A Friendly Response To a Criticism of My Views on New Covenant Theology

Dear Lynda,

Your recent post on the Moral Law was brought to my attention because you cited and provided a link to an article in which I critique both Steven Furtick and Tim Challies in their views of the Law. Immediately after citing my article you made the following statement, in response to my views. (I've cut and pasted from your article to ensure accuracy). You appear to take issue with my.....

"1) rejection of any type of covenant made with Adam in Genesis 2, because “I don’t see the word covenant there” (really? is the word “Trinity” ever found in the Bible?), 2) dislike of Covenant Theology as “those baby baptizers” (will you ever consider that CT includes a credobaptist version, and decide to meaningfully interact with THAT form of CT?  No, it’s easier to resort to name-calling and broad-brushing about how CT is wrong because they’re baby baptizers…), and 3) the stated claim that the moral law was something that started (and ended) with Moses, and thus the only moral law for Christians is what is stated in the New Testament."

Since your statements contain things that I have never said, and my views were somewhat misrepresented in your characterization, I thought I would write and clarify my position. I certainly cannot speak for all who hold to New Covenant Theology, as there is variance in what people believe. Which is also the case for Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism.

First of all, my rejection of the “covenant of works” made with Adam has nothing at all to do with the fact that the word “covenant” isn't in the Genesis text. I agree with you that a concept might be taught even if the word itself is not. You correctly cited the word “Trinity” as an example. The problem with the covenant of works is that, not only is the word “covenant” not used, but the concept is not presented either. God issued a command to Adam and puts forth a potential punishment for disobedience. But if you read the text carefully (as I'm sure you have) you'll find God making no promises about eternal life, if Adam were to remain perfectly obedient. I find it somewhat dangerous to put words into God's mouth in this fashion, as CT does. Even most theologians who teach the covenant of works will admit that this covenant is a mere assumption that they make based on the text. I have written on this elsewhere if you care to read it.

As to your assertion that I (or others like me) “dislike” those “baby baptizers” – nothing could be further from the truth. I would count many Presbyterian Covenant Theologians to be dear friends and brothers and sisters in Christ; and would gladly say they were used of God to help me grow in the “grace and knowledge of the Lord.” As to the “baptist” version of Covenant Theology; I am aware of it and have studied it extensively. I think you might be assuming any non-CT Christian to be much more ignorant than they (we) are. Rather than seeking a “baptist” version of CT; I would argue that we should seek a more Biblical version of all things theological. In seeking to do this, I (and many others) have come to the conclusion that what is called “New Covenant Theology” is more faithful to the text than either of the two major systems currently in vogue. If you have any interest in reading further on this, I have written a four-part series comparing the 1646 and 1689 London Baptist Confessions, which I would encourage you to read, if you so desire.

Finally, your opinion that NCT teaches that the “moral law” began and ended with Moses is somewhat fuzzy in my opinion. CT refers to the Decalogue as the “moral law” in their famous tripartite division of the Law. NCT argues that no such division of the Law was ever presented in Scripture and in fact, this practice originated with Thomas Aquinas. Of course this is more than mere opinion, rather it is historical fact. While both CT and Dispensationalism are Biblically accurate in some things, they both also force assumptions on the text of Scripture that do not exist. CT is especially bad about doing this. The result is an entire lexicon of CT phrases and doctrines that find no basis in Scripture. Some of these include infant baptism, the covenant of works, and the three uses of the Law. (Which I have written against here). I find, that when pressed, Covenant Theologians will often resort to phrases such as these, or they will cite various theologians (Calvin, Chantry, Sproul, etc.); rather than citing contextual Biblical support for their position. What NCT seeks to do is simply force us back to the text itself rather than pointing to church history or our favorite theologian as the foundation for our beliefs.

Finally, your confident assertion that NCT is “bizarre” and that it teaches of a “God who changed His plan and changed His promises” shows a deep misunderstanding of what I (and many others who hold to NCT) believe. I would argue, NOT that God “changed” His plan and promises; but rather He brought His perfect plan to fulfillment in the life and work of Christ. While there is plenty of room for disagreement among Christians on the nature and future of ethnic Israel, many Christians believe (as I do) that Old Covenant Israel finds it's fulfillment in the New Covenant church. And we would cite Biblical sources for such a belief. Many also would see countless exegetical problems for premillennialism. Furthermore, there is ample reason to hold to a hermeneutic that gives the New Testament primacy over the Old Testament in terms of our understanding. If we are to see Jesus as the true “lamb of God”; and the “Son” who was called out of Egypt; then we must get this from the New Testament where it is clearly taught. Far from “bizarre” many would see this type of hermeneutic as the clearest and most faithful way to understand God's Word.

In closing, I hope this clarifies my personal beliefs. Once again, I cannot speak for all who hold to NCT and I would be disappointed to hear of any who would resort to “name calling” as you stated. Sometimes, I fear those on all sides of these issues allow themselves to be influenced too much by the flesh when defending their beliefs. My hope is that God's grace will prevent me from doing this. I have no doubt you feel the same way.

Blessings to you,

Shane Kastler

 

Comments

[David H.J. Gay]

My name is David Gay, and I was the speaker at the Olive Branch Conference to which Lynda referred. Alas, she would not allow me to post this on her blog. Perhaps it might fit here?

"Yes, I did say I rejected the covenant of works because the word covenant is not found in Gen. 1 – 3. But I think I said, ‘for a start, I reject...’. And of course, I accept that trinity is not found in the Bible. But the question is, is the concept found there. Perhaps the lady would show us where the covenant of works is found written large in Scripture – parallel to trinity, justification by faith alone, particular redemption and such like, none of which appear in Scripture. And, remember, CT claim that the COW is fundamental to their case.

As for name calling with baby baptism – I was quoting a leading advocate of infant baptism, the late David Wright of Edinburgh – that was his terminology for his practice and for those who were with him. He was trying to wake them up to what was going on and get them to mean what they say.

As for believer's baptism and CT, those who advocate that system have some big problems to cope with.

Talk of ‘the moral law’ needs justification. Talk about hermeneutics!

I have answered Lynda very fully in my Christ is All if she cares to read and review that. In 4 short addresses at Olive Branch it was not possible to cover all the ground."

[Shane Kastler]

Thanks David. I've posted your comment.

[Shane Kastler]

David -- I appreciate you clarifying the issue on my blog site. I too posted a response to Lynda's website, but my response wasn't allowed either. It seems as though her rules are very strict as to who can post comments. It's almost "legalistic." (Ha ha, sorry, I couldn't resist). Thanks again for your comments. I hope she reads your book "Christ is All." I think it would crystallize the issue very much.