have a much different reaction in the face of possible martyrdom.

Jesus said: “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28 NASB) Indeed there are many enemies who might kill you. But Jesus specifically says not to fear them. Most of us would agree that this is easier said than done. Yet Jesus gives His people the ability to face death with courage. In that moment when we might expect to be most afraid, the Lord is with us and gives us a supernatural courage.

The Apostle Paul spoke of this when he faced the prospect of his own death. He wrote to Timothy saying: “At my first defense no one supported me, but all deserted me; may it not be counted against them. But the Lord stood with me and strengthened me.” (2 Timothy 4:16-17) Even though every one else deserted Paul; the Lord stood with him. But eventually Paul was killed. In fact, eventually Paul was beheaded by the enemies of Christianity. The more things change the more they stay the same.

Christians have always been hated by the world. Jesus promised his followers that they would be hated and that many would be killed. But regardless of whether or not you die by martyrdom or by natural causes; this world is not your home either way. And you cannot live eternally in this life. So you better be prepared for the next one.

While Jesus said not to fear those who could kill the body; He did say there was one who you should fear. You should fear the one who has power over the eternal soul. You should fear God and submit to Him. You should live your life with holy reverence toward the Lord. Fear Him and not man.

Are you prepared to die? Are you prepared for eternity? Have you turned from your sin in repentance and trusted in Jesus Christ as Lord? Are you following Him daily? If so you can expect hatred from the world. You might even be killed for your faith. But your soul is safe with Him. Don't fear those who kill the body. Fear the Lord alone and trust Him with your future. No matter what the future holds.

BOOK REVIEW: Living By Revealed Truth: The Life and Pastoral Theology of Charles Haddon Spurgeon by Tom Nettles (Reviewed By Shane Kastler)

By Shane Kastler

Tom Nettles recent work on Charles Spurgeon is a much needed addition to the scholarship focused on the 19^th century London pastor, known as “The Prince of Preachers.” In "Living By Revealed Truth: The Life and Pastoral Theology of Charles Haddon Spurgeon", he focuses primarily on the theological beliefs of Spurgeon which drove so many of his ministerial actions. The well written tome, makes for excellent reading and provides level headed insight into understanding what made Spurgeon tick.

While the book is obviously somewhat biographical, the main thrust is theological. Spurgeon came of age as the son and grandson of Congregational ministers. Being sickly as a boy, he devoted much time to reading and early on immersed himself in the English Puritans. From this he developed a theological understanding that was much deeper than most his age. Not surprisingly he was preaching the gospel as a teenager; and pastoring one of the largest flocks in London shortly thereafter. But Spurgeon was no mere carbon copy of his forefathers. He had his own convictions and didn't mind differing with his father and grandfather on notable issues. Albeit with utmost respect toward his elders.

On the issue of baptism, Spurgeon shunned the infant baptism of his youth and sought to be baptized as a believer after his conversion at age 15. He considered this to be the Biblical mode and desired his parents to allow for it, even though they disagreed with it. His mother told him: “Son I had always prayed that God would make you a Christian, but I certainly never expected him to make you a Baptist.” Spurgeon responded that as God so frequently does: “He gave you what you asked for, then even gave you exceedingly, abundantly beyond what you had asked for.” After writing his father seeking permission to be baptized, Spurgeon waited anxiously for the reply that was slow in coming. Apparently wanting to ignore the issue, John Spurgeon finally acquiesced and left the matter up to Charles.

Spurgeon's stellar wit is on full display in Nettles' work as he gives numerous examples of barbs which the preacher often zipped at his opponents. Once when a Presbyterian book store owner approached Spurgeon with a book on infant baptism, saying: “Look at this book Reverend! It's a thorn in your flesh isn't it?” Spurgeon immediately responded, “Finish the verse sir! It is a thorn in my flesh....and a MINISTER OF SATAN.”

The London press despised Spurgeon from the outset and Nettles does an excellent job of showing this. One such quote from a London paper castigated Spurgeon saying:

“Some men there are who, taking their precepts from Holy Writ, would beckon erring souls to a rightful path with fair words and gentle admonition; Mr. Spurgeon would take them by the nose and bully them into religion.... While many see him as a pious Christian; we see him as a ranting charlatan.”

Liberals despised him for being too focused on the Bible and on conversion. Hyper-Calvinists on the other hand, ridiculed him for being too evangelistic. Spurgeon, for his part, seemed content to preach Christ, call sinners to repent, and let the naysayers go on barking as they wished.

From a theological perspective, Spurgeon was clearly an Evangelistic Calvinist, and made no apologies for it. (For a more focused, and concise look at Spurgeon's controversies see Iain Murray's excellent work “The Forgotten Spurgeon”) He thundered the “Doctrines of Grace” and didn't believe God could truly be understood apart from Divine election. Yet, he clearly numbered many Arminians of a freewill stripe as friends and fellow brothers in Christ. With Spurgeon we see a fine example of holding fiercely to convictions, while not necessarily letting it divide true fellowship among genuine believers. He never saw eye-to-eye with his parents on baptism, yet held a warm affection for them and had his father preach in his pulpit numerous times.

