Testing All Things: A Conversation about Law and Grace
Aug 25
A LETTER FROM A CONCERNED CHURCH
LEADER TO JON ZENS, 1979
LEADER TO JON ZENS, 1979
[I was going through an old box of papers recently, and found this letter & my reply from 30 years ago. Ted never replied to my response.]
August 20, 1979
Dear Jon,
Though I do not have time at the present to indicate the reasons why, I must inform you that I am very disappointed in the positions you have taken toward God’s law – I’m convinced that it is an over-reaction (as is nearly always the case in church history) to legalistic abuses of the same.
As of yet, you are a relatively young man. I would encourage you to realign yourself with the orthodoxy of the Reformers and the Puritans. This will do at least two things. One, it will maintain your positive influence in the movement which needs you; and two, it will spare you of the retrospective recantations of old age. May I encourage you to put your controversial positions to the tests of perspective and objective reconsideration. If for no other reason, do this because you know that the “Elijahs” of our present-day reformation (I am but an Obadiah) are seriously concerned about you.
Jon, God has used you in very constructive ways. Personally, I have been helped by much that you have written or edited. So have many of my people. As you well know, we Baptists are in desperate need of men with sound knowledge wedded to an ability to wield the pen. This God has graciously given you. Please grant us the privilege of continued profit therefrom.
I do not write this with a view to your answering. I want to be sympathetic to the demands upon your time. May the Lord bless you abundantly.
In Christ,
Ted Christman
Covenant of Grace Church
Owensboro KY
Ted Christman
Covenant of Grace Church
Owensboro KY
December 5, 1979
Dear Ted,
Dear Ted,
I want to sincerely thank you for being forthright enough to express your reservations to me in your August 20, 1979, letter. Because of what you said, and because I really appreciate you as a dear brother in the Lord, I am taking the time to reply. I trust you will consider what is enclosed and what I will briefly say with a view toward ascertaining the truth.
First, I cannot view what I have written on Law as an “over-reaction.” I see it as, rather, a balancing attempt to do justice to Scripture – which, in crucial areas, neither Dispensationalism nor Covenant Theology have done. My position may seem “extreme” in comparison to certain creedal embodiments; but the issue must be: is a position extreme when compared to sound exegesis? I am open to correction from Scripture; I have not written a bunch of speculative remarks; I have wrestled with a number of crucial passages, and I believe a Christ-centered ethical structure emerges which is lacking in both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology.
Ted, if it was “Jon Zens contra mundem,” I would certainly have reason to wonder about what I’ve said. But (as the enclosed selected statements from some Grace pastors indicates) I am not alone. I find my basic convictions in line with what others have said in the past and are saying now. For example, one Reformed Baptist pastor – concerned to discover if I was “in left field” – compared what I said about some 20 NT passages in “This Is My Beloved Son” to respected commentators. He found that the basic thrust of what I articulated was in line with these authors. Since through primary interaction with Scripture, and secondary interaction with brethren my convictions have been solidified, I do not feel that recantation of the essential theses is imminent. If it is shown from Scripture why I must recant, I should be glad to do so.
Ted, I can’t believe you would ask me to uncritically “align” myself “with the orthodoxy of the Reformers and Puritans,” when much study and prayer has led myself and others to see crucial discrepancies between Scripture and their teachings. Are you asking me to just pour water on the burning questions that arise in my mind? Are you asking me to be content with a closed creedal system which is viewed as sacrosanct? Are you asking me to align myself with some things that I have come to see perspicuous errors I have come to see in the Reformers and the Puritans?
Ted, does the “orthodoxy” of the Reformers/Puritans include, as Iain Murray suggests, the “national establishment of Christianity” (Banner of Truth, #80, May, 1970, p.38)? Is the theological construct of the “covenant of works/covenant of grace” essential to their “orthodoxy,” or is it an accouterment which developed as time elapsed? Do you agree with church-state union, I.e., that “the first symptom of Calvinism, whenever it establishes itself, was to make the moral law the rule for states as well as nations” (R.C. Reed, The Gospel as Taught by Calvin, p.138). Must we be wedded to the peculiar Puritan idea of law that conceived of the OT as a detailed model for national life (cf., W.B. Selbie, “The Influence of the OT on Puritanism,” Baptist Reformation Review, 8:3, 1979)? Is one “unorthodox” if he strongly disagrees with Thomas Watson’s threats to Sabbath breakers?
