"The Narrow Road": Blogs By Shane Kastler

What Advantage Has the Jew?

By Shane Kastler

So is it good to be born a Jew or not? Did Israel have a special standing in God's eyes or not? Did Israel have this standing under the Old Covenant or not? Do they still have a special standing now that the New Covenant has come, or not? These are the questions that Paul addresses throughout the book of Romans.

It goes without saying that Jew-Gentile relations were always strained. But that strain was exacerbated to a major degree once Jesus came and fulfilled his earthly ministry. For it was then that you had churches made up of both Jews and Gentiles who had embraced Christ as Lord. Were the “Jewish” Christians better than the “Gentile” ones? Or were they all “one in Christ?” The short answer to this is that Jews DID have an advantage under the Old Covenant; but that in the New Covenant this advantage is nullified. Things have changed in accordance with God's plan and Jesus is described as the “Savior of the World” rather than merely the Redeemer of Israel.

Paul addresses the historic Jewish advantage in Romans 3 where he writes, “Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.” (Romans 3:1-2 NASB) As to the question, “What advantage has the Jew?” Paul answered that they had the “oracles of God” in a way that Gentile nations did not. God had revealed Himself to the Jews in a way that He had not done with any other people group. They were taught something of God's character. They were marked off as a “peculiar” people. Israel was to be different than any other nation; and a plethora of rules were set forth to show the “otherness” of Israel. Egypt wasn't entrusted with God's Word. Israel was and they were to act accordingly. But, of course, they didn't. Though God made a special covenant with the nation, they broke that covenant in break-neck speed and incurred God's judgment as a result. The Old Covenant with Israel is no more. A New Covenant has come. So, do the Jews have a special status under the New Covenant? Paul's answer is no.

The idea of Old Covenant Israel having the advantage of being entrusted with the oracles of God would be akin to a modern day American owning a copy of the Bible. In this regard, they have an “advantage” over a pagan, living in remote Africa that does not own a Bible and has never heard the gospel of Christ. It truly is an advantage to have access to information. It truly is an advantage to have the “oracles of God.” But simply having access to this information does not save. Americans are not saved because they own a Bible, any more than an Old Covenant Jew was saved because he had been taught the “oracles of God.” Paul lays this truth out as he proceeds in Romans 3. After saying that the Jews had an advantage because of information they had received, Paul goes on to say that the advantage is not a salvific one. Jews aren't saved just because they are Jews. Salvation is reserved for those who are “in Christ” regardless of their national heritage. Paul writes, “What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin.” (Romans 3:9) And he goes on to say “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23) In other words, sin is a universal curse and a universal problem. While having information from God is advantageous, it does not save you. No matter if you are a Jew or a Gentile.

One of the major misunderstandings of our day is that the nation of Israel is the "chosen people of God."  This was true under the Old Covenant, but is not true under the New Covenant.  In fact, much of the New Testament was written to fight against this idea and to point out the the "dividing wall of separation" between Jew and Gentile has been broken down by Christ. (see Ephesians 2:11-15)  Indeed there is a "chosen people" under the New Covenant but they come from "every tongue, tribe, people, and nation." (Revelation 5:9) Therefore modern day attempts by dispensational theologians who claim a special status for the nation of Israel actually argues against what the New Testament teaches.  Ethnic divisions are wrongly enforced rather than teaching the peace that comes for all who are in Christ.  Many of these errors are based on reading Old Covenant promises made to the Old Covenant nation, without regarding the New Covenant fulfillment of these promises that are proclaimed  in the New Testament scriptures; as Christ fulfills in substance what was merely a shadow in the past.

The mistaken notion that many Jews had in Paul's day was that they would be saved on the basis of their standing as Jews. They were the chosen people. They were God's possession. They were a chosen race. Yet all of these phrases are used by New Testament writers to describe CHRISTIANS, rather than Jews. Peter wrote: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.” (1 Peter 2:9-10)

Of course, this teaching flew in the face of Jewish conventional wisdom which assumed they had a special standing based on their bloodline. But under the New Covenant, the only blood that matters is the blood of Jesus, which was shed to pay for the sins of those who trust in him. Not from the Jews only, but from both Jew and Gentile peoples. For there is no “Jew and Gentile” in the New Covenant, as the book of Colossians states, “There is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.” (Colossians 3:11) Many Jews expected salvation based on their status, or if not this then at least based upon their keeping the Law that had been entrusted to them. Paul addressed this error as well, stating: “Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.” (Romans 3:19-20 NASB)

Paul first points out that whatever the Law says it is speaking to those who are “under the Law.” This would exclude Gentiles; and furthermore it would exclude Christians, even those who were Jewish. For Paul declares himself to be “not under the Law.” (1 Corinthians 9:21) So the Law speaks to those under the Law. But does the Law justify those who are under the Law? That is the real question and Paul is adamant and crystal clear with his answer that “By the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight.” (v. 20) Paul even elaborates to the point of giving a reason why keeping the Law can't justify them when he says, “For through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.” (v. 20) Far from providing salvation to the Jewish people, the Law's intent was to condemn them not to save them. The Law did not pay for sin, it simply reminded those under it that they were sinners. And it reminded them day after day after day in very dramatic fashion. Animals were slaughtered as sacrifices to remind Israel that “the wages of sin is death.” (Romans 6:23) A yearly sacrifice was made on the Day of Atonement to remind Israel that the “wages of sin is death.” The Law didn't pay for the sins of the people, rather it reminded them of their ongoing sinful condition. Likewise, keeping the Law didn't justify Israel either for it too laid a burden on them that they could not bear. This is exactly what Peter said at the Jerusalem Council when the early church refused to force Gentiles who were being saved to adhere to the Law of Moses. Peter said: “Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.” (Acts 15:10-11)

Peter and Paul are in full agreement on the relationship between the Law and salvation. The Law cannot save and indeed could never be kept to perfection. And salvation comes about by the “grace of the Lord Jesus.” And this is true for all people regardless of their national heritage. Jews and Gentiles are all born in sin and it's only through knowing Christ Jesus that one is saved. The Jews had an advantage in having the Law, but it was not an “advantage” in terms of salvation. The great error of Judaism was that they could justify themselves by keeping the Law. Certainly Paul thought this as a Jew prior to his conversion. As did many others. But none are justified by the works of the Law. In fact, none are justified by doing works apart from the Law either. Gentiles cannot earn their way to Heaven by merit any more than a Jew can. Both groups need Jesus.

And this is what Jesus did for both groups. He came and lived a perfect life, then he died a sacrificial death. The Law is fulfilled in the One who kept it to perfection and the price for sin is paid by the One who died on a tree. There is no curse for those in Christ because Christ became a curse for us (Galatians 3:13). By faith we are “imputed” with his perfect righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21); and he is “imputed” with the punishment for our sins. The nation of Israel does not have an advantage as it pertains to salvation. They did not in Paul's day; and they do not in our day. Justification by Law-keeping is a works-based fallacy that cannot change the sinfulness of the human heart. The Law is fulfilled. Christ has come. Salvation belongs to those who know and trust in Him; for he did the work that no Jew nor Gentile could ever do. Jesus saves. And apart from him, no one else can.

Refuting John Calvin's Three Uses of the Law

By Shane Kastler

One of the questions that has divided the theological world for centuries has to do with what role (if any) the Mosaic Law plays in the life of a New Covenant Christian. Many have undertaken an attempt to reconcile how the Law is “fulfilled” in Christ (Matt. 5:17) and how the Apostle Paul can say unequivocally that he is “not under the Law” (1 Cor. 9:21); while at the same time affirming that injunctions against things like adultery and murder are still in effect. Is the Law fulfilled and no longer binding? Is part of the Law fulfilled? Is none of the Law truly fulfilled and thus all of it binding on the believer? Or is it some combination of these theories?

In his voluminous work “The Institutes of the Christian Religion” 16^th century reformer and theologian John Calvin attempted to answer this question with what has now become his famous “three uses of the Law.” While there is no questioning Calvin's influence on history, particularly in the realm of theology, does this of necessity mean that Calvin is correct? In this article I will propose that Calvin is not only flawed in his proposition of the three uses of the Law; but that Calvin's application of the Mosaic Law is wrong in both theory and practice, finding no basis in Scripture.

I should also note at the outset, that while I disagree with Calvin on the Law, I am in agreement with him on many other things and gladly wear the brand “Calvinist” as it pertains to soteriology and what has come to be known as the “five points of Calvinism.” On these five points, I heartily agree with the great reformer; but on the three uses of the Law; he and I must part ways.

Calvin's first use of the Law had to do with revealing God's righteous standard. In this way, Calvin taught that the Law was a mirror that reflects God's perfect righteousness. That it brings conviction to the sinner, and thus drives him to Christ. To defend this position Calvin quoted the well known passage from Galatians that states: “The Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.” (Galatians 3:24) Calvin states: “The reward of eternal salvation, as promised by the Lord, awaits the perfect obedience of the Law.” (Institutes 2.7.3) This statement in itself is highly disputed. Did God in fact offer “eternal salvation” to Israel if they kept the Law? Did God, in fact offer theoretical salvation by works? If a Jew could somehow keep the Law to perfection? I would argue “no” based on the fact that even if perfect obedience could have been attained it would not have addressed the problem of original sin which could only be expunged by the blood of Christ. A sacrifice that was still future in Old Testament times; but a sacrifice that was nonetheless necessary for any sinner to be forgiven by a just and holy God.

Calvin cites Deuteronomy 30:19 in defense of his belief. The passage says: “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, by loving the LORD your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.” (Deut. 30:19-20) What is interesting about the passage is that it offers “long life” in the land of promise; rather than “eternal life” in the presence of God. No mention is made whatsoever of eternal life for obedience. While Israel is a “typological” picture of Christians and the promised land is a “typological” picture of Heaven; the Old Covenant types are not the same as the New Covenant realities. Calvin cites this passage as a Scriptural proof based on mere conjecture; much like the so called “Covenant of Works” that God supposedly made with Adam in the Garden of Eden offering the same promise of eternal life for perfect obedience. Of course we search in vain to find any reference to this promise of eternal life made to Adam; and likewise Israel. Calvin reads too much into the Deuteronomy passage rather than accepting at face value what the text actually states.

A New Testament passage that could easily be misconstrued as offering “salvation by works” can be found in Luke 10 where the lawyer asks Jesus how he can inherit eternal life. Jesus answers: “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” And He said to him, “You have answered correctly, do this and you will live.” (Luke 10:26-28) Was Jesus offering salvation by law-keeping? Or was Jesus stating the fruit of a changed heart? To love the Lord in the way Jesus described could only be done by one who was born again. Yet even if the man was born again and truly loved the Lord he is not saved based on this fact alone. For a payment must still be made for his sins (Heb. 9:22), and the lawyer couldn't make that payment.  Christ alone would make that payment and thus the Lord's statement is completely factual.  But obedience alone does not lead to eternal life and neither Moses, nor Jesus taught that it did.

Nevertheless, is Calvin correct in citing Galatians 3 as proof that the Law “drives us to Christ”? To answer that question, we must first consider who Paul is addressing and consequently, who was given the Law in the first place? It was not 16^th century Genevans, nor 21^st century Americans who were given the Law, but rather Old Covenant Jews. And thus, it was to them that it could be rightly stated the Law served as a “tutor” (or nanny, or babysitter) that led to Christ. It would seem to be a fact of obvious historical significance to state that the Law was never given to Gentiles; and certainly couldn't be said to be a “tutor” in this way.

