# D. A. Carson



## Peters (Mar 4, 2006)

What is your opinion of Carson and his theology? I really would be interested to know. Thanks.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 4, 2006)

He's good on postmodernism.


----------



## Ivan (Mar 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> What is your opinion of Carson and his theology? I really would be interested to know. Thanks.



In my humble opinion,


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 4, 2006)

He is good on MOST all he writes about.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> His treatment of Matthew 5 (pleroo) has given a lot of ammo for the New Covenant Theology Baptists. I think that he says that Christ "abrogated" the law of Moses.



Interesting you say that, I saw a book the other day by Tom Wells and Carson wrote the forward.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Mar 4, 2006)

For a critique of Carson on Mt. 5 go to: http://www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/welty/carson.htm.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 4, 2006)

A Response to D. A. Carson and Fred Zaspel on Matthew 5:17-48


----------



## Peters (Mar 9, 2006)

Any others?


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Mar 9, 2006)

Here is my review of the Wells/Zaspel book recommended by D.A. Carson.

New Covenant Theology: Description, Definition, Defense,
Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel
(Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 2002),
reviewed by Richard C. Barcellos

Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel are to be commended for their work entitled New Covenant Theology: Description, Definition, Defense (NCT). It is a very irenic presentation of New Covenant Theology and well documented. I am thankful to the authors for providing us with a book that advances the important discussion among Calvinistic Baptists regarding the law and the covenants.
While reading NCT, I learned some new things and was reminded of other noteworthy facts about New Covenant Theology. All New Covenant Theology adherents do not equate the Decalogue with the Old Covenant. John Reisinger held this view for many years. It formed the main thesis of his influential Tablets of Stone. Reisinger has made it known recently on his website that he no longer holds this view. As well, I learned that I misrepresented Fred Zaspel in my book In Defense of the Decalogue (NCT, 188, n. 263). I stand corrected and regret this careless, though not intentional misrepresentation. I was reminded that New Covenant Theology relies heavily on a certain understanding of Matt. 5:17-48, especially v. 17. Finally, I learned some new things about New Covenant Theology and its perspective on the nature of moral law. I will limit my critique to the following issues: NCT and Matt. 5:17-48; NCT and moral law; and NCT and In Defense of the Decalogue (IDOTD).
Fred Zaspel discusses what appears to be the exegetical lynchpin of NCT in chapters five through eight. His discussion surrounds what Douglas J. Moo (on the back cover) calls "œthe pivotal Matthew 5:17-20." Zaspel himself acknowledges this:

Indeed, the whole NT theology of law grows out of this pivotal statement of Jesus. It is of "œprimary importance in trying to understand Jesus´ attitude to the law" [quoting D. A. Carson] and, consequently, in developing a consistent theology of law and its relation to the Christian. (NCT, 78)

NCT bases its subsequent exegetical and theological discussion on Zaspel´s interpretation of Matt. 5:17-20, which is dependent upon D. A. Carson. Greg Welty has written a critical analysis of their view entitled: Eschatological Fulfillment and the Confirmation of Mosaic Law (A Response to D. A. Carson and Fred Zaspel on Matthew 5:17-48). It is available on the Internet at: www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/welty/carson.htm. Welty demonstrates that their interpretation of plhro,w (fulfill, Matt. 5:17) is implausible and that the subsequent application of this concept to the antitheses of Matt. 5:21-48 is contradictory. Welty argues, and I think persuasively, that Carson´s interpretation of plhro,w is a novelty in Matthean usage. Carson claims that Jesus´ ethical teaching fulfills what is foreshadowed in Moses´ law. Welty acknowledges that several times plhro,w refers to Christ´s person or actions fulfilling OT prophecy. But he also demonstrates that plhro,w never refers to OT laws being fulfilled by Jesus´ teaching or, as Welty states it, "œlaws fulfilling laws."
Zaspel´s thesis revolves around the meaning of one word, plhro,w. He claims that it is "œthe key word to the entire discussion" (NCT, 111). The "˜entire discussion,´ in the context of Zaspel´s statement, refers to Matt. 5:21-48 as well. Putting such stock in the meaning of one word is hermeneutically dangerous and may be theologically disastrous. If Zaspel´s interpretation of plhro,w is found wanting, then suspicion must be cast upon the validity of NCT´s main arguments, since so much of its subsequent discussion relies on the meaning of this word.
Zaspel says, "œWith all the press Matthew gives to this word (pleroo), the question of definition becomes greatly simplified" (NCT, 111). What follows in the book are eight pages dedicated to defining this one word. He concludes that plhro,w means that "œJesus came to bring about what Moses´ law anticipated" (NCT, 118). "œJust as Moses´ law advanced the law which God had "˜written on the heart´ of man at creation, so also in Jesus´ teaching that advance is brought to full completion" (NCT, 118). It is of interest to note that no exegesis is provided for this claim. Zaspel does footnote one of his pamphlets at this point. This understanding of the advancement of law throughout redemptive history, however, is such a crucial and pivotal element of NCT´s view of the law that making a passing reference to this leaves the critical reader wondering. Where does the Bible teach that Moses´ law advanced the law that God had written on the heart of man at creation, in the sense intended by Zaspel? Could this have come from the authors´ view of plhro,w infused back into the OT? For the record, Reformed theology teaches that the law written on the heart at creation was "˜advanced´ by the law written on stones at Sinai in clarity and perspicuity, though not in essence and spirituality. It is the same law revealed in a different manner. The advance is not one of quality but of clarity due to the presence of sin in man´s heart. Is this not what Jesus is doing in Matt. 5:17-48? He is making clear what had become obscure through the sinful teachings of the Pharisees.
NCT´s understanding of plhro,w may be labeled the eschatological advance view. "œIt is not that Moses is set aside so much as he is "˜fulfilled´ by the advance Jesus gave him" (NCT, 87). This concept of eschatological advance is then applied to the antitheses of Matt. 5:21-48. As Zaspel examines the antitheses, he finds several nuances of eschatological advance: Matt. 5:21-22, "œsome sort of advance "¦extension or addition" (NCT, 105); Matt. 5:27-28, "œadvance of some sort" (NCT, 105); Matt. 5:31-32, "œanother advance "¦a tightening "¦an abrogation" (NCT, 106); Matt. 5:33-34, "œobsolete" (NCT, 106); Matt. 5:38-39, while Jesus may not formally repeal the lex [law], he very severely restricts its use" (NCT, 107); Matt. 5:43-44, "œJesus extends the law´s requirement. Simply put, Jesus demands more than Moses" (NCT, 107). Zaspel claims that the view, which understands Jesus as correcting Pharisaic casuistry, does not fit the evidence (NCT, 108). According to Zaspel, the antitheses are not contrasting Pharisaic teaching with the Law of Moses but the Law of Moses, on the main, with the Law of Christ, thus illustrating his understanding of plhro,w. Zaspel closes his discussion of the antitheses with these words: 