Spurgeon's life is a fascinating one to study, perhaps the most fascinating preacher outside of Scripture. And Nettles does a masterful job of adding commentary to the narrative with his own excellent insights and observations. For example, Spurgeon was not a lover of the city; in fact he loathed living in London. The fog and smoke seemed to choke him out and add to his already weak physical constitution. Sometimes this disdain for city life clouded Spurgeon's judgment from a Spiritual perspective as well. Nettles contends that he “idealized the country” and made it better in his mind than it actually was. In truth, sin is everywhere. But it seems to be more concentrated in cities where more sinners naturally are in close proximity. But Spurgeon was duty bound to do something about the sins of London. He saw the city and ultimately the world as his mission field and set out on a “gospel siege” of it with his only weapon being the gospel. He fed the hungry and ministered to the sick. He opened an orphanage and a Pastor's college, training young men in true theology and sending them out to preach and minister. In all truth, it is overwhelming to consider the problems London faced in the late 19^th century. And it is equally overwhelming to consider all that Spurgeon did to face the problems.

Any study of Spurgeon's life would be incomplete if it didn't address the sometimes mammoth depressions that he faced; and Nettles does an excellent job of pointing these out. When seven people were trampled to death at the Surrey Gardens Music Hall, Spurgeon almost had a mental breakdown. Only 22 years old at the time; and the father of one month old twins; Spurgeon had to have some time out of the pulpit to recuperate from the tragedy. In some ways, this incident haunted him to his death.

Spurgeon was regularly cast down mentally, as well as physically. Nettles points out that even in his early twenties he frequently spoke of death and how much he longed for it because of his physical pains. It appeared evident, early in Spurgeon's life, that he was not destined to a long life on earth. So it's not too surprising that he died, exhausted and emotionally spent, at the age of 57.

In conclusion I would heartily commend this work by Tom Nettles as one of the best I've read on the life of Spurgeon. In getting past the factual details, the author presents the theological fuel that so often fired Spurgeon's life. As a Pastor, I found myself inspired by this titan of the faith; and as a Christian I marveled at how greatly God used him for His glory. Spurgeon was a rare gift to the church and there will likely not be another one like him. His combination of theological precision and practical application was unrivaled in his day and will possibly never be seen again. But all pastors (indeed all Christians should strive for it). Spurgeon was an amazing man. But His God is also our God; and who knows what God might do through other faithful servants in the future.

I am thankful to Tom Nettles for his meticulous research and clarity of thought in penning this excellent work. I recommend it's reading if one seeks to better understand Charles Haddon Spurgeon and what made him the man he was. Spurgeon's life was inspiring and his theology drove his ministry. If this were true of more ministers today, then the church of Jesus Christ would be much stronger and much more faithful than the watered-down caricatures of church we often see. Look to Nettles, and to Spurgeon, and most of all Jesus to find the route to faithfulness. Read this book and be edified, inspired, and encouraged to press on. Spurgeon spent himself in gospel ministry and died young. Let us all take up that mantel and be willing to do likewise if the Lord should so ordain.

Humbled at the Super Bowl

By Shane Kastler

The Bible says that “Pride goes before the fall and a haughty spirit before destruction.” (Proverbs 16:18) This is seen in numerous areas of life, but very clearly seen in the world of professional sports. Especially on the world's biggest stage, the Super Bowl.

Seattle Seahawks head coach Pete Carroll might be described as a prideful man. At least in some ways. Back in 1992 he made the news because he was caught on camera making a “choking” symbol after an opposing team's kicker missed a kick near the end of the game. The act was very juvenile and immature on Carroll's part. A grown man who is supposed to be a leader of men should behave better. But Carroll's emotions and immaturity got the best of him. His team eventually lost that game anyway and he later apologized for his actions. But it doesn't seem that he learned the lesson of humility.

A few years later he was hired, and eventually fired as head coach of the New England Patriots. Recently, with his new team facing his former team, the Patriots in the Super Bowl, Carroll bragged that when he was fired the Patriots “didn't realize what a great coach they were losing.” Confident? Yes. Arrogant? Also a yes. Public humiliation didn't humble him. Getting fired didn't humble him. So what could humble him?

In the waning seconds of this year's Super Bowl, Pete Carroll's Seahawks had certain victory within their grasp. With 26 seconds remaining in the game, Seattle was losing by four points with the ball on the one yard line. They had one timeout remaining, and they had the best running back in football on their team. Needing a mere 3 feet to be the world champions, all Carroll had to do was call a play to hand off to Marshawn Lynch and his legendary status as a coach would be solidified. Yet inexplicably, he called a pass play. The result? The Patriots intercepted the pass, won the game, and won the Super Bowl. Carroll's call might go down in history as the stupidest call in football history. Pete Carroll “choked” and his error will never be forgotten. I wonder if he regrets all the arrogance he has shown in the past?

