Contents:
Preface
Part One: "Why Such A Lengthy Review?" ~ John Reisinger
Part Two: Seven Theological Presuppositions Examined ~ Randall Seiver

Preface

We agree with Pastor Walter Chantry when he says:

"Appropriate warnings involve doctrinal dispute and unpleasant controversy. But the safety of the flock demands the sounding of warning notes lest the sheep stray to the right hand or to the left into paths of danger. Especially when men arise in ranks that are called "Reformed" speaking perverse things, 'Cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood'" (Jeremiah 48:10). God's Righteous Kingdom, by Walter Chantry, Banner of Truth, p.9

Gods Righteous Kingdom (hereafter GRK) is clear evidence that Chantry is no coward but is ready to shed whatever blood is necessary to rid our churches of "perverse teachers" who reject what he is convinced is the "Biblical view of the moral law of God." If the dangers that God s Righteous Kingdom sets forth are real, then Chantry has every duty to God and to the church to whet his sword and use it unsparingly. This is exactly what he has done, and, I might add, done with great success. Blood has flowed and continues to flow as a direct result of this book.

The primary purpose of this review is simple. There is one vital question. Are there really Reformed teachers, or others in those circles, that actually believe and teach the things Chantry so violently opposes? If there are, then it is the duty of every sincere believer, including Pastor Seiver and myself, to join our hands with Chantry and help drive out of our churches the people who are teaching the wicked heresy against which he writes.

There is no question that some men today, as a direct result of Chantry's book, are being consciously and openly treated as if they believe and teach the wicked doctrines described in God s Righteous Kingdom . We repeat, if these people are really guilty of Chantry's charges, then he is to be commended for doing the cause of Christ a great service. However, if the people whom Chantry has labeled as "heretical antinomians" (and who are wrongly being persecuted as such simply because of the charges in this book) actually do not believe and teach those things, then Banner of Truth and Walter Chantry are guilty of sinning against both these people and the cause of Christ and truth.

The Bible is quite clear concerning the duty of leaders to guard the flock against false teachers. In no way is Chantry wrong in denouncing us, or anyone else, as antinomians if we are really teaching that heresy. Paul specifically commanded us to clearly and publicly name men who teach false doctrine. "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them" (Romans 16:17 ). However, in order to obey this command, we must clearly identify these wicked people. Chantry has identified these people publically in conferences and conversations, but he deliberately chose not to do so in print. It is quite possible that he chose not to do so in print only because he could not prove his accusations.

It is our duty to "mark" men who are heretics but we dare not accuse someone falsely. We must prove beyond a doubt that those we mark are actually guilty of the specific thing of which they are being accused. Chantry has "marked" people with heretical labels but has deliberately refused to prove his accusations. He has whetted his sword, accused men like me and others of the most awful God dishonoring beliefs without one single piece of evidence~ Chantry does not give one single quotation from any of his mythical enemies! Gods Righteous Kingdom has only three footnotes in the entire book. The first' footnote is on page eight recommending a book by Geerhardaus Vos and published by Presbyterian Reformed Publishing Co., the second is on page nine and states that a second book is also published by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., and the only other footnote is on page 101 recommending John Brown's commentary on Galatians. There is not a single quotation from any of the people Chantry condemns!

If the wicked men that Chantry cuts into pieces with his sword had taught their heresy in secret and never published any books or articles, then his approach might be understandable. However, there is plenty of published material available which includes books, tracts, booklets, tapes, etc., not to mention the Biblical obligation to talk to a person face to face and say, "Now this is what I perceive you to be saying. Have I understood you correctly?" If either Banner of Truth or Walter Chantry would have done this then Gods Righteous Kingdom would never have been published. Likewise, if Chantry would have named the "antinomians" and then given clear references proving they actually taught the "perverse" things of which he accuses them, then this review would never have been written.