The clear question that Paul addresses within the context of the Galatians passage has to do with “why then the Law?” God made a promise to Abraham and God fulfilled that promise in Christ. So what does Moses have to do with it? Paul states that the Law was added “because of transgressions.” But what Calvin fails to explain is the rest of the passage that states the Law was added “until the time would come to whom the promise had been made.” (Gal. 3:19) In other words, the Law was added for a temporary amount of time “until” Christ came. Paul's conclusion in Galatians 3 turns out to be much different than Calvin's. While Calvin states this chapter as a proof for the validity and usefulness of the Law; Paul concludes that “now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.” (Gal. 3:25) Now that the epoch of “faith” and the appearance of Christ has occurred the Jews are “no longer under a tutor.” And Gentiles never were under that tutor, for Gentiles, even in Biblical times, “did not have the Law.”(Rom. 2:14) Certainly Gentiles by Calvin's day (and ours) did not have it as a rule of conduct or a tool for evangelism. The only way to accept Calvin's interpretation of the ongoing “use” of the Law from Galatians 3 is to completely ignore what Paul himself says in the text. I therefore, feel justified in saying that Calvin's first use of the Law is incorrect, being based on a misapplication of a text that doesn't apply within the context.

Calvin's second use of the Law is that it restrains evil; and once again we have reason for pause when considering his Biblical rationale. Historically speaking, there is no question that the Mosaic Law under the Old Covenant restrained evil. And did it ever! With commandments that dictated everything from clothes to food to marriage to Sabbath restrictions; the Law touched every aspect of a Jew's life. Furthermore the punishments prescribed for disobedience were heavy-handed and often violent. And this by God's decree. No one can rightly deny this evident fact. However, the question as it pertains to the argument at hand, is whether or not the Mosaic Law still functions in this civil capacity? And as New Covenant believers I think we should offer a relieved answer of “no.”

In my view, Calvin's error in this regard is by advocating a purpose of Law in general, by using the example of Mosaic Law in specific. And in this way, Calvin is really comparing apples to oranges. Certainly governmental laws exist to restrain evil; but is this specifically the Law of Moses? While examples of “good and evil” and “justice and injustice” and “punishment and restitution” can be seen in the Mosaic covenant; the Mosaic Law itself is not our model when setting up earthly, temporal governments. We do not live in a theocracy as the Old Covenant nation of Israel did. Some nations have longed to set up a Christian theocracy and try to institute the Law of Moses in modern times. In fact, Calvin himself was essentially a church-state dictator in Geneva. But the New Testament does not prescribe earthly governments to be instituted based on Mosaic Law. Old Covenant Israel? Yes. 16^th century Geneva? No. 21^st century America? No. While there is certainly overlap between Mosaic Law and modern law (murder, thievery, etc.) there is also a clear distinction. For example, we do not give the government the power to enforce punishment for idolatry. We do not give the government power to force church attendance. Nor should we, unless we long to see the purity of the church tainted by the unregenerate attending under the threat of legal reprisal. Mosaic Law is not intended to be “used” today to restrain evil; and thus Calvin's second “use” of the Law is invalid.

As a proof of this, try walking into a bar someday and telling the drunk reprobate on the bar stool that he deserves to be arrested for violating the Law of Moses. And let me know how that works for you. You would likely be laughed out of the room, if not worse. And rightly so. While evangelistically we might wish to point out the sinfulness of the drunkard's life and encourage him to repent and turn to Christ; he has not committed a crime based on the Mosaic Law because he is not under the Mosaic Law. Indeed he never was. And any effort to try and establish a modern day, earthly government under Mosaic Law would be erroneous and dangerous. Not to mention biblically indefensible. The Mosaic Law exited to govern the Old Covenant nation of Israel under a covenant that no longer exists.

Calvin's third use of the law is his most popular and by his own admission the most common use of the law; which is to teach believers how to please God. Yet this didactic aspect of the Law has no basis in Scripture. Was the Mosaic Law intended to sanctify the believer? Was the Mosaic Law intended to whip the backside of lazy Christians into a forced obedience against their will? Calvin said yes. Here's what he said: “The saints must press on; for, however eagerly they may in accordance with the Spirit strive toward God’s righteousness, the listless flesh always so burdens them that they do not proceed with due readiness. The Law is to the flesh like a whip to an idle and sluggish ass, to arouse it to work.” (Institutes 2.7.12) As appealing as Calvin's reference to Christians as “idle and sluggish asses” is; it falls short of how Jesus described his followers. Rather than comparing us to lazy donkeys, Jesus called his followers “sheep” and declared that his sheep “hear his voice and follow him.” (John 10:27) Indeed Christians delight to do the will of the Lord. Calvin is certainly right to point out that Christians often stumble and fall. But is the Mosaic Law intended to be a tool to “whip” them into obedience? That would seem extremely odd when Calvin is referring to a Law that Paul claimed Christians were not under. And that the Jerusalem Council determined to be a Law that should not be heaped upon Gentiles (Acts 15:1-21).

Is there benefit in studying the Old Testament scriptures? Certainly, for the New Testament scriptures testify that “all scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching.” (2 Tim. 3:16) But Old Testament teaching will not be “profitable” when it's taken out of context and used as a whip rather than a teaching tool. New Covenant Christians might very well gain insight in reading and studying the Old Covenant Law and God's dealings with Old Covenant Israel; but we don't study it as though we were “under” the Law, nor born into the Old Covenant nation of Israel. New Covenant Christians are free from the Law and in fact were never under it. Therefore Calvin's third use of the Law is equally invalid.

In conclusion, I find Calvin's writings to be beneficial and edifying in many ways. If a Christian attempts to study Calvin in depth he is likely to glean many beneficial observations from the great reformer. But all theologians should be read with “Berean eyes” (Acts 17:10-11) knowing that “the best of men are men at best” and that no human teacher is without his faults. Calvin was right on numerous things. But wrong on some as well. His famous “three uses of the Law” stand on the foundation of a shaky rock that does not hold up when scrutinized under the lens of New Testament teaching. The so-called “5 points of Calvinism” are Biblically accurate and helpful in understanding salvation; but the so-called “3 uses of the Law” are bogus and should be graciously rejected for the man-made creations that they are. Faulty conclusions based on a faulty hermeneutical principle of taking Old Testament passages out of context, while failing to apply New Testament revelation that explains the proper standing of a New Covenant saint. Christians are “free from the Law” and it's a “happy condition” (as the old hymn states). We have also been freed from sin's power and Christ has paid for sin's penalty. We look to Jesus as both savior and sanctifier, since he is both “author and finisher” of our faith (Heb. 12:2). Moses doesn't disciple us. Jesus does. And thus Calvin's “uses of the Law” must be rejected.

Comparing the Confessions (Part 4) – Refuting the Covenant of Works. The 1646 vs. 1689 London Baptist Confessions

By Shane Kastler

The Bible speaks of God relating to man by way of two primary covenants. The Old Covenant (also known as the Mosaic Covenant), made with the nation of Israel and the New Covenant, made with God's elect from every tongue, tribe, people, and nation, administered through Jesus Christ. The Prophet Jeremiah foretold of a new covenant that would be unlike the Mosaic one. “Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD.” (Jeremiah 31:31-32 NASB) Jeremiah tells us that the covenant would be “new” and that it would be “not like the covenant I made with their fathers.” It's not the same covenant, merely administered in a new and fresh way. Rather it is a “new” covenant. Furthermore it's not even like the old covenant; being much different in nature and in scope.

A covenant itself is an agreement between two parties, whereby both sides agree to certain terms. Typically there are rewards for compliance to the terms; and consequences for non-compliance. A covenant also frequently has a “sign” that goes along with it.

The Apostle Paul wrote of being ministers of a new covenant saying that God “who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” (2 Corinthians 3:6) Indeed Paul had much to say about the Old Covenant and it's Law; which could not grant life to it's adherents. Paul describes the Old Covenant and it's Law as “having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.” (Galatians 3:19) And that this Covenant is no more. It is no longer in existence since Christ has now come in total fulfillment of the old letter which has passed away. Righteousness does not come by the Law, but rather through Christ and Christ alone. “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” (Romans 10:4)

The New Testament further contrasts the Old vs. New Covenant in the book of Hebrews where we read of Christ: “But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.” (Hebrews 8:6-7) The Old Covenant was inadequate. And it was inadequate by Divine design. God never intended for man to be justified by the law. Man would be justified ONLY by the finished work of Christ. Seeking to be justified by the law was a fool's errand that many Jews ran after. The Law, which Paul says was “added because of transgressions until the promised seed (Jesus) came” would not justify. Could not justify. And wasn't intended to justify. Only Christ would justify. Only Christ could justify. And ultimately, only Christ DID justify those who have faith in Him. God did not make a “Covenant of Works” with man whereby man might justify himself by his deeds. God did not do this in giving the Law to Moses. Nor did God do this when he created Adam and placed him in the garden. Covenant Theology says otherwise. And the purpose of this essay is to refute this notion.

The Westminster Confession of Faith states: “The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.” (VII.2) While this section is omitted from the 1689 London Baptist Confession it becomes clear later in the document that the 1689 is in agreement with a “Covenant of Works.” Section twenty of the 1689 London states: “The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect, and begetting in them faith and repentance; in this promise the gospel, as to the substance of it, was revealed, and [is] therein effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners.” While we might give the purveyors of the 1689 Confession the benefit of the doubt rather than claim they were trying to sneak in a “Covenant of Works” - I do think it odd that they mention it in passing without defining specifically what it means. Perhaps it was assumed that all of their readers would know what is meant by “Covenant of Works.” Yet such theological neglicence seldom leads to profitable spiritual fruit. The definion was already stated in the Westminster Confession, which the 1689 parroted, word-for-word, repeatedly. Why omit the Westminster definion of “Covenant of Works” then mention the “Covenant of Works” in passing several sections later, leaving it undefinded. Was this sinister? Sneaky? Or just sloppy? For the most part the 1689 Confessions is a carbon copy of the Westminster Confession; with a handful of tweaks to make it a “Baptist” document. It would appear that clearly spelling out a pre-fall “Covenant of Works” with Adam was somewhat uncomfortable to the 1689 drafters. Nevertheless, they held to a “Covenant of Works” as evidenced by Section twenty above.

So, did God make a “Covenant of Works” with Adam before the fall of man occurred? Or did He not? While granting that there might have been some “covenantal” aspects to what transpired between God and Adam in the Garden of Eden; can we rightly describe this as a “Covenant of Works?” Was this truly a two-party agreement where something is required of both sides? When God made a covenant with Abraham, there were two parties. God Himself giving the provision for both. The Bible says: “It came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces. On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram.” (Genesis 15:17-18) For this reason, as the covenant was being ratified by God, Abraham slept. Indeed God made a promise to Abraham that would be fulfilled by God Himself. As for the children of Israel, one can clearly see the covenant made with them through Moses because God sets out the terms of the covenant. And Israel totally (and rashly) agreed to it. “Then he took the book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!” So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.” (Exodus 24:7-8) They promised obedience, but they did not obey. The Bible makes clear that they broke this covenant (see Jer. 31:32 above). Nevertheless, clearly it was a “covenant” established between God and Israel. Was such a covenant established with Adam?

When examining the texts from Genesis, it seems that what transpired with Adam was not a covenantal agreement between God and Adam, but rather a COMMANDMENT directed by God to Adam. A “covenant” and a “commandment” while similar; are not nearly the same thing. Here is what the text from Genesis says: “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou may freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eat thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Genesis 2:16-17)

Several things should be considered when differentiating between a covenant and a commandment. First of all, just because God threatened death for disobedience, does this mean he promised eternal life for obedience? It seems that many too readily assume this to be the case when the text doesn't say that. Theologian Wayne Grudem, for example, states: “In the promise of punishment for disobedience there is implicit a promise of blessing for obedience.” (Systematic Theology, pg. 516) In other words, since the text doesn't actually promise reward, we should assume it. Although one might think that rather than God implying, He might have instead been explicit. R.C. Sproul believes the promise for obedience was explicitly given by God, stating: “The original covenant between God and humankind was a covenant of works. In this covenant, God required perfect and total obedience to His rule. He promised eternal life as the blessing of obedience, but threatened mankind with death for disobeying God’s law.” (Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, pg. 73) Yet Sproul cites no verse to prove this promise of “eternal life” for obedience. Because the Bible itself provides no verse that states this. Once again implication rather than exegesis rules the day.