Indeed, “pride goes before the fall.” That's not just true in sports, that's true in life. Are you prideful? Then a “fall” is most certainly in your future. Humble yourself today. Recognize your worthless state as a sinner and submit to Jesus Christ as Lord. Be humbled today, so you won't be humbled eternally in Hell. Pride will kill you. But Jesus will save you. Look to Him and be saved today.

Who Owns You? Chris Christie, Chemotherapy, and Forced Vaccinations

By Shane Kastler

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, hardly a bastion of liberty in his own right, recently sparked some controversy by suggesting that parents “perhaps” should not be forced to immunize their children against the measles. As quoted in the New York Times, Christie stated: “It’s more important what you think as a parent than what you think as a public official. I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well. So that’s the balance that the government has to decide.”

Many “government control zealots” were aghast at Christie's seemingly soft stance on forced immunizations. How dare he suggest parent's might have a say in the matter!?! So much was the outcry that he somewhat recanted his statement by “clarifying” that there was no question you should have your children immunized. This parrots a very similar statement that President Obama recently made on the topic. Is anyone shocked to find Obama and Christie in lockstep on an issue?

I too was aghast at Christie's statement, but for the exact opposite reason of the “government control zealots.” As a parent, I found it offensive that a government dictator would suggest that parents MIGHT “need to have some measure of choice in things as well.” Did you notice his carefully crafted words “some measure of choice”? In other words, it's not the sole responsibility of the parent to care for the child, it is the government's primary responsibility, and they should graciously “thrown a bone” to the parents by giving mom and dad “some measure of choice” in the matter. Here's another way of looking at it Governor. Maybe the government should keep their rotten hands off of my kids! Maybe parents don't need a condescending act of feigned benevolence giving us “a measure of choice” regarding the decisions for our own children. Maybe the “measure of choice” is solely ours and the government should do us all a favor and butt out of our lives. Float that policy position Mr. Governor and see how it polls for you.

The conclusion of his statement was equally problematic as he stated: “That's the balance that the government has to decide.” According to Christie then, the final arbiter on decisions made between parents and children is not the parents nor the children. According to Christie it is the government. They (he) will be the one who must ultimately decide what you and your children will do. Does this sound like a free society to you?

Don't kid yourself. America isn't free and those who think it is are living in a dream world. Issues like forced immunizations will be used as scare tactics and presented as a matter of public safety, but when have the Feds ever really been concerned about public safety? More often than not, it's public control that they're focused on. Who decides what is safe and what is not? Do citizens forfeit this right? Are we required by some sort of mythical law of patriotism to submit to the government needle and the majority view for the sake of the common good? What if we genuinely believe the vaccine to be worse than the disease? The so-called cure to be worse than the sickness? Then what? Will our benevolent government imprison us for our beliefs? With men like Christie in control, don't be surprised.

Recently a very similar situation arose when 17 year old Cassandra Callender refused to take chemotherapy to treat her Hodgkin's disease. A decision that her mother supported. But the supreme court of Connecticut over ruled them both. They determined that she did not have the maturity to understand the severity of her disease and she was ordered to take her medicine regardless of what she, her mother, or anyone else thought. So who do these government entities think they are? Answer, they think they are God and they have the right to rule your life.

This gets back to the age old question of who owns you? Who has the right to tell you what you must or mustn't do? Is it the Federal government? By way of forced vaccines? Is is the states, by way of a Governor's dictates and supreme court decrees? Or is it you? Does a free society recognize that you have the right to do what you want to yourself, even if I think you are making a mistake? Cassandra Callender is not alone in thinking that chemotherapy is a poison that will harm her body more than help it. Many people hold to this view. But what her ruling tells us is that you better not hold to such a view in Connecticut because their high court knows what's best for you better than you do.

Ultimately this has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in chemotherapy. Nor does it have anything to do with whether or not you believe in vaccines. It has everything to do with whether or not you have the right to believe and practice whatever you wish on these issues (as well as others) without fear of government intrusion and control.

Beware of the self-proclaimed benevolent dictators of the world! Especially if they have eyes on the White House. They'll try to craft the perfect statement to appease the “government control zealots” while paying lip service to the lovers of liberty. But such middle ground is ultimately impossible to tread. It's not the government's place to give “some measure of choice” to parents regarding their children. It's the government's role to mind their own business. It's not the government's role to force chemotherapy upon the unwilling. If anything it would be the government's role to prevent such an invasion of private property. The government doesn't own you and consequently they should keep their hands off of you, their noses out of your business, and their decrees out of decisions that involve YOUR family. Stand down Chris Christie! Stand down Connecticut Supreme Court! Stand down and stay out! Don't tread on me! Don't tread on us! We can take care of ourselves and make our own decisions. Don't give us a “measure of choice” when the entire right of choice belongs to us and us alone.