"¦it seems that Jesus, 1) claims an authority that is superior to that of Moses; and 2) exercises that authority by taking the law of Moses in whatever direction he sees fit. In some cases, he leaves the particular command intact (#l and 2). In other cases he extends the teaching of the command as originally given or advances it in some other way (#l, 2, 3?, 6). In still other cases he seems to rescind the original legislation (#3, 4) or at least restrict it (#5). (NCT, 108)

In ethical contexts, plhro,w refers to obeying and upholding the law as stated (cf. Rom. 8:3; 13:8-10). Nowhere in the rest of the NT do we see the phenomenon of eschatological advance as necessitated by Zaspel´s interpretation. If the law of Christ is all the commands of the NT plus those things in the OT "œthat are moral laws in light of the NT" (NCT, 75), as Wells claims, and if the law of Christ was anticipated by and advanced beyond the law of Moses, then why don´t we see this phenomenon in the rest of the NT? Indeed, what we see is direct quotations of the very law that is supposedly advanced, and that without qualification (cf. Eph. 6:2-3; Jam. 2:8-11). It appears that NCT confuses moral law with positive law (see below).
Zaspel´s understanding of plhro,w in Matt. 5:17 is a novelty in Matthean usage, complicates the antitheses unnecessarily, and does not find support in other NT ethical contexts where the word is used to refer to the law and its New Covenant fulfillment.
While discussing moral law, Wells says, "œWhatever is moral binds all men at all times" (NCT, 176, n. 253). With this I agree. On the next page, however, he says, "œWe must not, then, make Christ look and sound very much like Moses in his approach to moral law" (NCT, 177). I find this difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with his previous assertion about the universality of moral law. Wells defines moral law as follows: 

Moral law is the law that has its source in the unchanging moral character of God with the result that it is intrinsically right and therefore binds all men of every era and land to whom it comes. (NCT, 162)