It is beyond dispute that God laid out the consequences for disobedience. But no where does God promise Adam eternal life for perfect obedience. God does not make a covenant with Adam, He issues a commandment to Adam. Perhaps an example from the government will help. The state you live in probably has a law against murder. And there are consequences for the breaking of that law. If you murder and are found guilty you are liable to execution, or perhaps life in prison. Would this then be described as a “covenant”? No. If it's a covenant, then what are the terms for obedience unto it? What if you DON'T murder anyone. What will the government give you then? The answer, as you well know, is nothing. You don't get a reward for doing your duty. If the government said, “Every citizen who managed to NOT murder anyone in the past year will receive $10,000.” Now THAT might be considered a covenant. For the government to simply say, “If you do not murder, then we will leave you alone.” That's not a reward. That is government staying out of your life; as they are largely supposed to do. The state's law against murder is a commandment, not a covenant. Much like God's decree to Adam in the Garden was a commandment and not a covenant. The promised eternal life that Covenant Theologians speak of is deduced. It is produced out of thin air because the text doesn't state that at all. The Covenant Theologian might respond to me with a question: “So what do you think would have happened if Adam had never sinned?” I might speculate on this all day long; but at the end of that long day I would be forced to admit that my speculations were nothing more than that: speculations. Since the text itself doesn't tell us what would have happened if Adam had perfectly obeyed. A much more comfortable theological position to take on matters where Scripture is silent is to remain silent. This is a far wiser course of action than deducing a “Covenant of Works” and enshrining it in a Confessional statement for generations and generations of believers to be confused by.

One of the most hotly debated theological questions for eons has been: “What if Adam had never sinned?” Of course such a question is purely hypothetical; and while man often deal with hypotheticals because of his limited knowledge, God NEVER deals with hypotheticals. He who “ordains all things after the counsel of His will” (Eph. 1:11) is not in the dark on any issue. Therefore He knows what will come to pass because the Bible tells us that ultimately he ordains what comes to pass. I have written previously about Adam's fall being ordained by God for His greater glory, so I won't repeat that here. But suffice it to say, God KNEW Adam would disobey. And while Adam is responsible for his disobedience; and Adam's posterity is affected by his disobedience; none of this takes place outside the sovereign ordination of God. Perhaps at this point we should pause and admit we are treading in some deep, deep waters regarding the nature of God. But these deep waters are TRUE, regardless of how DEEP they are.

So what would have happened if Adam had never sinned? We don't know. But it would be extremely presumptuous to assume that a lack of sin would lead to eternal life. After all, later in Genesis God equates eternal life NOT with perfect obedience but with “eating of the tree of life.” As recorded: “Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever” (Genesis 3:26) Hypothetically speaking, what if man had NOT eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; but had also NOT EATEN of the tree of life? The logical assumption is that he would have enjoyed sweet fellowship with God while he lived, YET NOT lived forever. God equates eternal life with eating of the tree of life. Eternal life is not equated with perfect obedience. Whereas a lack of obedience DOES lead to death. A perfect obedience DOES NOT lead to eternal life. Eating of the tree of life does.

The point of all of this is to say that God did not make a “Covenant of Works” with Adam whereby he promised eternal life for obedience. This is an assumption made by Covenant Theologians, who all too often make assumptions based on inference, when the text doesn't say what they assume. (Infant baptism and 'Sunday as the Christian Sabbath' would be other examples). While there may be covenantal aspects to the exchange between God and Adam, it would be going too far to say that God made a “Covenant of Works” with Adam before the fall. What God did do, as clearly seen in the text, is issue a command to Adam and promise punishment based on disobedience. But this is not a covenant. Do we consider every command in Scripture to be a separate covenant? Do we consider the 2,000 imperatives of the New Testament to each be individual “covenants” that God makes with man? Do we consider each commandment of the Law of Moses to be a separate “covenant” that God made with Israel? Or do we consider all of these commandments to be under the one Mosaic covenant? And if that's the case (and it is) then why do we set this one incident with Adam apart and deem it a “covenant” when God himself never calls it that? This leads me to the second point.

The word “covenant” is never used, nor implied to describe the arrangement between God and Adam. Some would counter argue that just because a word isn't used doesn't mean the concept isn't taught. With this I would be in total agreement. For example, the word “Trinity” is never used in Scripture; but the concept of the Trinity is clearly taught in repeated places. Just because the word “covenant” isn't used in the creation account doesn't mean a covenant was not issued. A covenant might have taken place in principle without the word being specifically used. But, again I ask, is this the case? Is a “Covenant of Works” implied in Genesis 3? If so, I readily accept it. I just don't see it implied. I see a commandment with a threat of punishment. And obviously a lack of punishment, and even “blessing” for obedience. But eternal life is not promised based upon adherence to the commandment. God doesn't say “do this and live” but rather he says “if you do this you will die.” Those are NOT the same things.

Third, to imply a pre-fall “Covenant of Works” is to imply that it would be possible for man (even one man) to obtain eternal life based on his own merit. When the Bible teaches that salvation is always a matter of being attained by God's grace. Some might ask, “Was salvation necessary before the fall?” How could man be in need of salvation when sin had not yet entered the world? The answer to this is that even though sin had not entered the world, man was still dependent upon God for his life and the sustaining of it. Man needed to eat. Where would he get the food? Man need to breathe. Where would he get the air? Man needed a helper. Who would provide this? Time and time again, we see that Adam; even in his pre-fall condition, was overwhelmingly dependent on the grace of God to provide for him. Sin or not sin, man NEEDS God and cannot survive for one second apart from God' sustaining grace. To use the phrase “Covenant of Works” when the Bible doesn't use such a phrase, runs the risk of implying that man could have been saved by his deeds. And this notion in and of itself is an affront to God. We should never forget, that even apart from sin, there is still the “Creator vs. Creation” distinction whereas man is wholly dependent upon God because man is a created being. Even when sin is hypothetically taken off the table, man still needs God and cannot attain eternal life by his works. God never made a “Covenant of Works” with Adam whereby he promised eternal life for obedience. This is an unbiblical inference forced upon the text by those who seek to cling to a system of theology rather than let the Bible speak for itself. With that said, it is interesting to note that most Covenant Theologians who hold to a “Covenant of Works” would never teach salvation by works. To the contrary they are almost exclusively Calvinistic in their soteriology (doctrine of salvation) and would attribute salvation to being completely a work of God's grace. At least POST-FALL. Yet, their slavish adherence to Covenant Theology forces them to embrace a subtle form of hypothetical “works salvation” for Adam PRE-FALL. This is a glaring inconsistency in their soteriology that is routinely ignored; or simply overlooked in their mind. If salvation is truly by grace; then it had to be “by grace” for all men (including Adam) at all times (including before the Fall). Our theology should SCREAM GRACE and not works. Instead of SCREAMING Works and whispering grace. To imply Adam could have saved himself; but failed. So Jesus had to come in from the bench and go with “Plan B” is to distort God's perfect plan of redemption and to elevate the hypothetical notion of Adam's potential obedience.

Contrast all of this with what the 1646 London Confession of Faith says regarding the “Covenant of Works.” Here's what the 1646 says: ________________________. Nothing. The 1646 Confession makes no reference to a “Covenant of Works” since no “Covenant of Works” ever existed. It does state: “Jesus Christ is made the mediator of the new and everlasting covenant of grace between God and man, ever to be perfectly and fully the prophet, priest, and king of the Church of God for evermore.” (Section X) This statement exalts Christ as the mediator of a “new” covenant. A covenant that Hebrews also tells us is a “better” covenant, enacted upon “better promises.” (Hebrew 8:6) The 1646 Confession describes this as a “Covenant of Grace” and rightly so. For it is a gracious covenant. Of course the 1689 Confession also speaks of a Covenant of Grace; though it doesn't point to Christ, initially as being the mediator of this covenant. Covenant Theology and the 1689 London Confession pushes this “Covenant of Grace” back to the Garden in God's post-fall actions with Adam and his posterity. While it is clear that the grace of God is at work in the Garden of Eden, is this the same thing as a “gracious covenant” otherwise known as a “Covenant of Grace?” Hardly.

Therefore, it is my belief that we could most adequately understand the Scriptures; and specifically God's dealings with man by using the language and the concepts that Scripture itself uses. The two main covenants described in Scripture being the Old (Mosaic) Covenant and the New Covenant based on the blood of Christ. The pre-fall “Covenant of Works” is an invention of theologians that does a good job of defending their system of doctrine, but a bad job of explaining the actual text of Scripture. While there is some truth in what the Covenant Theologian states regarding Adam's pre-fall condition, this truth is inexplicably muddied by the insistence upon using unbiblical terminology to explain unbiblical concepts. The 1646 Confession more clearly states how God works in covenantal relations in its avoidance of adding phrases that do nothing but add confusion. Man, at no time, could have been saved by his works and it is misleading to imply otherwise. Man might have been blessed. Man might have avoided punishment. But man could only be saved by the grace of God. Man could only attain eternal life by the grace of God. And while man should absolutely and always obey God; this he simply will not do unless God so enables him. That is true of every man today. That was true of Adam in the Garden. “Works” do not save. They never have and never will. “Grace” saves. And grace alone saves. Let us rejoice in this grace. Let us refrain from muddying the theological waters with unbiblical notions. And let us unite in celebrating a God who commands us to obey. Then gives us the power BY GRACE, to do so.

 (NOTE:  This is part 4 of an ongoing series on the 1646 London Baptist Confession of Faith's superiority over the 1689 London Baptist Confession.  You can also read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 , For an audio sermon I recently preached called "Refuting the Covenant of Works" click here).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shane Kastler serves as Pastor of Heritage Baptist Church in Lake Charles, LA. He is also the co-host of "Church and State" on Eternal Life Broadcasting (KELB 100.5 FM and KEBL 105.5 FM radio) each Thursday. He teaches Logic at Covenant Grace Academy and writes a weekly religious column for the Linn County News (KS). He has contributed articles to Economic Policy Journal, Target Liberty, Lew Rockwell.com, Sword & Trowel, and Reformed Libertarian.com.

Peter, Paul, and the 'So-Called' Moral Law: How the Jerusalem Council Destroys Covenant Theology

By Shane Kastler

Can you imagine going to a church dinner where both Peter AND Paul were in attendance? And then can you imagine Peter and Paul having a public confrontation over theology? You might say, “I'd have liked to been a fly on the wall for that!” Almost as good..... you can read about it in the Bible.

In Galatians 2, Paul tells the story of a time when Peter came to Antioch to fellowship with the Christians there. Most of them were of a Gentile persuasion; and of course Peter and Paul were of a Jewish persuasion. Yet they all had come to know, by God's grace, that God is not one to show partiality. We are all sinners before God and can only be saved by an act of His sovereign grace. But what about the Jewish Law? What about Moses? How were Gentiles supposed to relate to that? For that matter, how were Jewish Christians supposed to relate to it? This was what caused the strife between Peter and Paul at Antioch. But be forewarned, this was not a mammoth clash of the theological titans, if you will. This was not a debate between Peter and Paul. This was a rebuke. One of them was CLEARLY in the wrong. And one of them was CLEARLY in the right. Here's what happened, by Paul's own reckoning:

“But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (Galatians 2:11-14 NASB)

Before I point out Peter's fault, let me cushion the blow by praising him a little. Peter was clearly used of God in a unique and powerful way. As one of the twelve disciples he was one of the “chosen of the chosen” if you will. And within the twelve, Peter was a part of a trio that Jesus seemed to have an extra closeness with (Peter, James, and John). And even within the trio, Peter was the undisputed leader. He frequently speaks boldly on behalf of the other twelve. Sometimes he speaks too boldly and puts his foot in his mouth. But he clearly loves Jesus and was probably the most prominent leader in the early church. Which is why it was so surprising what he did at Antioch. And it was why Paul had no choice but to rebuke him publicly for it. The truth of the gospel was at stake, and no man is bigger than the gospel. Not even Peter. Not even Paul. Earlier in Galatians Paul wrote that even if he himself came back later and preached a different gospel, “let him be accursed.” (Gal. 1:8) The truth of the gospel was absolutely vital to Paul. Which is why he had to rebuke Peter.

