A Response to "An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and its Basic Tenets" by K.M. Stiles

http://theologicalstudies.org/files/resources/The%20Federal%20Theology.pdf  

Dear brothers and sisters

I am urged to respond to this critique on Covenant Theology (CT) by Kenneth M. Stiles. This article at its best, made a straw man out of CT and gave couple of quick punches.

Two major problems with CT that Mr. Stiles puts forward are that its hermeneutics is flawed and it is a polemical theology. Both of these contentions are poorly argued against by the author. M.Stiles correctly traces, in the beginning of the article, that the Church Fathers (Tertullian, Origen, Augustine - Alexandrian school; and even John of Chrisostom, Jerome -Antiochian school which distinguished from Alexandria with its literal reading and interpretation of Scriptures) all relied on typological and allegorical interpretation to combat heresies, but at the end, the author quite contradictorily and falsely says CT is based on "hermeneutics and polemical theology hastily constructed amidst the fires of controversy during the Reformation". Elements of CT are developed historically by theologians during the process of confronting heretics. What is wrong with polemics; even the Bible itself was canonized primarily for that very purpose by the early church. And it is false to say CT was a hasty speculative construct of Reformers in the 16th century.

The hermeneutics of CT was accused of non-historical grammatical method and relies on speculative theology (particularly Covenant of works, even the frame work of covenant itself). Meredith Kline who the author conveniently quotes, has written extensively (http://www.meredithkline.com/klines-works/books/) on historicity of covenant treaties among the people of OT times based originally on Hittite suzarain treaty with its vassals. Second, we see this covenant structure very early on in Genesis 2:16-17 as a conditional promise God makes with Adam. Mr. Stiles pays no attention to these and the book of Deuteronomy which is virtually a book written in covenant structure, and he deviates ignoring the Scriptural support for CT. In fact, CT is historical b/c it takes into consideration of the cultural, socio-political milieu of the OT times and sees patterns of covenants and treaties in the biblical revelation of God. It is the amazing goodness of God that he "lisps" in ways we can understand Him who is beyond the reach of our intellect and senses. So CT is the best historical grammatical method of biblical interpretation out there to understand the Word of God.

Imputation of Adam's sin on humanity is also allegedly a speculation according to Mr. Stiles. The alternative he seems to propose is Pelagian human free will  (a heresy repeatedly condemned by the orthodox Christians throughout church history) or semi-Pelagianism which has wrecked havoc in the evangelical church ever since the church tried to censor Pelagianism. If God condemns humanity for the sin came from Adam, what about the guilt that deserves this condemnation raises the question of imputation. Romans 5:12-14 seems pretty clear to me that sin came through Adam and Christ is the type of Adam who came to reverse this curse/condemnation. Again, Mr. Stiles brings another straw man argument here and confuses the reader. Support for immediate and mediate views on imputation of Adam's sin to humanity are drawn from the Bible (Hebrews and in Paul) and are held by influential theologians (early ones include Irenaeus, Augustine)  throughout the church history.

I concur with the author on one point, but only reversely, that we should not say the alternate view (dispensationalism) proposed implicitly here in the paper is not an outright heresy; in fact, many of the adherents of this theological framework have become progressively towards CT side (e.g. Dallas Theological Seminary). We should warmly welcome and fellowship with them even if they don't accept CT fully.

I would recommend reading Keith Mathison's Rightly Dividing the People of God - http://www.amazon.com/Dispensationalism-Rightly-Dividing-People-God/dp/0875523595 for a better understanding of dispensationalism.