We wish we could believe that this review will serve to bring a resolution to the law/grace controversy. However, we are realists and doubt that will be the case. It may help in some small way. We do have hopes that a few people will have the spiritual courage to honestly look at both sides and not be deliberately blind by only looking at one side. We ask that you read and really understand the charges that Chantry is making in Gods Righteous Kingdom . We urge you to read and understand his book. This is THE book that was specifically written to give one side of the law/grace controversy. Look at the source material itself and not just at our evaluation of it. Then be like the Bereans and get the other side. Look at what we have said in reply. If you want to read first hand what I actually do believe, then read Tablets of Stone and But I Say Unto You. Our hope is that Banner of Truth, Walter Chantry, and those who uncritically accepted the unproven accusations in God’s Righteous Kingdom , would realize that most of the blood being shed is innocent blood. We would desire that swords be replaced with open discussions. We would say, "Put up your swords, we be brethren who have been badly misrepresented." If we are guilty, use our own words and prove it. There is plenty of evidence available. If our opponents cannot do this (I suspect, but of course cannot prove, that they know that they cannot prove the charges or else they would have done it long ago) and we then, in the face of clear evidence, refuse to repent then we justly deserve the sword. However, for anyone to continue to hurl wicked charges and use heretical labels without an ounce of proof is nothing less than open and deliberate slander. What are we saying? We are agreeing that it is the Biblical duty before God to "mark them" that are heretics. If there are such people corrupting Reformed churches then Banner of Truth and Walter Chantry have a duty to God to clearly and publicly identify the wicked people against whom they write. They sin in not doing so! They are guilty of the very text in Jeremiah 48: 10 that they used to justify the book. They "keep back the sword" in refusing to identify the guilty. Likewise, if they have hurled accusations that they are totally unable to prove, especially if they know they cannot prove them (and we certainly cannot say either way), then they must publicly retract those accusations, honestly admit they were burning straw men, and ask forgiveness from those they have wrongly defan1ed. Let me summarize the situation as I see it. No one can deny that there is contention and much blood being shed over the law/grace issue today. Banner of Truth and Walter Chantry stated that bloodshed was an "unpleasant duty" from which they could not shrink. There is no question that both Banner of Truth and Walter Chantry have been extremely successful in spilling blood. It is our individual duty before Christ our Lord to ask and answer the simple question, "Is the blood their sword has spilled innocent or guilty blood?"

One last thing before we start. I know that some sincere people will ask, "Do you not realize by writing this review that it will add fuel to the fires of controversy and may create confusion, contention, and problems in local churches? Are you not merely 'getting out your own sword' and thereby becoming guilty of the very things that you are opposing?" There are more than two questions being asked and there is both a "yes" and "no" to all of the questions.

First of all, even though it is not my intention, this review may create confusion, contention and problems for some people. However, it will not create one single difficulty for anyone who has been honest in stating what we really believe. It will only cause problems when some sincere believer reads it and then asks his pastor or teacher why they have so grossly misrepresented what we believe. That will indeed cause a problem with that teacher's credibility. I know of some cases where that has already happened. However, that cannot be blamed on either me or this review.

Secondly, in no sense am I "getting out a sword" because I somehow feel duty bound to "slay the enemies of God's truth." I do not feel that those who sincerely believe the Sabbath is a moral commandment are either legalists or "enemies of God." Many Godly Christians, and I most certainly believe such a designation describes Walter Chantry, are sincerely convinced that Covenant Theology is true. I was at one time just as convinced myself. I believe Godly Christians can, and do, disagree over the Sabbath question. I have never, nor do I intend to start, calling sincere brethren "legalists" and other names simple because they disagree with me on law/grace and the Sabbath. Some of the most Godly people I know are Sabbatarians. I also know some people who are New Covenant legalists.

I recently met with a Reformed Baptist pastor for several hours attempting to discuss our differences. I went to that meeting determined that I would not say a negative word or allow personalities to get involved. Near the close of the meeting, this pastor said, "We must quit attacking each other and stop using labels against each other." I simply could not allow that to pass. I replied, "Brother, you and I both know that the kind of things you mentioned have been a one way street.. I have never called you a legalist but you constantly call me an antinomian. I have never tried to use my influence to keep you from being invited somewhere to speak and I have surely never tried to get you removed from a program but you have done both of these things to me. I have never tried to keep any one from attending your church, but, as you well know, I have encouraged people to attend there. However, you have done the exact opposite to me and my ministry."