As the text tells us, Peter was fellowshipping quite freely with the Gentile Christians before the Judaizers arrived. Bear in mind that Peter had already had this issue settled quite profoundly in his mind. In Acts 10 it was Peter who had the vision regarding eating things which were “unclean.” Peter, being a loyal Jew declared that he had never eaten anything ceremonially unclean! But God reveals deeper truth to Peter, declaring: “Arise, Peter, kill and eat!......What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” (Acts 10:13, 15) A short time later Peter is instructed to go and share the gospel with Cornelius. And when he does he tells Cornelius: “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean. That is why I came without even raising any objection when I was sent for. So I ask for what reason you have sent for me.” Acts 10:28-29)

A few chapters later, we are told of a council that convenes in Jerusalem to deal with how Gentile Christians were supposed to relate to the Law of Moses. It starts when “some men from James” come to Paul and Barnabas insisting that the Gentile believers must be circumcised and observe the Law of Moses. Paul and Barnabas vehemently disagree and they all head to Jerusalem to meet with the elders and apostles. While there, some of the Pharisees who had believed also clung to the Law saying that circumcision and observing the Law of Moses was vital. After much debate, it was Peter who arose and gave the rousing defense of justification by grace through faith in Christ alone. Read his words: “After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, 'Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.'” (Acts 15:7-11)

With all that said, let us not miss what the judgment of the Jerusalem council was. And let us not miss how it pertains to the so-called “Moral Law” of the Ten Commandments as a rule of life for the Christian. James' judgment was this: “Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.” (Acts 15:19-20 NASB)

That's it? This is all the Jerusalem council has to say regarding Gentiles observing the Law of Moses? Let us not forget that this was what the debate was about. It wasn't JUST circumcision; but also “observing the Law of Moses” according to Acts 15:5. And the Jerusalem council concludes four things. Avoid things contaminated by idols. Avoid fornication. Avoid things that are strangled and blood. Why didn't James instruct the Gentiles to keep the eternal, unchanging, moral law of God contained in the Ten Commandments? Maybe that is because the Ten Commandments are not the eternal, unchanging, moral law of God. And never once in the Bible were presented as such.

This account certainly sounds the “death knell” to Covenant Theology's insistence on the Ten Commandments being the unchanging, eternal, moral law of God. Why on earth would James mention NOTHING about it in this passage and in this context? The Pharisees who believe said the Gentile Christians were to “observe the Law of Moses.” Why didn't James divide the Law into three sections and say, “Well they need to observe the moral law, but not the ceremonial or civil?” James' actions and his words utterly destroy Covenant Theology's “moral law” theory. And it seems the early church leaders were in adamant agreement that Christians were not “under the Law” in any way, shape, form, or fashion. Peter, James, John, Barnabas, Titus, and others were present. And they all agreed with James' judgment. Many decades later, Thomas Aquinas might have presented a different view by dividing the Mosaic Law into categories. The Apostles never do such a thing. So whom will you choose to follow? Aquinas or the Apostles?

Furthermore, James makes no mention of the Law as a means of "salvation" NOR of "sanctification."  Again, a common notion in Covenant Theology circles is that Moses will drive you to Christ for salvation; then Christ will drive you back to Moses for sanctification.  Apparently, if this is true, someone forget to tell James and the Apostles.  There is no mention of sanctification by the Law.

It is quite telling what James fails to mention in this text. And while some might see this as an argument from “silence” it is actually an argument made quite loud and clearly by our Lord's brother. He doesn't mention the Decalogue and even uses the phrase “not to trouble” the Gentiles with Mosaic issues (Acts 15:19). Even the four things James mentions aren't so much commands as they are ways in which the Gentiles can live “free from the Law” while not needlessly offending Jews whom they seek to evangelize. Paul makes this clear in 1 Corinthians 8 when he unpacks the idea of eating meat sacrificed to idols. Paul declares that it is NOT sinful to do so. Meat is neither holy nor profane. It is lifeless meat. But if a weaker brother sees you and is caused to stumble, then refrain for his sake.

Likewise fornication. The Decalogue forbid adultery. And while adultery is certainly a form of fornication; it is not quite the same thing. Marriage vows must be broken for adultery to take place. Not so with fornication. Most likely James is making a reference to the common pagan practice of temple prostitutes who were such an avid part of pagan worship services. Christians, obviously, should abstain from such things in all forms. As for the avoidance of things strangled and blood; again we see something that is “dietary” in nature and not sinful in and of itself. Peter's dream in Acts 10 made that clear. Nevertheless for the sake of the weak brother or the unregenerate Jew, James tells them to abstain from such things.

In many ways, what James tells the Gentile Christians to do in Acts 15 is very similar to what Paul said he himself did in 1 Corinthians 9 in his famous “all things to all people” passage. “For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.” (1 Corinthians 9:19-23 NASB)

Of course it is vital to note that Paul declares he is “not under the Law” in this passage. Yet at times he does things and abstains from things that will keep him from needlessly offending, so that he will have an open door to present Christ. As the new believers mature Paul will have opportunity to bring them along, by God's grace, into a proper understanding of being “free from the Law.” But initially, he needs to share the gospel with them. Paul had a sacrificial heart to share the truth and to make disciples and was willing to suffer and give up freedoms to see it happen. All the while, teaching the truth about his freedom from the Law and his freedom in Christ. He would not let the gospel be tainted by legalists. Nor would he let it be tainted by the actions of an intimidated Christian such as Peter. Which brings us back to Galatians 2.

Why does Peter “hold himself aloof” from the Gentiles; after the “certain men from James” came? Verse 13 tells us that he “feared the party of the circumcision.” While it might be hard for you to believe.....Peter was intimidated. So he hung out with the Jews and shunned the Gentiles so the Jews would accept him. But this was more than a mere social issue. The truth of the gospel was at stake. If Peter, the most prominent leader in the church, was shunning Gentiles then this could have brought massive confusion to the Gentiles, indeed the entire church. Were they wrong about being “free from the Law?” Were the Judaizers right about the necessity of circumcision? And the requirement to keep the Law of Moses? With Peter's public actions the truth of the gospel was in serious jeopardy. But Paul, thankfully, would not stand for it. He rebukes Peter and I suspect Peter quickly repented. There is no record of him arguing with Paul about the matter. Acts 10 and 15 show us that Peter knew full well the truth. Galatians 2 just shows us that he was intimated and ignored the truth.

Christians are not under the Law. But rather being free from the Law, we look to Christ and His law to lead and govern our lives. With the Spirit indwelling us, we live our lives out of love for our Lord. Far from a dutiful drudgery of keeping lists; we joyfully submit and follow our King! Paul knew this was the case. So did Peter and all the other apostles for they were in hearty agreement with the Jerusalem Council's conclusion.

And in case you wonder what became of Paul and Peter and their relationship with each other. Go and read the words of Peter. In fact the FINAL WORDS of Peter ever recorded in Scripture, shortly before his death. And you will see exactly what Peter thought of Paul. Even after Paul publicly rebuked him and probably royally embarrassed him. Here is Peter's last words: “Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.” (2 Peter 3:14-18 NASB)

Peter did not resent Paul for correcting him. Peter loved Paul all the more for it. “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy.” (Proverbs 27:6) Paul wasn't Peter's enemy. He was his friend. And what's more he was his brother in Christ. And Paul simply could not stand idly by and watch Peter, his beloved brother, get buffaloed into confusing the gospel. Paul rebuked. Peter repented. And all of us are the better for it.

___________________________________________________________

Shane Kastler serves as Pastor of Heritage Baptist Church in Lake Charles, LA. He is also the co-host of "Church and State" on Eternal Life Broadcasting (KELB 100.5 FM and KEBL 105.5 FM radio) each Thursday. He teaches Logic at Covenant Grace Academy and writes a weekly religious column for the Linn County News (KS). He has contributed articles to Economic Policy Journal, Target Liberty, Lew Rockwell.com, Sword & Trowel, and Reformed Libertarian.com.

My Thoughts on the Theonomy Debate: McDurmon & Hall Were Like Two Dogs Chasing Their Own Tails

By Shane Kastler

(Disclaimer: This is not a "full review" of the debate, nor did I ever intend to write a full review.  But merely some "preliminary thoughts" [as the first paragraph states], based on the fact that neither Theonomy nor Covenant Theology can adequately explain the Law and Christ's fulfillment of it.  Whereas New Covenant Theology can explain it and does.  I am contrasting theological systems in general rather than parsing every jot and tittle specifically of a debate between two men whom I believe are both wrong.  Please keep this in mind as you read).

After having watched the first part of the recent Theonomy debate between Joel McDurmon and J.D. Hall I offer a few preliminary thoughts. For those unaware, Theonomy is a belief system that contends that Mosaic civil law is still obligatory and is the ideal for nations today. Theonomy literally means “God's Law” (Theos + nomos). So the Theonomist would contend that all of the Old Covenant Law is still in effect and should be incorporated today, unless a law has been specifically abrogated in the New Testament. Homosexuals should be stoned. As should disobedient children and adulterers, etc. My disagreements with Theonomy are many, but I will get to this in a moment. Joel McDurmon of American Vision ministries represented this position.

On the other side of the coin was Jordan (J.D.) Hall, a Reformed Baptist pastor who holds to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. While I would have more agreement with him, I had much to differ with him on as well. As a New Covenant Theologian myself, I was baffled as I saw two men trying to argue about the validity (or lack thereof) of Old Covenant Law. The debate itself reminded me of two hunting dogs that keep chasing their own tails and tripping over each other......all the while thinking they've succeeded in treeing a coon. In other words I think they're both wrong.

The debate was somewhat entertaining though extraordinarily painful to watch at times. On the one hand you had a Presbyterian Theonomist who sometimes came across as smug. He looked like a cross between Caiaphas the High Priest, Moses, and a long lost cousin of the Duck Dynasty gang.   And of course as a Theonomist, he would like to bring public stonings back to the market square. Opposite him was a 1689 Confessional/ Reformed Baptist who looked and sounded terrified (probably afraid of getting stoned by the Theonomists) and who kept wanting to defend the “moral law” but could only use the Westminster Confession and John Calvin writings to do it. All of this was moderated by a sophomoric, bad comedian who repeatedly yelled, trying to pump up the crowd. Even though a camera pan revealed there were about 20 people present. Must see TV indeed!

But back to the debate. In my humble opinion, McDurmon came across as somewhat  arrogant in his opening statement and in his postures, scoffs, and guffaws thereafter. I say this with a grain of salt, because I don't know him. He might be the most humble man on earth. But he certainly came across bad. He argued that all of the Law is still valid and “just” therefore it must be the bar we all reach for as a society. I agreed with his refusal to divide the law into “civil, ceremonial, and moral” and indeed see this as an Achilles heel for the 1689 Baptists. But McDurmons' conclusions are erroneous, not to mention bizarre. Theonomy argues that since the Law should not be divided, then all of it is obligatory to modern societies, unless a law is specifically abrogated in the New Testament. While McDurmon is certainly right in his refusal to divide the Law (since the Bible never does), his conclusion is odd. Several verses could be cited to argue that all of the Law, in it's entirety has been fulfilled in the New Covenant work of Christ and thus ALL of the Law is “abrogated” (to use his word). Jesus declared the Law to be fulfilled (Matt. 5:17) and he didn't indicate any were still “obligatory” – a fact that might irritate McDurmon. Nor did Jesus declare that only portions of the Law were fulfilled (civil, ceremonial) – a fact that might irritate Hall. I've addressed Matthew 5:17 elsewhere so I won't re-hash it here. Suffice it to say, Jesus makes the temporal nature of the Old Covenant Law quite plain.