The Sabbath-day in England lies bleeding; and oh! that our Parliament would pour some balm into the wounds which it has received! . . . The “Theatre of God’s Judgments’ relates of one, who used every Lord’s Day to hunt in sermon-time, who had a child by his wife with a head like a dog, and it cried like a hound (Body of Divinity).
I believe I can honestly say that I am in line with their “orthodoxy,” if by that we simply mean the Synod of Dort’s statements regarding soteriology. It seems to me that you are confusedly equating “orthodoxy” with a whole system. And I think this is the crux of the matter which you need to reflect upon more carefully: are the Westminster Confession’s statements on church/state, Sabbath/law, Covenant of Works/Covenant of Grace, ecclesiology/infant baptism of the essence of Calvinism?
I really have a problem with your statement that I should hold in abeyance my positions, “if for no other reason, do this because . . . the ‘Elijah’s’ of our present-day reformation . . . are seriously concerned about you.” Firstly, the enclosures from other pastors should reveal to you that your assumption is wrong: not all the ‘Elijah’s’ are upset with what I’ve written. Secondly, surely you do not limit the ‘Elijah’s’ to just several men in the North, do you? Thirdly, I implore you to face this question: have the ‘Elijah’s’ you have in mind dealt with the issues I’ve labored over, or have they just written me off because I do not toe the line with their views (cf. the enclosed correspondence which I trust will help you evaluate this question)? The “concern” of these ‘Elijah’s’ has not so far been expressed via exegesis, but via ad hominem. If the ‘Elijah’s’ you have in view are unwilling to adjust their systems, then will they ultimately contribute to vital reformation? If what these ‘Elijah’s’ say about law proves to be errant, are you willing to admit they are mistaken? Your statement as it stands leaves the impression that you view these ‘Elijah’s’ as the criteria of determining truth. Since there is so much soteriological agreement between us, I certainly would not desire to differ from them unless I felt compelled to do so after serious and careful study of the Scriptures. I originally assumed that their position on the law was correct – but further study has led myself and others to disagree with them. Have they not perhaps, however, rashly and superficially discredited my understanding of the Word?
Ted, I have taken this time to respond to your letter because I love you in the Lord. I hope what has been said and enclosed will in some way help you and be profitable to you. If you have any explanations of Scripture that you feel challenge my central theses, please spell them out for me. I hope you have given my articles careful attention. I plead with you to consider the Xeroxed materials, for it seems to me that they should cause you to re-evaluate the concerns you expressed in your letter. Also, perhaps the enclosed Winter issue of BRR will put things in a way which will help you wrestle with these matters. I desire for Christ to be glorified in my living, and I sincerely desire to handle Scripture accurately – and so do you. May we in some way help sharpen one another in these crucial areas.
Your Servant (John 13:34-35), Jon
A Few Reflections after 30 Years:
Well, Ted is still in Owensboro, KY. The church there now is called Heritage Baptist Church. As the years have rolled on, I guess I’m a relatively older man now! I have not had reason to recant concerning the Christ-centered, New Covenant-based approach that has developed since my first article, “Is There A ‘Covenant of Grace’?” that broke the ice in 1977. If anything, the perspectives Ted expressed concern about have only been further solidified with the passing of time and research. In a sense, 1946 can be viewed as a turning-point in New Testament theology. In that year, C.H. Dodd gave his ground-breaking William Ainslie Memorial Lecture, “The Gospel & the Law of Christ.” Forty years later Douglas Webster expressed the general consensus of NT scholars:
The Christian ethic is exclusively dependent upon Christian redemption . . . . Jesus’ cross is planted squarely at the center of the believer’s existence, providing both the means of salvation and the challenge of a new life-style (A Passion for Christ: An Evangelical Christology, Zondervan, 1987, pp.149,153).
The striking words of God from the cloud, echoing the prophecy of Moses in Deut.18, must ever shape our perspectives in the Gospel age – “This is my Beloved Son, with him I am well-pleased. Listen to him” (Matt.17:5).
Lionel,
I agree that we should “test all things” concerning our beliefs based on our “current” understanding of scripture. With that said, I still have not been able to understand the error that you and others seem to believe that I’m making with my “current” understanding of what aion/aionios really mean. I have provided a link that I would like for you and others to review and provide feedback of where there may be error in this study. Thanks sincerely.
http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/aionole.htm
Man forget you Jon Paden! I ain’t reading nothing!
Just kidding. I will give it a read brother. God bless, hope your week is going well.