This review will not create two opposing camps. God's Righteous Kingdom has already done that most effectively. However, this review will help to demonstrate that Chantry and Banner of Truth have created these two camps over the single issue of the Sabbath. When all the smoke has cleared and the issues have been clearly defined, the only point of difference left will be, "Is the Sabbath Commandment moral or is it ceremonial?" Chantry is convinced that it is his God-ordained duty to whet his sword against those who use "wield meat-cleaver hermaneutics" (p. 125) to arrive at the wrong answer to that question.

I am sincerely sorry that these pages must be written. However, they are written for the ultimate purpose of helping to end controversy. Differences are not settled by making charges without a shred of proof. Theological truth is not established when the only evidence is the words of a creed. God's truth is not established and error refuted by sticking wicked and false labels on people. Unity is not attained with sarcasm and caricature while refusing to openly discuss the Biblical facts set forth in the Word of God. Those are the things that create and sustains controversy. Open and honest discussion is what creates true understanding that in turn will either help bring unity or else cause an honest but friendly separation for the right reasons.  

Part One

"Why Such A Lengthy Review?" ~ John Reisinger

In the first part of this review we will discuss both the purpose of Banner of Truth in publishing God's Righteous Kingdom and our reason for giving the book such a lengthy review. We will ask some specific questions and give some detailed answers. Since we do not wish to be guilty of the very charges that we make, we will give some quotations to prove our statements. We urge anyone at all interested in the law/grace controversy to read and digest God's Righteous Kingdom and then read carefully our reasons for rejecting the position argued so passionately by the author of that book. Nothing could give you "both sides" as much as comparing that book with this review.

All words or phrases in hold letters within quotations are my emphasis. This only applies to bolding within a quotation.

Question # 1: Why are we doing such a lengthy review of this particular book?

Answer: Because God's Righteous Kingdom, in the publisher's words, is THE definitive book on the law/ grace controversy. It was written for the express purpose of defending Banner of Truth's view on this subject and discrediting those who differ.

One of the best ways to grasp the intention of either the writer or publisher of a particular book is to take seriously the things that they themselves say about that book. The advertisement on the back of God's Righteous Kingdom tells the whole story:

The basic question to which the author addresses himself is the relationship between the Law of God and the message of the gospel. . . In the space of twelve chapters, Walter Chantry expounds the relationship of the Law to the Gospel in a way which touches contemporary controversy; but he does so through painstaking exposition of the Scriptures. . . Short chapters, clearly argued, written in a popular style and with practical application always in mind, this is a book with a message which needed saying.

In an article entitled "Where Is Calvinism today?" (Banner of Truth Magazine, November 1982) lain Murray; the editor, in discussing the law/grace controversy said:

Reluctantly, authors writing for the Trust have been drawn into answering the deviations mentioned above. God's Righteous Kingdom is an important book by W. J. Chantry, defending the biblical position on the moral law…

It is obvious, from the above quotations, that God's Righteous Kingdom is no "ordinary book" nor is Walter Chantry just another author." This is a book written by an author specifically chosen by Banner of Truth to (1) set forth and defend their position on the law/grace controversy, and to (2) refute and run out of our churches all those who disagree with that position. This is the stated purpose of the book:

The time has come to reform the church by ridding them of those who are so impressed with their own learning that they have no respect for church creeds. Page 149

God's Righteous Kingdom is, according to the publishers, "the Biblical" [and Puritan] view of "the moral law." In their 1990,91 catalogue, Banner advertised God's Righteous Kingdom this way:

Here, in possibly his most important book, Chantry deals with the relationship between the law and the gospel a subject fundamental to an understanding of both the Old and the New Testament.

Since Banner of Truth is the leading publisher of Puritan and Reformed literature today, and further, since many Reformed Baptists consider Walter Chantry to be both the best and the most influential theologian in their ranks, God's Righteous Kingdom deserves a careful and detailed critique. This book represents the "painstaking exposition of the Scriptures" by Banner of Truth's chosen champion to defend the Biblical and Puritan position on the Law of God. This book, according to Banner of Truth, is the book to set forth its position and settle the current controversy concerning law and grace. It is the definitive work, from one point of view, on the subject of law and grace and must be given the respect of an answer if its message is not accepted. Anyone who rejects Banner's view of law and grace while refusing to deal with the arguments of God's Righteous Kingdom can justly be accused of refusing to "look at the evidence." To dismiss this book without an answer would in effect be admitting it cannot be answered. This is why we have chosen to write this review. We started this review over four years ago. We kept hoping that open discussion would be a possibility. The continued and open accusations that we are "classical antinomians" show our hopes were without foundation.