Furthermore, Paul makes it very clear that he does not consider himself under the Law in any way, shape, form, or fashion declaring that he is “not under the Law myself.” (1 Cor. 9:20) And again as he declares to the Romans: “For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.” (Romans 6:14) If Jesus claimed to FULFILL IT and Paul claimed to be FREE FROM IT and exhorted the Romans that they were NOT UNDER IT. Then why on earth would we still consider it “obligatory” as McDurmon and other Theonomists do? Certainly the above verses should fulfill McDurmon's opening statement declaration that “unless anyone can prove these laws are abrogated they are still obligatory and indeed just.” Of course whatever God says is “just”.....is just. But clearly God changes what He considers “just” at different times. If God says “don't eat pork” then it would be unjust to disobey him and eat pork. But later God says “eat anything you want” and thus his standard of justice has clearly changed regarding pig consumption. In the case of dietary law, the New Testament clearly abrogates the Old Testament. The very fact that abrogation takes place at all should be a clear enough indicator to McDurmon that God is allowed to change (or fufill) law as he sees fit. This was most definitely Jesus' position as he was repeatedly accused of breaking the Sabbath. He didn't simply argue that the Pharisees were wrong in their interpretation; He declared Himself to be greater than the Sabbath. It's strange that the Theonomist will gladly dive into a pork chop, then turn right around and scream about the “just law” of stoning certain sinners, while the pig juice is still dripping from his teeth. Based on the already cited verses, at the very least we have a clean slate regarding the Law and should look to Jesus and His apostles to direct us in terms of Law (i.e., the Law of Christ).

Of course the 1689 Baptist knows I'm right, but only believes it is partially so. The rub is always there for the Theologian who knows the New Testament declares the Law to be fulfilled. Yet also knows that some of the Old Testament commandments (adultery, murder, idolatry) are still somehow valid. How do we account for this? Thus enters the mythical “moral law” that the 1689 Baptist and Westminster Confessors will cling to in an effort to have their theological cake and eat it to. While Hall and other Covenant Theologians are certainly right in seeing part of the Mosaic code as “non-binding.” Why would they stop at the so-called civil and ceremonial laws? Why not declare it all fulfilled as the New Testament writers do; and start with a clean slate? The 1689ers know the Theonomist is wrong; yet they cannot accurately show why they are wrong. In dividing the law and declaring it “partially fulfilled” they unwittingly put one foot in bed with the Presbyterians by clinging to the Old Covenant; all the while criticizing the Theonomist for taking the natural Covenant Theology viewpoint to its logical extreme. The Theonomist says, “If you can't divide the Law, then it all still applies.” Whereas the New Testament says: “Since Christ fulfilled the Law, then none of it applies. Let us look to the Law of Christ for direction.” And the Covenant Theologian doesn't have a clue what to say, so he takes a goofy middle ground by declaring partial fulfillment.

In a figurative sense, the Theonomist is like a charging grizzly bear that the Covenant Baptist tries to beat away by grabbing a stick......when he unknowingly has a bazooka at his disposal. The New Covenant Theology position is that bazooka. NCT is the only explanation that both points out the unbiblical extremes of the Theonomist AND the shoddy exegesis and unwarranted divisions of the Covenant Theologian.

As proof positive that Hall and the Covenanters stand on shaky theological ground, notice how often Hall cites the Westminster Confession and the writings of John Calvin to defend his position. Why not cite Scripture? Because Scripture can't defend the “division of Law” argument. But Westminster can.

As of yet I haven't watched the entire debate. I'm not sure I can. It was a painful sight to behold. Maybe it got better.  Obviously, as a New Covenant Baptist I would prefer to side with Hall against Theonomy. But watching him try to fight off Theonomy with the Westminster Confession left me frustrated and flummoxed. Put down the stick Bro. Hall; and grab the bazooka. The Law has been fulfilled in Christ. Stop clinging to a “moral law” that the Bible never cites. Of course that isn't to say Christians have no moral standard or “law” if you will. But it is clearly not Mosaic in nature.

As for McDurmon, I can sympathize with him in this regard.  As a Calvinist, a Libertarian, and a New Covenant Theologian (with a beard) I frequently have people who look at me and hear my views and think I'm totally crazy.  I'm sure McDurmon gets the same reaction.  The difference is that I think most people assume me to be crazy because they don't really understand my position.  With McDurmon, I think I truly DO understand his position.  I just think he's crazy.  Or at least many of his theological views are.  In all honesty, the beard probably doesn't help the image of either of us. (Ha Ha)

McDurmon and Hall both dropped the ball in this debate, as far as I'm concerned. McDurmon is more eloquent but his theological conclusions are extreme and unbiblical. Hall appeared nervous and couldn't defend his position from the Bible. Two hunting dogs chasing their tails.....repeatedly tripping over each other...... while both thinking they've treed a coon. Admittedly my conclusion betrays my rural Oklahoma roots; but this is my conclusion nonetheless. A painful debate to watch, that gets nowhere, because both men take odd theological positions, that the Bible itself will not defend.

 

Comparing the Confessions (Part 3): Are the 'Terrors of the Law' Necessary For Gospel Proclamation? The 1646 vs. 1689 London Baptist Confession

By Shane Kastler

In my last two articles I contrasted various aspects of the 1646 and 1689 London Baptist Confessions of Faith by looking at their histories and by looking at their views of “Law” and its “binding” of the believer. In this article I wish to examine the phrase “terrors of the Law” and see which Confession is more in accordance with Biblical teaching. Specifically, is the 1646 correct in saying that the gospel does NOT require the “terrors of the Law” as a precursor to evangelism? Or is the 1689 correct in espousing that the Law is a good tool to whip the unbelievers to Christ?

It is interesting to consider the phrase “the terrors of the Law” and the way in which the 1646 and 1689 confessions address it. The 1646 clearly undermines the importance of the Mosaic Law in gospel preaching by rendering it unnecessary. This is the full statement from section 25 of the 1646 Confession: “The preaching of the gospel to the conversion of sinners, is absolutely free; no way requiring as absolutely necessary, any qualifications, preparations, or terrors of the law, or preceding ministry of the law, but only and alone the naked soul, a sinner and ungodly, to receive Christ crucified, dead and buried, and risen again; who is made a prince and a Savior for such sinners as through the gospel shall be brought to believe on Him.”

From this we can clearly ascertain that the authors of the 1646 did not think that the preaching of the Law in any way served as a precursor to faith. That is, it was not a necessary component or even a helpful component to the proclamation of the gospel unto a spiritually dead sinner. This would undoubtedly be true of both Gentile and Jewish hearers of the gospel. For a Gentile, the immediate question would be “of what benefit would be the Law?” If the Law was given unto a specific group of people (the nation of Israel) at a specific time (under the Old Covenant). Then what good would it do to rail this against 17^th century Gentiles? Or 21^st century Gentiles for that matter. This is not to say that an unregenerate Gentile might not be convicted when he is exhorted not to “commit adultery.” Indeed he might be convicted and rightly so. But the deeper question to ask is “how might we define 'adultery' for an unbelieving Gentile living in the 17^th or 21^st century?” Would we use the Mosaic definition (the act itself)? Or would we prefer to use Jesus' definition which involves merely thinking about the act, even if the act itself is never consummated? (Matt. 5:28)

This gets to the heart of one of the major differences between the 1646 Confession and the 1689 Confession. Indeed it gets to the heart of understanding New Covenant Theology and contrasting it with Covenant Theology and other theological systems. If the Decalogue and its commandment against adultery (which every NCT'er I know of would agree with) is intended to be be used as an evangelistic “terror” of the law to drive them to Christ. Then what use would we have for Jesus' definition as given in the Sermon on the Mount? And if Jesus' definition from the Sermon on the Mount is sufficient and indeed much more helpful and specific than Moses' definition; then what need or reason would we have for using Moses? Would not a Christian evangelist, standing on the firm words of Christ, confront the unregenerate adulterer with the very words of Jesus rather than making a plea to the Old Covenant Decalogue? The unregenerate adulterer probably has no clue as to whether or not Mosaic law is to govern his life. But if he is an unregenerate adulterer steeped in Biblical teaching, he might argue that Old Covenant law doesn't apply to him. He might argue that he is not an Israelite living under the Old Covenant. But rather he is a 21^st century American living in a much different setting. And what's more: he would be exactly right. Why should we point the 21^st century unregenerate adulterer to the Decalogue, if a much better and more accurate definition of his sin exists? In the presence of Moses, on Mount Transfiguration, God the Father boomed to the disciples present, “This is my beloved Son. Listen to Him.” Should we not also take the Father's counsel?

Some might argue: why not just use both? Why not use the Decalogue commandments, in addition to Jesus' commandments, when evangelizing the unregenerate? The answer to this is both simple and complex. The simple answer is that when taken in context, the Decalogue is not a corpus of law that applies to a 21st century unregenerate sinner. It was written to Israel under a particular covenant, that is no longer binding, even for them (much less the 21^st century Gentile). But more complex is the issue of the Law of Moses as a whole and how it applies (or doesn't apply) to people today.

The common argument among adherents of Covenant Theology is that the Ten Commandments (otherwise known as the Decalogue) is a summary of the “moral law of God.” This so-called “moral law of God” is said to be eternal and unchanging. It is said to have been God's “law” prior to it being given to Moses on Mount Sinai. And it is said to be still binding on people even today. While this has been embraced as accepted truth within Reformed theological circles for many years, the question is seldom asked: “Is there any Biblical justification for such a view?” And what's more is there any Biblical reason to reject such a view? Both of these questions can be answered with even a minor dig into the Scriptures. And the answers are no doubt surprising (not to mention infuriating) to some.

When Covenant Theologians refer to the Decalogue as the “moral law” they are doing so as a part of a greater attempt to divide the law into categories. Most typically these categories, along with moral, are civil and ceremonial. Some have added other categories as well, or divided the three main categories into sub-categories. No doubt, the intention here is to systematize the Bible for better understanding. But does it actually do this? Or does it muddy the waters in terms of understanding the Old Covenant Law? And what's more, does the Bible ever divide the Law in such fashion? If so, then where? And if not, then why not?

Of course the answer to this is that the Bible does NOT divide the Law in such a way. Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas was the first to do this, sometime in the 12^th century. That in itself should be seen as problematic. If the inspired writers of Scripture did not present such a division, then why should we? And if no one thought to divide the Law in such a way for 1200 years, then should we not, at the very least, be leery? Our goal in studying the Bible is not to come up with new and innovative concepts, but rather to try and destroy the theological and intellectual haze created by man's additions; and get back to the text itself. While New Covenant Theology is frequently attacked as being “new.” In truth, eschewing the “new” and getting back to the old (namely the Scriptures themselves) is what NCT seeks to do.

So is it helpful to divide the Law? Or is it not? To answer this question, let's simply look at some deeper questions. Did the New Testament writers divide the Law, or not? Did Paul? Did Peter? Did Jesus? The answer in each case is a resounding no. Neither Paul, Peter, Jesus, or any other New Testament writer ever divided the Law in such a fashion. Aquinas did. And Covenant Theologians do. So which group will you align yourself with?