Jesus Christ died for everyone, and didn’t PREORDAIN/PREDESTINE anyone to hell, to rape, to torture, slavery, and the like. Any one can come to God, but the question is-WILL EVERYONE COME TO GOD.
Seeker,
Are you and Jon relatives? Don’t come on here with that foolishness, what does that response have to do with this post Sucka?
Hey, leave me out of it! LOL
My bad Jon
Lionel,
Great post! We owe a debt to men like brother Jon who was not afraid to take an unpopular stand.
In Christ,
Moe Bergeron
Lionel,
I don’t want to hijack this excellent post, so I will post this, and then not post on the subject again.
The idea that the Greek term “aeon” cannot mean “eternal” or “eternity” is ridiculous. In ancient Greek (i.e. Homer) the word meant “life” or “lifetime”. However, before the time the NT was written, Greek writers were already using “aeon” to mean “etneral”. Yes, it has many meanings, but one of those meanings is “eternal” or “eternity”.
In Plato’s understanding of the universe, there were ideals that would never change, and then there were copies of the ideals that existed in the world. Plato called the unchanging ideals “aeons”.
Consider these quotes:
Aristotle (Peri Ouranou 1,9): According to the same word the completeness of the whole heaven, and the completeness which embraces all time and infinitude is eternal (“aeon”), having received this name from existing for ever (“apo tou aei einai”), immortal (athanatos, undying), and divine.
Philo (Cher 1.90): Since therefore it is naturally the case that things, which are changed, are changed in consequence of fatigue, and since God is subject to no variation and to no change, he must also by nature be free from fatigue, and that, which has no participation in weakness, even though it moves everything, cannot possibly cease to enjoy rest for ever (aeon).
Philo (Deus 1.32): Therefore, this younger son, perceptible by the external senses being set in motion, has caused the nature of time to shine forth, and to become conspicuous, so that there is nothing future to God, who has the very boundaries of time subject to him; for their life is not time, but the beautiful model of time, eternity (“aeon”); and in eternity (“aeon”) nothing is past and nothing is future, but everything is present only.
Josephus (Jwr 3.374): Do not you know that those who depart out of this life according to the law of nature, and pay that debt which was received from God, when he that lent it to us is pleased to require it back again, enjoy eternal (“aeon”) fame?
In each case above, it is clear that the author is using “aeon” to indicate something that exists outside of time or beyond death. Thus, it cannot mean “an age of time” or “ages” in those contexts.
-Alan
Lionel,
I believe this link provides an appropriate rebuttal to Alan’s comments. It provides a deeper study into the meaning of the word(s) in question.
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Aion_lim.html
I like Alan’s better Jon. For example you said “it can never mean”. If there is one instance where it means enternity and the context of the writers is that of eternal then it must mean eternal.
Lionel,
You stated:
“For example you said “it can never mean””.
Aiodios is the word that means everlasting. Aion in the Greek Classics, never means eternity unless a qualifying word or subject connected with it add to its intrinsic value. The word “aiodios” alone carries this meaning and needs no additional words or subject matter to qualify it.
The question remains does the word (aion and aionios) mean eternal/everlasting when used in scripture or has it been mistranslated to fit a certain theological conviction?
If the New Testament writers wanted to convey eternity/everlasting, why would they not just use the actual word that meant it (aiodios).
It we compare the translation of the Hebrew word “olam” in the old testament with aion in Greek, we can also determine its intended meaning through the Old and New Testament writings.
I now rest my case “Judge/Honorable Woods” LOL
Jon,
I said that I would not reply further, but I was asked to respond to this comment.
I actually answered this in my previous comment. In Classical Greek the word “aeon” meant “life” or “lifetime”. By the time the NT was written (actually before that in Plato and others), the word had added the meaning of “eternal” or “everlasting”. The meanings of words change with time.
The link that you sent me is not good scholarship. The author ignores many usages of the word by authors from the same time as the NT. Often, he simple generalizes without giving proof. For example, he says:
“Philo, who was contemporary with Christ, generally used aidion to denote endless, and always used aiónion to describe temporary duration. Dr. Mangey, in his edition of Philo, says he never used aiónion to interminable duration.”
Yet, the author does not address either of the quotations from Philo that I provided. In both cases, “aeon” means “eternal”.
At the time the NT was written, “aeon” could mean “life,” “lifetime,” “age,” or “eternal.” I’ve given several examples above where “aeon” obviously means “eternal.”
If you want to discuss this further, then please deal with those examples that I’ve already given.