God's Righteous Kingdom makes it very easy for individuals and churches to establish clearly defined tests of orthodoxy and fellowship in the area of law and grace. This book has successfully polarized individuals and churches into opposing "camps" with no common ground. There is the "Biblical" view (the covenant theology of Banner of Truth and Chantry), and the "antinomian" view (everyone who rejects the View of Banner and Chantry). This is especially true within the Reformed Baptist movement. God's Righteous Kingdom was given to me by a representative of Banner of Truth with the words, "Here is the Scriptural answer~ your antinomian heresy."

Question #2: What motivated Banner of Truth and Walter Chantry to issue this epistle of severe censure and condemnation?

Answer: Banner and Chantry see those who disagree with their position on "the Biblical view of the moral law of God" as "perverse teachers" who are corrupting the church and the gospel. It is Banner and Chantry's unpleasant duty to "wield the sword" and shed the blood of these "perverse men" who are enemies of Christ and His Church:

Appropriate warnings involve doctrinal dispute and unpleasant controversy. But the safety of the flock demands the sounding of warning notes lest the sheep stray to the right hand or to the left into paths of danger. Especially when men arise in ranks that are called "Reformed" speaking perverse things, 'Cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood' (Jeremiah 48:10). GRKp.9

But neither can there be silence for the sake of unity when distorted teachings menace the church of our Lord. GRK p.10

Here is our first major problem with Chantry's book. We agree with him ~at "perverse teachers" should be shown no mercy. We also agree that the people described by Chantry in God's Righteous Kingdom are indeed "perverse" and ungodly teachers. They deserve "the sword" and should be immediately put out of our churches. However, the Scripture is just as clear that it is as wicked to shed innocent blood as it is to refuse to shed guilty blood (Exodus 23:7 and Proverbs 17:15). Chantry's sword has been eminently successful in shedding a lot of blood (including some of mine). The question which should be answered at this point, and which will most certainly be answered in eternity, is whether it was guilty or innocent blood that Chantry and Banner of Truth have shed.

Question #3: Who, specifically, are these "perverse teachers" against whom Chantry vehemently wields his sword?

Answer: Chantry clearly states his view of what these perverse teachers believe, but he does not give one single reference of proof in his entire book. In other words, Chantry can make any charge that he chooses without having to prove a single accusation! At this point the only evidence available to justify Chantry's blood shedding crusade is Chantry's own personal subjective feelings. He has not given us one single piece of evidence in his whole book! Amazing! Here are two examples of his description of the enemies against whom he is writing. The bolding for emphasis is mine:

Of extraordinary danger in these days are subtle attacks on the Biblical view of the moral law of God and its relationship to the gospel of his grace. . . One faulty camp would lead the church into an obligation to follow ALL Old Testament regulations as moral absolutes for all time. Another would deny that there is any abiding objective moral law." GRK, p.10-11

New movements are rising which wish to lead Christians back to a life style identical to that of Moses day. Others would jettison Old Testament Scriptures entirely, making them merely amusing artifacts of another era. . ." GRK, p.43 

The whole book assumes, without an ounce of proof, that these two accusations are true. If they are indeed true then Chantry's sword is more than justified.

Here is our second major problem with God's Righteous Kingdom . There simply are no such people as those described by Chantry. He has built two giant straw men and then proceeded to chop them into little pieces. This is gross caricature. He need only give some clear quotations from some of these" perverse teachers" to prove that they really exist and he will thereby also prove that I have misrepresented him in this review. Until this is done, and we would plead in the name of our Lord that Chantry would identify such wicked men, then we can only conclude that these "perverse teachers" do not exist in reality but only in Chantry's own imagination.

Look carefully at the actual charges in the above statements. Chantry would bring far more of the Mosaic laws over into the Church than I would. The Theonomist, the one party against whom Chantry is contending, would bring even more of Moses over than Chantry. However, I have never met, heard, or read, a Theonomist, or anyone else in Reformed circles, that tried to "lead the church into an obligation to follow all Old Testament regulations as moral absolutes for all time." I am no friend of Theonomy and have no intention of defending their position, but God's Righteous Kingdom is a gross caricature of what they believe and teach.