When Paul spoke of the Law he said: “To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law.” (1 Cor. 9:20-21 NASB) He was specific and adamant about “not being myself under the Law.” To the Romans Paul wrote,“You are not under law, but under grace.” (Rom. 6:14)And to the Galatians, Paul rebukes them regarding circumcision by telling them,“Every man who receives circumcision, is under obligation to keep the whole Law.” (Gal. 5:3) As I have stated before, here, not only does Paul refute any idea of the Christian being “under the Law” but he also refutes the idea of dividing the Law into various portions. Paul is adamant that the Law must be accepted as a unit and that if you require “circumcision” then you must also require every other aspect of the Law as well. It would be hard to envision a more clear-cut and obvious Biblical refutation of the common Reformed practice of dividing the Law than Paul gives here. Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God, that is. To insist on using Mosaic Law as a necessary “terror” to aid in the evangelization of Gentiles is simply not warranted in Scripture. But what about in the evangelization of Jews?

Paul described the Law in these terms: “Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.” (Galatians 3:24) This passage is frequently cited by Covenant Theologians as a proof text to defend the validity of the Decalogue as a whole; and more specifically the Decalogue as it pertains to evangelism. Yet this argument is easily refuted simply by reading the verses before and after verse 24 and thus seeing the entire passage in context. Notice what the text says when read in totality: “But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:23-26 NASB)

Regardless of how one would define “Law” in this passage: either as the Decalogue or the entire Old Covenant corpus, it is beyond refute that Paul is referring to something that is no longer in effect. It was described as a “tutor” or “schoolmaster” or “nanny” that kept a child in custody, until a future date. Who is the child in question? Jews. And when did the child “grow up” and thus reach a condition of no longer needing a nanny? When faith came. But it cannot be talking about using the Law as a tutor for Gentiles until individual saving faith comes. How do we know this? Because the Gentiles did not have the Law. They were not given the Law. The Law was never referred to as a “tutor” or a “nanny” in their case. To interpret this passage to mean that the Law is presently a “tutor” used to drive the unregenerate to Christ is to completely turn the passage on it's head and miss the whole point. For the passage describes the Law as past tense, given to the Jews, until “faith” came. Of course this fits in perfectly with what Paul taught in other passages regarding the Law in which he describes it in temporal terms and having been fulfilled in Christ. And of course, Jesus taught the very same thing. When Jesus said, “I did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill.” (Matt. 5:17) He clearly makes reference to the temporal nature of the Law and His finished work of fulfillment. (To read a past article I wrote on Matt. 5:17, click here).

Now let us consider what the 1689 London Confession says regarding the “terrors” (or threatenings) of the Law.” The 1689 says of the Law: “It is of further use to regenerate people to restrain their corruptions, because of the way in which it forbids sin. The threatenings of the law serve to show what their sins actually deserve, and what troubles may be expected in this life because of these sins even by regenerate people who are freed from the curse and undiminished rigours of the law.” So according to the 1689 Confession part of the Law's purpose is to scare Christians into good behavior with threats. While the Bible, including the New Testament, presents warnings and exhortations of all kinds, is this really the purpose of Mosaic Law? A Law that Paul claimed to be “free” from? Didn't Paul know that he should be using this Law to whip himself and others into spiritual shape? Of course it goes without saying that Paul's view of the Law is quite contrary to the 1689 Confession. But what does the 1689 specifically say about the Law's use in evangelizing the unregenerate?

In Chapter 19, Section 6 of the 1689 Confession we read this: “It also reveals to them the sinful defilement of their natures, their hearts and their lives, so that as they examine themselves by the light of the law, they may be convicted more deeply of sin, and caused to humble themselves on account of it and to hate it the more.  At the same time the law also gives them a clearer sight of their need of Christ, and the perfection of Christ’s own obedience to the law.” So the 1689 Confession sees the Law as a light by which the unregenerate are to examine themselves. That they be “convicted more deeply of sin.” But is this convicting work, which is performed by the Holy Spirit, done under the preaching of the Law? Or is it done under the preaching of the gospel? The Apostle Paul said, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes. To the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Romans 1:16) Would it not have sounded extremely strange for Paul to have said, “For I am not ashamed of the Law of Moses, for it is used of God to convict sinners and prepare them for the gospel.” Paul never said any such thing; and indeed such a thought would be contrary to his clear teaching elsewhere in Scripture. But this is what the 1689 Confession would have us believe. Conversely, the 1646 Confession explicitly presents a contrary notion: “In no way requiring as absolutely necessary, any qualifications, preparations, or terrors of the law, or preceding ministry of the law.” The contrast between the two positions is stark.

As a summation, let us put this question to the true test. How did the New Testament church share the gospel with unbelievers? And most specifically, how did they present the gospel to Gentiles who did not have the Law? What was their practice?

Perhaps nowhere could there be seen in all of Scripture a clearer presentation of the gospel to Gentile pagans than when the Apostle Paul preached on Mars Hill. Acts 17 records this glorious discourse, as Paul begins by telling them of the “God who made the world and all things in it.” (v. 24) After declaring God's work in creation, Paul begins to confront the idolatry that they were enslaved to. Indeed the idolatry that surrounded them in Athens; by telling them that “God is not served with human hands as though He needed anything.” (v. 25) Paul continues: “He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ “Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17:26-31 NASB)

Paul says a lot of things in a short amount of space. But one thing is glaringly missing. Paul never references the Law. Not once does he cite the Decalogue. He doesn't give them any tablets of stone, nor a gospel tract with the Ten Commandments there contained. He addresses their idolatry; as the Decalogue also did. But why would a pagan Greek philosopher care about a list of rules given to the nation of Israel? Why would a pagan Greek philosopher care to hear about a “Law” that Paul himself declares he is “free from”? The pagan Greek philosopher's biggest problem was not breaking the Sabbath, it was rejecting the Christ. And “ignorance” of this Christ was no excuse for God was calling “all men everywhere that they should repent.”

The passage records that many scoffed when Paul spoke of the resurrection. So was Paul's preaching a failure? Didn't Paul know how to share the gospel? Should he have perhaps hammered them with Leviticus prior to speaking of Christ? Should he have utilized the “terrors of the Law” to whip them into spiritual shape? I'm sure the reader can detect where I am going with this. And I would hope the reader is in agreement with me that Paul knew how to preach the gospel. And he did it without introducing the Law to the pagans of Athens. And as clear proof that the “terrors of the Law” are not necessary for gospel preaching, we are told that “Some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.” (Acts 17:34)

So is the Law necessary to the preaching of the gospel? Absolutely not. But is the Law beneficial in any way to the preaching of the gospel? Again the answer would be no. While perhaps an unregenerate person might be convicted when presented with one of the Ten Commandments, this is not the intent of the Decalogue. Such an unregenerate person might even be born again when hearing the gospel presented on the heels of the Ten Commandments. For this “new creature in Christ” we would certainly rejoice. But again, this would not prove that the intent of the Decalogue is to be used as a whip to drive the sinners to Christ. That is simply not how its presented in Scripture.

One other example, this time from the life of Jesus; when the “rich young ruler” came to Him inquiring about eternal life in Matthew 19. Here's the account: “And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” Then he said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?” Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.” (Matthew 19:16-22 NASB)

Many Covenant Theologians cite this passage with eagerness to prove that Jesus taught the Law. But did he? Jesus was talking to a Jew who believed himself to be a meticulous keeper of the Law. Not unlike Saul of Tarsus, who considered himself “blameless” regarding the Law; this young man also examined his spiritual armor and found no chinks whatsoever. And yet...... he knew something wasn't quite right. He knew he was not complete. He knew there was something lacking.

Jesus knew much more than just the man's legal history, he also knew his heart. Undoubtedly this is why Jesus exhorts him to “sell your possessions and give to the poor.....and come follow Me.” Jesus said “keep the commandments.” The young man said “I kept the commandments.” Sounds like it didn't work for him like he thought it would. Is there any truly born again Christian on the planet that honestly believes Jesus was teaching salvation by keeping the Law? Certainly not. Any Christian reading this knows that wasn't what Jesus was doing. Was he preparing him for the gospel by presenting the Law? If so, it failed. Because the young man rejected Christ and went away sad. Was Jesus teaching works salvation of a different variety by giving everything you have to the poor? Which one of the Ten Commandments says to do that? Answer: none of them.

Far from using the “terrors of the Law” to prepare the man for the gospel. Jesus exposed the futility of the Law to grant the peace he was longing for. And far from heaping more “Law” upon him to “convict of sin” Jesus exposes the greatest idol in this young man's heart by calling him to give it all up and give it to the poor. Then Jesus presents all gospel, in it's purest, most glorious luster when he promises riches in Heaven and exhorts the man to “follow Me.” No, this is not an example of using Law to prepare for gospel. This is the exact opposite. This is an example of the Law's futility to save and the sufficiency that is found in Christ and Christ alone.

The 1646 and 1689 London Baptist Confessions of Faith are both man-made documents. Both contain glorious truths; yet both could also contain genuine errors. They, like all man-made writings, must always be judged by their adherence to the Scriptures. For it is Scripture that we cling to. A doctrinal statement might help explain those glorious Scriptures but they can never replace them. And on the issue of the “terrors of the Law” the 1646 gets it right and the 1689 gets it wrong. The Law is not necessary to the preaching of the gospel. The only thing necessary to the preaching of the gospel is the gospel. Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

The Law is a whip; but the sinner is a dead horse. And you can beat the dead horse all day long with the whip and do nothing but bruise his corpse. The gospel, on the other hand, can bring that corpse to LIFE! The gospel can give him a new heart. And the gospel can reveal that in fact that dead horse was no horse at all......he was a sheep that just hadn't been found yet. The Law didn't save him; and Moses didn't find him. The gospel saved him because Jesus found him. The Law had a purpose and that purpose has been fulfilled. Now, Hallelujah! Light has come! And that light is Jesus Christ.

(To read Part 4 in this series: "Refuting The Covenant of Works" Click Here).

 

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

 

Comparing the Confessions (Part 2): Does the Law Bind the Christian? The 1646 vs. 1689 London Baptist Confession

By Shane Kastler

The two most common doctrinal statements of Reformed Baptist churches are the 1646 and the 1689 London Baptist Confessions of Faith. In a previous article I wrote of the history of these two confessions. The 1646 Confession was largely written for “Apologetic” purposes, defending the London Baptists against charges of being rabble-rousing “Anabaptists.” Whereas the 1689 Confession was adopted by Baptists for largely "Political" purposes, to show solidarity with Presbyterian and Congregationalist “non-conformists” who were being persecuted by the Church of England. The 1689 Confession itself is essentially a carbon copy of the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith; with a few noted differences relating primarily to mode of baptism.

Another striking difference between the two confessions is the use of language that speaks of the Law “binding” the Christian. Section nineteen of the 1689 Confession says this: “Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, in that as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly.” (emphasis added)  And again, under the heading “Moral Law” the 1689 Confession says: “The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof.” (emphasis added) Regarding the Sabbath, the 1689 Confession says: “In His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He has particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him.” (emphasis added)

While it should be noted that the Bible itself never refers to the Law of Moses, nor to the Ten Commandments as the “Moral Law” - nor does the New Testament “bind” the Christian with Sabbath Law (in fact the New Testament expressly declares the Sabbath to be fulfilled in Christ, Heb. 4:1-11 ; Col. 2:16-17); the purpose of this article will not be to address either of these issues; but rather the language of “binding Christians” that is so commonly used in the 1689 Confession.

Certainly it goes without saying that New Testament Christians have an ethical standard by which they live. No serious and genuine Christian would ever argue that Christians are free to live however they wish. The Apostle Paul condemns such thinking in Romans when he himself was accused of “antinomianism” if not downright licentiousness. Paul wrote: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” (Romans 6:1-2 NASB) The topic I'm addressing is whether or not the Mosaic Law is intended to “bind” the Christian in their conduct; and if this language of “binding” is in fact a means of sanctification in a born again Christian. Does a regenerate believer, who is indwelled by the Holy Spirit, need the Law of Moses to “bind” their conduct? If so, then they may not possess the salvation that they claim. While believers still sin and fall short daily; there is a true desire within them to love and follow Jesus. A “binding” by Mosaic Law is not only unnecessary; but unheard of in the New Testament canon.