Wells adds, "œmoral law is found wherever there is a revelation of the moral character of God" (NCT, 162). But then he asks, "œis the revelation of God´s character progressive?" (NCT, 162). He proceeds to base moral law on the progressive nature of special revelation. Since God reveals His character progressively in the Bible, moral law is revealed progressively. In other words, he argues for a dynamic concept of moral law. Indeed, he even claims that we will not know the moral law until the eternal state (NCT, 164, 166). Is this not a bit speculative? Reformed theology, however, bases its understanding of moral law on creation imago Dei. When God made Adam, he made him to be like Himself, to reflect His communicable attributes. Creation imago Dei involves having the law of God written on the heart (Rom. 1, 2). It is that law which is based on God´s character. In another place, Wells says that "œall law from God came with moral force" (NCT, 164). He appears to base moral law upon God´s will and His unchanging character. He makes no distinction between positive law and moral law. Positive law includes any laws added to the natural law (i.e., law of creation or moral law) due to the entrance of sin and is based on God´s will and is man´s possession via special revelation (i.e., Scripture). Moral law is based on creation imago Dei and on God´s unchanging nature and is man´s possession via general revelation and, due to the entrance of sin, Scripture. Positive law is dynamic throughout redemptive history; moral law is static. Wells appears to infuse Zaspel´s understanding of plhro,w into his discussion of moral law. This has detrimental implications for the identity of the law written on the heart (i.e., natural law), the basis of the Covenant of Works, the perpetuity of moral law, the Sabbath, the active obedience of Christ, and the imputation of righteousness.
In the preface, the authors state that "œthe occasion that prompted this volume was the publication of a book containing a friendly but serious attack on NCT" (NCT, 1). They are referring of course to my book. Though they chose not to interact with it on all fronts, something for which I do not fault them, I was happy to see that they devoted specific interaction in chapters 11 and 12. I was rather perplexed, however, that they did not deal with Jer. 31:31-34 and my exposition of it in any depth. Wells makes a somewhat cavalier dismissal of my interpretation and then makes a very confusing statement. He says, "œBarcellos argues at length that the law in Jeremiah 31:33 is the Decalogue (pp. 16-24). I suspect that this is too constricting and that the law there is the full Mosaic law" (NCT, 170, n. 246). I would expect him to say that my view is too constricting. But I would not expect him to imply that Jeremiah meant that God would write the full Mosaic law on the hearts of New Covenant saints. This appears to contradict the main thesis of Zaspel´s argument from Matt. 5:17, unless of course one reads Zaspel´s argument back into Jeremiah. This seems a bit hermeneutically strained.
Jer. 31:31-34 and its corroborating New Testament witnesses are foundational to the issues at stake. The text in Jeremiah discusses both the New Covenant and the law. For this reason we should expect this text to get more exegetical attention in a book entitled New Covenant Theology. In fact, the pivotal biblical passage of the entire book, Matt. 5:17-48, though it discusses law, does not discuss the New Covenant, at least explicitly. In hermeneutics, it is always safest to start with the explicit words of Scripture pertaining to the issues at stake. NCT´s theological methodology leaves room for improvement at this point since it is established upon shaky hermeneutical and exegetical grounds.
While discussing my exposition of Matt. 5:17-20, Wells says:

I suspect our author shows here that he has confused the NCT position with some views of classical Dispensationalism. "¦Barcellos, however, must not attribute these things to NCT as he seems to do by repeating the words "œthis view" throughout pages 62-63. (NCT, 200)

For the record, I was intending older Dispensationalism by the phrase "˜this view.´
While discussing my exposition of 1 Tim. 1:8-11, Wells points out several observations and disagreements (NCT, 190-199). The reader is encouraged to read my article in this edition of RBTR. It has been considerably edited and expanded since the publication of the book.
In an appendix, "œJohn Bunyan on the Creation Sabbath," Zaspel provides an extended quote from Bunyan (NCT, 293-294). No explanation is provided concerning what is being argued by this quotation. He prefaces Bunyan´s words with these: "œBunyan responded more thoroughly." What we are not informed of is the context and reason for which Bunyan says what he does. The quote in question comes under this heading: "œWhether the seventh day Sabbath, as to man´s keeping of it holy, was ever made known to, or imposed by, a positive precept upon him until the time of Moses? which from Adam was about two thousand years" (John Bunyan, The Works of John Bunyan [Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1991], 2:363). The full title of Bunyan´s treatise is "œQuestions about the Nature and Perpetuity of the Seventh-Day Sabbath and Proof that the First Day of the Week is the True Christian Sabbath" (Ibid., 2:359). In IDOTD I attempted to show that Bunyan was arguing against the perpetuity of the seventh-day Sabbath from creation to consummation (IDOTD, 100-107). Ample references from Bunyan were provided to prove that he did not believe the seventh-day Sabbath was moral but that "œa Sabbath for holy worship is moral" (Bunyan, Works, 2:361). Elsewhere, Bunyan says, "œit is evident that the substance of the ten commandments was given to Adam and his posterity" (Bunyan, Works, 1:499). It is very evident that Bunyan held that the Sabbath as moral law predated the tablets of stone but that the seventh-day Sabbath began with the positive laws attending the Old Covenant. It is unclear to me what Zaspel was seeking to prove by this appendix. If he was attempting to prove that Bunyan did not believe that the seventh-day Sabbath predated Moses, then I agree with him. If he was attempting to prove that Bunyan did not believe the Sabbath is moral law and rooted in creation, then I disagree with him.
While reading NCT, I was reminded that the issue of the Sabbath is not the only thing upon which we differ. New Covenant Theology adherents often tout this as the only difference between us. Reading NCT convinced me that, though we differ on the Sabbath, our differences cut much deeper than this subject alone. Those differences are exegetical, theological, and historical. It is improper, therefore, for those on either side of this issue to claim that the Sabbath is the only issue dividing us.
I would like to close on a positive note. Through various circumstances, I have come to know Tom Wells on a personal level and consider him to be a dear, highly esteemed brother in the Lord. We have had several friendly, challenging, and edifying email exchanges and phone conversations. I am sure that this would be true of many other New Covenant Theology adherents and trust that this review will be taken as constructive criticism from a differing friend and brother.


----------



## doulosChristou (Mar 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> What is your opinion of Carson and his theology? I really would be interested to know. Thanks.



He is a brilliant Bible scholar, a solid writer, and an able exegete. His theology is calvinistic and baptistic. I recommend him highly.


----------

