Testing All Things: A Conversation about Law and Grace

Lionel Woods — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 13:49:32 +0000

A LETTER FROM A CONCERNED CHURCH
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

December 5, 1979
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).

Dartboard Ethics: Whatever Sticks?

Lionel Woods — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:21:48 +0000

This is the second follow up to my post Your Doctrine Drives Your Practice .

The question we have to ask ourselves, when we have been called “out of darkness to His marvelous light” is “how should I now behave”. This is fundamental to our perspective on what pleases God.

If you spend any time in your bible or if you have been to listening to stories about Christians in the news, or if you have visited almost any church, you will quickly come in contact with the term “the 10 commandments”. I am pretty sure if you have been raised on American soil that you have at least come in contact with this, but I would go a step further and bet that 9 out of 10 understand that it is rules God gave Christians to obey. There are enough movies that reference them our directly recount the story of Moses and actually Moses is probably synonymous with the 10 Commandments.

However, in spite of this most Christians understand that there were more than 10 laws given. The number is in the 500′s by some estimates. This entire “law system” is called a “covenant”. God gave over 500 plus laws to His people in order that they may obey Him, worship Him and live fruitful in the land of their fathers (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob).

Well, with that intro that leads me to our question today? What ethic am I to live by? Which rules am I to obey, which can I ignore, and how can I know for sure what God demands of me?

Well the average Christian will have a dartboard method. Especially as it relates to the Old Testament. Some pick the 10 commandments. Others go a bit further (dietary and tithing). Some attempt to live as a Hebrew would completely, though subjectively (Seventh Day Adventist). And again as I lead off this topic with a link, your doctrine will effect the way you live out your Christianity.

So how should you live? I will suggest under the grace provided by the New Covenant. What does that mean? I am glad you asked .

Christ has become the righteousness of God (Ephesians 2:14-15) for us. Once He did that, died on the cross and raised from the dead He established (or His death was the final payment) the New Covenant. In the New Covenant we get something unique. That something is a someone and that someone is a person! That person is the Holy Spirit who is now Christ living in us, conforming and shaping us to His will. This conformity is a promise (Romans 8:28-30), not an option and if there is no conformity (some subjectivity but biblical none the less) 2 Peter 1:3-11, 1 John 1:5-6 then we should have no security that Christ is living in us.

This is also described as the New Heart. This was promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34, Ezekiel 11:19 and Ezekiel 36:26. The writer of Hebrews uses the quotation in Hebrews 8:8-13 and Hebrews 9:15. In these text we see the introduction of a new covenant and a new law is given (Hebrews 7:12) and now Christ has become the mediator of a better covenant. This covenant writes the law of God (not the Old Covenant, but law of Christ founded upon love (John 13:34).

We have been given a new nature, indwelled by the risen Christ and our law moves from ordinances to motivation. Christ is our law and He has now empowered us to live by His will.

With that said, we are no longer under the ordinances and commands, but now God directs us internally. We are under grace! God’s love is our law. This does not exclude principles as we see that often in the New Testament; however, there is no need to turn anywhere before Matthew to look for an ethic. We can find all we need to obey on the pages of the New Testament, under the New Covenant, as expressed by Jesus and His apostles.

In closing we are not under Old Covenant (happens to be Old Testament) law. The ordiances have been abolished. We are now under the Law of Christ and our ethic is set for us in a person. Namely Jesus the Christ.

a view of the woods » law

Testing All Things: A Conversation about Law and Grace

Dartboard Ethics: Whatever Sticks?