Consider for a moment the words of the Apostle John: “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.” (1 John 5:1-3 NASB, emphasis added) Christians have a desire to obey the commands of Jesus, which incidentally would not be the same as the Law of Moses. Paul declared himself “free from the Law” while still being under the “Law of Christ.” (see 1 Cor. 9:21) Clearly Paul differentiates between Mosaic commands and Christian ones. While there is certainly overlap in some of these commands, Paul was not looking to Moses, nor did he declare himself “bound” by Moses; but rather he was under the Law of Christ.  And this "Law of Christ" is not burdeonsome to the believer.  While sin prevents them from perfect adherence; they are motivated by the Spirit of Love rather than the binding of the Law.  Adopting a "binding" type of mindset is clearly at odds with what John is teaching and with what Paul is teaching.  What motivates the Christian to obey Christ?  Binding Law or unbounded love? Moses or Jesus?  The flesh or the Spirit? The New Testament would whole-heartedly affirm the latter in each case.

One danger in adhering to the 1689 London Confession's “bind” language is that it leads to a clear misuse of the Mosaic Law. A Law that was given to a specific people (Israel) under a specific covenant, for a temporary amount of time (Gal. 3:25), and for a specific purpose of pointing to Christ (Gal. 3:24). In taking this Law upon themselves as an ethical standard, New Covenant Christians fall into the trap of mixing the covenants. While embracing the salvation brought by Christ in the New Covenant, they still wish to be sanctified by adhering to the code of Moses; which was not intended to be the standard for the Christian. Why a paedobaptist would wish to do this is obvious. The need to justify infant baptism must be accomplished by linking it to the Old Covenant practice of circumcision. While the Scriptures themselves never do this, the paedo-baptist must in order to explain an unbiblical practice, rooted in Catholicism that is never taught or even implied in the Bible. It's easy to see why a Presbyterian would want to be so closely aligned with Mosaic Law; but it is baffling to consider why a Baptist would. While Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians alike share many common beliefs regarding salvation and the nature of God; it would seem that some Baptists have been duped into going along with unbiblical notions of the Law that have no bearing in the New Testament Scriptures. Strangely enough, such Baptists will defend to the death the Law of Moses, not seeing that in doing so they are arguing for a Presbyterian way of thinking. If they truly do believe in the Mosaic code the same way the Presbyterian does, then they might also be expected to embrace infant baptism as a “sign of the covenant.” There is a sense in which the Presbyterian is more consistent in their erroneous thinking than the Reformed Baptist is, at least the Baptist who adheres to the 1689 Confession.

Another danger of adopting a “bind with the Law” type of mindset is that it often produces a legalistic spirit among Christian brethren. Sadly, this Pharisaic-type of “eye speck” examining by “log eyed” legalists is the very type of practice Jesus condemns (Matt. 7:1-5). Yet if the Law truly “binds” the Christian, then many well-meaning Christians will use this erroneous standard, not only in their own lives, but also to confront, rebuke, and correct others who may not deserve or need the correction. If you've ever been rebuked by a brother for mowing your lawn on a Sunday (the so called Christian Sabbath) then you know of what I speak. While we should have a zeal for personal holiness and even a desire to help others and to hold them accountable; we should seek to avoid a legalistic spirit. But in some ways, the 1689 Confession, and by extension the Westminster Confession; may set up and promote such legalism with the language of “binding” the Christian. Unfortunately there are those zealous Christians out there who see it as their personal goal to police others conduct and will gladly use the Law to “bind” them. They indeed have a zeal, but it is not in accordance with knowledge (Rom. 10:2). And though they may have good intentions, their conduct and spirit is more akin to the Pharisees that Jesus and Paul opposed; rather than the Spirit of Christ that is motivated by love.

Some have said that the paedobaptist needs to “finish the Reformation.” In other words, while many unbiblical practices were rejected as a result of the Reformers cry of “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture Alone); infant baptism has been clung to. Reformed Baptists who hold to the 1689 Confession have likewise sought a “middle ground” between clear Biblical teaching and the slavish instructions of unbiblical tradition. Such Reformed Baptists should see this adherence to Mosaic Law for what it is; a Presbyterian attempt to justify unbiblical traditions, and they should “finish the Reformation” in their own right by adopting a more scriptural position.

While Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians have much to celebrate in common confession; the differences really go much deeper than most realize. It is not merely “mode of baptism” that we differ on. It is also the justification for why we use the modes we do. Furthermore there are stark differences between Baptists and Presbyterians over continuity and discontinuity between the covenants; and over the Law in general. Historically speaking, there is also a tendency on the part of paedobaptists to “bind” other believers with their interpretation of the Scriptures. Whereas, historically speaking, Baptists have sought religious liberty and freedom in both church practices and in governmental affairs. A cursory look at colonial America shows this glaring difference, as many paedobaptists desired for America to have a “Church State” that would be paedobaptistic in nature. Some of these patriots sought civil laws that would punish any citizen who refused to baptize their infants. They considered this to be a good and godly thing; after all they were forcing obedience upon the rebels of God's Law. They were “binding” citizens to obey God. Of course true obedience is from the heart. True obedience has nothing to do with infant baptism. And true obedience doesn't come about by “binding.”

It was the Baptists, most notably Roger Williams, who fought against this “binding” Church-State and sought religious freedom to worship according to the dictates of one's own conscience and interpretation of Scripture. Even the very phrase “separation of Church and State” was first penned by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut who feared government intrusion in their church matters. He assured them that the Constitution was set up so that a “wall of separation” existed between the Church and the State. While modern day atheists have misinterpreted this to mean Christians must stay out of the public square, the true intent of the First Amendment was to protect people of all beliefs from governmental control. And most notably to protect Baptists from paedobaptist attempts to “bind” them to Presbyterian beliefs.

In contrast to the 1689 Confession, consider how the 1646 Confession speaks of the Christian's ethical code.  Section twenty-four of the 1646 Confession states:  "All believers are a holy and sanctified people, and that sanctification is a spiritual grace of the new covenant, and an effect of the love of God manifested in the soul, whereby the believer presseth after a heavenly and evangelical obedience to all the commands, which Christ as head and king in His new covenant hath prescribed to them."  This focus on the regenerate nature of a Christian's obedience to Christ rather than a "binding" of the Law of Moses is much more in line with Christian spirit and practice.

In conclusion, the “bind” language of the 1689 London Baptist Confession is rooted in the Westminster Confession's interpretation of Mosaic Law and in a Presbyterian mindset of controlling others actions. Born again believers have a desire to love, follow, and obey Christ; and need not be bound by the Mosaic code. Criminals need “bound” by laws that prevent them from harming others. Christians are free. Not to sin, nor to live as they please. But they are free from the bondage of sin and made “slaves of Christ Jesus” whereby they lovingly follow the voice (and the commandments) of their Chief Shepherd. By all means, Christians need instruction and they need to know God's will regarding their conduct. But ultimately they won't find this instruction in the “binding” of the Law of Moses; but rather in the joyful submission to the Word of God most clearly and supremely expressed in the New Testament teachings of Jesus Christ and His inspired Apostles.

(To read Part 3 in this series: "Are the Terrors of the Law Necessary For Gospel Proclamation, Click Here).

Comparing The Confessions: The History of the 1646 & 1689 London Baptist Confessions of Faith

By Shane Kastler

(NOTE: This is the first of several articles planned comparing the 1646 and 1689 London Baptist Confessions.)

Confessions of Faith can be very beneficial. They can also be very dangerous, depending upon how much stock you put in them. On the one hand they are a good way to summarize and systematize what you believe. On the other hand, if they are elevated to a level of Biblical authority, they have clearly usurped their intended use and could potentially lead one astray. The Bible, understood in context and translated correctly from the original languages; is to serve as our guide. The Bible is ultimately our only rule for faith and practice. A Confession of Faith might help us with this task, or it might get in the way of it.

The practice of summarizing one's faith has roots in Scripture itself. Several passages of New Testament scripture are thought to be early confessions of the church. While the New Testament canon was being penned churches had to have ways of learning and remembering doctrine. When Paul writes Timothy he says: “By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.” (1 Timothy 3:16 NASB) Here we see Paul laying out, in a brief systematic fashion, points of fact regarding Jesus Christ.

Historically this practice has been beneficial as well. What is commonly called the five points of Calvinism is in essence a confession of what Reformed Christians believe about salvation. The five points are certainly not an exhaustive explanation of all things theological; yet they do summarize one aspect of doctrine, namely soteriology (the doctrine of salvation).

Two of the great historical Baptist Confessions were the 1646 and the 1689 London Baptist Confessions of Faith. While they obviously share many similarities they also differ on some points of doctrine. The 1646 Confession was originally written in 1644, as an apologetic document to defend seven London Baptist churches against charges of being “Anabaptist.” The 1689 Confession, on the other hand, was essentially a carbon copy of the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith, with a few minor tweaks to make it “Baptist” in nature. In essence, the 1646 Confession was written to defend the faith, whereas the 1689 was copied and adhered to so the Baptists of the day could show uniformity and solidarity with other “non-conformist” churches of a Presbyterian and Congregationalist nature; who were jointly being persecuted by the Church of England.

By the mid 1640s, Baptist practice was growing in London and the potential for persecution was ripe. A popular pamphlet, entitled “A Warning for England, especially for London; in the famous History of the frantick Anabaptists, their wild Preachings and Practices in Germany” (sic) was being distributed at the time. It charged the Baptist churches with being a particular sect of “Anabaptism” that sought to sow seeds of governmental discord and perhaps even overthrow the government itself. Nothing could have been further from the truth, for in reality the Baptist churches of London wanted nothing do with governmental matters; they simply wanted to be free to worship as they pleased. James Renihan writes:

     “The situation was potentially explosive. They knew that it was essential to demonstrate     that they were not radicals, subversively undermining the fabric of society. To the     contrary, they were law-abiding citizens, who were being misrepresented and     misunderstood by many around them. They wanted and needed to demonstrate that     they were quite orthodox in their theological beliefs, and that they had no agenda     beyond a faithful and conscientious commitment to God and His Word. As the Baptists     faced these circumstances, they decided that they needed to take action to relieve the     fears and misinformation spreading. God had blessed their efforts thus far, and they did     not want to see those efforts frustrated by the rumor and innuendo of their enemies. So     they adopted a practice frequently used by others in the last 150 years—they issued a     confession of faith so that anyone interested in them might be able to obtain an     accurate understanding of their beliefs and practices. (Confessing the Faith in 1644 &     1689, accessed at www.reformedreader.com)

 While we typically think of the Anabaptists as being more pacifistic in nature, there was a sect in Munster, Germany in the 1530s, who had sought to overthrow the local government. Having taken up arms, they took possession of the local court house and wanted to create their own civil authority. The uprising was squelched, but the fears sparked by this group continued for many years. It was the Anabaptists of Munster who inspired the pamphlet and flamed the fears of London in the 1640s.

The 1646 Confession was far from exhaustive in scope, nor was it intended to be. It was simply a putting forth and a defense of what these Baptist churches believed. Even in the preface to the Confession one sees the apologetic nature of the document: “A confession of faith of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London, which are commonly, but unjustly called Anabaptists; published for the vindication of the truth and information of the ignorant; likewise for the taking off those aspersions which are frequently, both in pulpit and print, unjustly cast upon them.”

The history of the 1689 London Baptist Confession is quite different, having its roots in the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith. And so it was, that in the 1640s the “Westminster Standards” came into being as well. Consisting of the Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. These documents were sought by members of parliament, on behalf of the Church of England who were more Puritan in nature and wanted to see the national church have more Biblical moorings. In addition to the statements themselves, parliament also required proof texts from Scripture to show each point lined up with Biblical teaching. While this desire is certainly laudable, the end result in some areas, failed to meet this goal, as verses were used to justify doctrines that the verses themselves did not teach. It was a source of theological tension in the 17^th century; and it is a source of theological tension today.