-Alan
Alan,
Thanks for your sincere reply. I will continue to study the matter further. However, it still seems a little odd to me that the New Testament writers rarely used aiodios if they meant to convey the since of eternal. Yet many popular bible translations use eternal for aionios, which promotes the idea that the punishment for the ungodly is eternal rather than punishment that last throughout the Age(s) of Judgment. Young’s Liteal Translation conveys a since of temporary punishment by translating aionios to “of the age” or “pertaining to the ages”.
Jon,
So, does “aeon” mean “eternal” in the passages that I quoted above? Those are not NT passages, but were written before or around the same time as the NT. Can “aeon” mean “eternal” or not?
-Alan
Alan,
Aion in the Greek Classics, never means eternity UNLESS a qualifying word or subject connected with it add to its intrinsic value.
The quotes you’ve listed use aeon to mean eternity only based on the qualifying subject.
1) God is called aeon.
Why? “…having received this name from existing for ever (“apo tou aei einai”), immortal (athanatos, undying), and divine.”
2) God enjoys rest aeon (forever).
Why? “… since God is subject to no variation and to no change, he must also by nature be free from fatigue
3) “in eternity (“aeon”) nothing is past and nothing is future, but everything is present only.”
For whom does this word apply? “…there is nothing future to God, who has the very boundaries of time subject to him”
4) “when he that lent it to us is pleased to require it back again, enjoy eternal (“aeon”) fame”?
What aeon referring to? It is referring to one’s life in relation to God the life giver. For life forever remains with Him before it was given to us and after it is taken away.
Jon,
Thank you for admitting that “aeon” can mean “eternal” or “eternity” in Koine Greek.
-Alan
Lionel,
How do you interpret I Cor 15:22?
Does the all that die in Adam represent all of humanity? If not, why not?
If so why would the all referred to in Christ not represent all of humanity as well?
Please point out my error, if any, in understanding this verse.
Jon,
I’m not sure if your last comment is still directed at me or not. I would guess not, since 1 Cor 15:22 does not include the word “aeon”.
But, I wonder, when you interpret 1 Cor 15:22, do you include 1 Cor 15:23? Because that very next sentence seems to tell us who are “in Christ”. Am I missing something?
-Alan
Alan,
You must also include I Cor 15:23-28. It seems to describe the complete order for all humanity. The order is complete when all of humanity has been subjected to Christ (made alive by Christ). And not only humans, but when everything on Earth and in Heaven (all things) have been subjected so that God may be all in all. Am I missing something?
Jon,
Are you equating those who are “in Christ” and who “belong to Christ” with “all things [that] are subjected to him”?
-Alan
Yes
Jon,
Seems to me there are three groups in 1 Corinthians 15:23-28 – 1) Christ (vs. 23a), 2) Those who are “in Christ”, that those who “belong to Christ” (vs. 23b) and 3) his enemies (vs 24-26).
Both #2 and #3 are said to be “subjected to Christ”. So “subjected to Christ” cannot be the same as those who are “in Christ” or who “belong to Christ.”
-Alan
Alan,
I believe that a servant is subject to his master. In this case, those who are in or belong to Christ are His subjects. We are to be obedient to all of His commands. This requires subjection.
Also vs 22 is written in a way to compare the “all in Adam” with the “all in Christ”, for it reads “so as”. I don’t see the justification in saying that the “all in Adam” is different than the “all in Christ”. The comparison is made to show that the same “all” is once dead because of Adam but will be eventually (everyone in their order) made alive because of Christ. For Christ Himself said that if He be lifted up that He will draw “all men” to Him (no exclusions).
Alan,
Also note that Christ Himself is said to be subject to God because He obeys God in everything.
Jon,
I don’t understand what you are arguing. Yes, servants are subject to their masters. Yes, we are subject to Christ. And, one day, all – even those who are not his servants – will be subjected to Christ.
vs 22: In Adam all die
vs 22: In Christ all will be made alive
vs 23: 1) Christ first
vs 23: 2) Then those who belong to Christ
vs 24: 3) Everyone else (Christ’s enemies)
Again, I don’t understand what you are arguing. The progression seems very obvious to me.
-Alan
Alan,
Initially my coomment was addressed to Lionel because he believes that many (probably most) will be annihialated and never made alive to Christ. That’s why I asked for his interpretation of that particular scripture.
Jon,
My apologies. I didn’t realize that you addressed that comment Lionel.
I think some will not be too happy about being “made alive to Christ”.
-Alan
Alan,
God has away of loving people to repentance.