As the 1600s marched on, “Westminster Standards” fell out of vogue within the Church of England; and not surprisingly those churches who refused to comply with the 1662 Act of Uniformity were facing potential persecution. These “Non-Conformist” churches came from both Baptist and Presbyterian circles, as well as Congregationalists. The desire on the part of many Non-Conformists was to show unity with one another against the Church of England. Indeed these various Calvinistic fellowships shared much in common doctrinally, while differing on other non-salvific issues. So it was that the Congregationalist churches adopted the Westminster Confession as their own with what was called the Savoy Declaration of 1658. Many of the Baptists followed suit with the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. To say the 1689 Confession was similar to the Westminster Confession would be a gross understatement. For the most part it was a word-for-word copy of it, with some obvious changes made in the area of baptism. From a political perspective, adoption of the 1689 Confession helped to unite the Non-Conformists against the attacks of the established religious power of the day, the Church of England. Yet the sometimes uncomfortable reality for those Baptists who hold to the 1689 Confession still stands: the document was largely adopted for political rather than theological purposes. And therein lies a potential foundational flaw in the philosophical core of the document itself.

From where do we get our doctrine? Those who adhere to all of the aforementioned Confessions would be in near unanimous agreement that we get our doctrine from the Scriptures themselves. Yet it must be stated that the 1689 Confession gets its doctrine from Scripture by way of the Westminster Confession. In other words, Scripture really is the indirect rather than the direct source of doctrine regarding the 1689 London Baptist Confession. So to the degree the Westminster Confession is faithful to Scripture the 1689 London Confession will be as well. And while on most points this has held true it is nevertheless a somewhat blurry way to arrive at a doctrinal position. Very much like English Bible translations that begin with another English translation rather than the original languages themselves, a “middle-man” type third party go-between exists. Even if Baptists of 1689 went over the Westminster with a fine-toothed comb and compared it to Scriptures (as many of them certainly did) their starting point is still not what it should be which is the Bible itself. While the 1646 Confession also relied on earlier extra-Biblical documents such as the True Confession of 1596 and The Marrow of Theology by William Ames, it's reliance upon these sources is nowhere near as prevalent as the 1689 Confession is to the Westminster. Baptists, both of today and from history, who hold to the 1689 Confession must admit (perhaps begrudgingly) that they have adopted a Presbyterian statement of faith that has merely been tweaked to become “Baptist” in nature. Perhaps they are perfectly fine in admitting this. But it should be noted nonetheless; and it should further be noted that while Baptists agree with their Presbyterian brethren on numerous issues; the differences boil down to much more than simply mode of baptism. Invariably certain aspects of Presbyterian doctrine weave their way into Baptist thought and life, and this can be clearly seen when contrasting the 1646 (a truly Baptist Confession) with the 1689 (a Baptist version of a Presbyterian Confession).

It is interesting to consider whether or not most Reformed Baptists are even aware of the historical differences between the 1646 and 1689 London Baptist Confessions. By virtue of the fact they are Reformed Baptist, they are a somewhat isolated (though growing) group. Holding to the “Doctrines of Grace” sets “the Reformed” apart from the majority of professing Christians to begin with. Then within the sub-category of Reformed, being “Baptist” sets one apart from their “paedobaptist” brethren. But an even deeper separation exists. Though it very much exists as an “in house” debate among the Reformed Baptists, it is a debate nonetheless, between those who would hold to a “Covenant Theology” type of system much more akin to the Presbyterian view. And those who hold to, what has come to be known as, a “New Covenant Theology” view which is much more Baptist (not to mention Biblical) in scope. One wonders if many of the 1689 Confessional Baptists are aware of the differences and if perhaps they occasionally entertain a nagging question in their mind about the Presbyterian underpinnings of the Confession they hold to. The title of a book by Gary Long very much summarizes the answer to this nagging question: “New Covenant Theology: Time For a More Accurate Way.” This “more accurate way” comes by examining the Scriptures and by examining and contrasting the 1646 and 1689 London Baptist Confessions. And in subsequent articles I hope to look at some of these issues in more detail, including the Sabbath, the Moral Law, and the overall spirit and direction of both confessions.

(NOTE: Subsequent articles in this series can be found by clicking here for part 2..... here for part 3......and here for part 4).

A Rebuttal of Tom Chantry's Polemic Against New Covenant Theology

By Shane Kastler

In a recent polemic against the “New Calvinism” and charges of antinomianism by those who hold to New Covenant Theology, Tom Chantry, pastor of Christ Reformed Baptist Church in Milwaukee, WI makes several erroneous characterizations and I fear unduly seeks to define all things “Calvinist” according to his own terms. According to Chantry, the good, old-fashioned, pure “Old Calvinists” are the true blues who hold to the reformed confessions.  While the "New Calvinists" are antinomians who hold to New Covenant Theology.

Chantry refers to the “New Calvinists” as “sub-confessional.” Of course this would be problematic if they were tossing aside the confessions for the funny papers. But those who hold to New Covenant Theology (NCT) strive to embrace a system more Biblical in nature. Rather than looking to confessions primarily; should we not look to the Scriptures? While the confessions might provide some helpful insight they must never be elevated to Scriptural level. A Calvinist who does so, sounds eerily like the Catholic who disregards Scripture since the Pope has settled the matter ex cathedra. I was once rebuked by a die hard Covenant Theologian because I quoted a Bible verse. He told me to “quote a confession or stay quiet! Leave the Bible out of this debate!” Needless to say, I gladly left the debate realizing we weren't on the same playing field. I'm interested in no theological system that BEGINS with confessions then works back to the Bible as a secondary source. While “Old Calvinist” Covenant Theologians wouldn't usually claim to be doing this; it is in practice what sometimes occurs (knowingly or unknowingly).

Chantry describes NCT as “antinomian.” He writes, “The word “antinomian” means “against law,” and in theology it denotes some opposition to divine law.” Clearly he is implying that NCT “opposes” divine law; though I have yet to meet a fellow NCT'er who would claim to do so. Looking to the New Testament teachings of Christ we accept his statement that he “fulfilled” the Law. He did not abolish it (which is to declare it wrong) but He did fulfill it (which is to declare it finished). Given this statement, not to mention his Sabbath activities, it seems pretty likely our Lord would draw Chantry's ire as antinomian as well. We might shudder to think of what Tom would think of the Apostle Paul in his constant Spirit-inspired railings against the Judaiszers who wanted him to live by a law he declared us to be free of. Of course when Paul speaks of this freedom he forgot to clarify that it was only the civil and ceremonial aspects he was free from. Thankfully the confessions came along later to correct his (and the Holy Spirit's) error. (please note the mild sarcasm)

Chantry continues: “A right understanding of the proper use of the law is of little benefit to the Christian who does not know what that law is. The New Calvinism will not only fail to instruct the Christian in this, it will in most instances tell him to ignore most of the Scripture’s teaching on the law.” I don't think an NCT'er would tell anyone to “ignore” but they would tell them to understand the Scriptures in context. Not every law in the Scriptures applies to the New Covenant believer, even Chantry agrees with this. The question is over which ones from the Old Covenant do apply; and in what form. And what type of hermenutical principles should we use when doing our study. NCT doesn't teach licentiousness, as seems to be the fear of CT'ers. It teaches that we look to Christ and interpret everything through the New Testament teaching of He and His apostles.

It is the undue obsession with catechisms and confessions to justify every position that seems most disturbing on the part of the Old Calvinists (or whatever it is they want to be called). Why not stick to Scripture as the primary source? It would seem that if this practice is done, the NCT position starts to make a lot more sense. And the “Old Calvinism/ Covenant Theology” ship begins to take on water. And how shall this ship be righted? While the Old Calvinism is quoting Westminster, Heidelberg, and 1689 London, the NCT crowd is quoting Galatians, Hebrews, and Romans. Choose ye this day whom ye will serve! (I'll stand with the Apostle Paul.)

Chantry describes NCT as “a radical form of dispensationalism which takes the eraser to the entirety of Old Testament moral directives, insisting that the Christian look only to the New Testament as a guide to life.” Unfortunately this statement seems to indicate Chantry knows very little about the group he's criticizing. It sounds like the barb of someone who has only read one side of the debate (his side). If he has ever read NCT writings from one who holds to it, he would know it's a far cry from Dispensationalism and that it doesn't erase the Old Testament. It simply encourages reading the Old Testament in light of the New; and looking to Jesus rather than Moses as law giver; which is exactly what God the Father thundered from Heaven in the very presence of Moses (“this is my beloved Son, listen to Him”). Chantry's caricature of NCT proves he either hasn't really studied it; or he simply doesn't understand it. The statements he makes really leave no other conclusion to draw.

As for the Ten Commandments, which Covenant Theologians refer to as the Moral Law, a massive fly resides in their ointment. Nowhere in the Bible are the Ten Commandments referred to in this way. Nowhere in the New Testament do the authors split the Law into sections like moral, civil, or ceremonial. The only way for a CT'er to justify this division of Law is to appeal to a confession (which is of course what they do). At this point, we might be tempted to say, if the Bible doesn't support it maybe you shouldn't either.

NCT is not antinomian, nor does it oppose the Ten Commandments. Rather, NCT teaches that the Old Testament (including the Decalogue) should be read in the light of the New. And when this is done we see that “Thou shalt not murder” isn't sufficient when Jesus specifically elevates the command to hatred. “Thou shalt not commit adultery” isn't sufficient when Jesus says not to even look on a woman with lust. NCT is not antinomian. In truth it is Christ-nomian. We see Christ as Lord and Lawgiver and much, much more than simply the most accurate interpreter of Moses. While NCT is often accused of being loose on holiness, in actuality it elevates some matters of morality by looking to Jesus rather than Moses. In other ways, NCT disregards Old Covenant laws when the New Testament says to. The Sabbath is unambiguously declared to be fulfilled in Christ (Heb. 4:8-9) and Paul tells us “let no one be your judge” regarding the Sabbath (Col. 2:16-17). Was Paul antinomian? Was Jesus? If you wish to keep the Sabbath feel free. But don't try to force other Christians to based on incorrect exegesis. And if you DO keep it, remember it was Saturday, not Sunday. And if you CHANGE it to Sunday you're guilty of changing the “unchanging moral law of the 10 commandments” that you've declared are unchangeable. Very ironic.  Even more ironic when you consider the New Testament never declares Sunday to be a "Christian Sabbath" either.

In conclusion, I'm not horribly interested in debates between Old vs. New Calvinists. I'm not sure where the self-proclaimed pillars of all things Calvin would allow me to stand. I often tell people I'm a “theological Calvinist” I hold to the 5 points; and disagree with a lot of other things Calvin taught. I hold to New Covenant Theology NOT because I'm young and cool (in fact I'm neither). I hold to it because I think it's the most faithful interpretation of the Scriptures on these particular theological issues. Not Westminster. Not Heidleberg. Not London 1689. The Scriptures. These are my guide. Everything else is just a servant to the master of holy writ. And true, it doesn't hurt that D.A. Carson, Tom Schreiner, Jim Elliff, John Reisinger, Blake White, Fred Zaspel, and many others hold to certain aspects of NCT. These men may not be perfect; but they're certainly not heretics either.

While much work needs to be done by all believers as they seek to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord.” Firing unnecessary shots at those who dare quote Paul instead of a Puritan are not helpful. Let us all show one another grace and realize that here we see through a glass dimly. Then fall on our faces in heartfelt prayer, and in Berean fashion seek the Scriptures (not the confessions) daily to see if these things be so. When that happens, we'll all be facing the right direction where we can then, ever so slow and wobbly, help each other down the narrow road that leads to life.