Likewise, I have never heard or read a single person who taught that there was not "any abiding objective moral law" for Christians today. I agree that such a view is pure antinomian heresy. Chantry is talking about those who believe as I do concerning law and grace. I categorically deny his charge against us. We do not hold anything even close to the kind of wicked doctrine of which he accuses us! Believing that only nine of the Ten Commandments are enduring moral laws is a far cry from believing there "are no moral absolutes" at all. Believing that Christ's moral absolutes in the Sermon on the Mount and Apostolic epistles are higher and more spiritual than the Ten Commandments is a clear affirmation of moral absolutes and cannot possibly be turned into a denial of all moral absolutes. How Banner and Chantry can accuse us of rejecting all "abiding objective moral laws" just because we believe the Sermon on the Mount contains higher moral absolutes than anything God wrote on the Tablets of Stone is beyond me. How can believing in higher moral absolutes be somehow turned into rejecting all moral absolutes?

The real argument has nothing at all to do with whether there are, or are not, moral absolutes since all of us openly acknowledge that there are abiding moral absolutes. The real question is, "Where does the Christian find his final authority for what is and what is not an unchanging moral absolute." Chantry insists that the one and only unchanging list of those absolutes were written in stone at Sinai (p. 125), and we insist those absolutes are found in the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is the "bottom line" difference between Chantry's view and our view.

We do not believe that Christ ever contradicts Moses, but we do believe that Christ goes far beyond Moses and gives new and higher moral laws. We believe Christ is the new and final Lawgiver. Christ replaces and dismisses Moses as one who did his job, and did it well, but the One of whom Moses prophesied would come has now come and replaced Moses. Chantry totally rejects this view. We have worked this out in great detail in our books "But I Say Unto You" and "Tablets of Stone." If you struggle with the place of the Ten Commandments in the Christian life, I would urge you to read these books. See the preface for a special free offer.

I challenge Banner of Truth or Walter Chantry to prove that there are teachers in Reformed circles, or any other place in true evangelical Christianity, that "jettison Old Testament Scriptures entirely, making them merely amusing artifacts of another era. . ." Chantry is describing a person who cannot possibly be a true Christian! These are charges that can only be hurled at wicked men who are false professors that cannot possibly be saved. I. do not know a single person that fits Chantry's description of his mythical enemies! Who are they? We will gladly lend our swords to help exterminate these wicked purveyors of heresy!

Until Banner of Truth or Chantry give us some clear quotations that prove these wicked antinomians really exist, we can safely assume they are straw men existing only in Chantry's mind as phantoms that are the "good and necessary (imaginary) consequences" of his theological system.  

Question #4: What is the stated purpose or goal of Banner of Truth and Walter Chantry in wielding this sword and shedding so much blood?

Answer: Chantry again is quite clear about his intentions or goal. The holding for emphasis is mine:

The time has come to reform the churches by ridding them of those who are so impressed with their own learning that they have no respect for church creeds. . .

May these pages stir up the church to a fresh defense of her noble creeds, and to a deeper study of God's words!" GRK, p.149

Banner of Truth and Chantry want to see some of us run out of Reformed churches because we dare to disagree with the “noble creeds.” It does not matter that the very doctrines these same sword-wielders deplore have been, and are today, held by men of great stature within the Reformed community. Three quotations from widely respected Reformed teachers will prove my point. The first quotation proves beyond question that the position set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith, and accepted by Chantry, is not the view of church history or of Luther and Calvin.

The Puritans created the English Christian Sabbath, that is, the conception and observance of the first day of the week as one on which both business and organized recreations should be in abeyance, and the whole time left free for worship, fellowship, and "good works." This ideal was never generally accepted by continental Protestants. . . [Luther and Calvin]

James I's Declaration of Sports (1618) laid it down that, apart from bull and bear-baiting and bowls, all the popular games of the day might be played on Sundays after Church. In fact, James hereby "simply reiterated what had been the law of the State and of the Church since the early days of the Reformation."

[The Reformers] followed Augustine and medieval teaching in general in denying that the Lord's Day was in any sense a Sabbath. They held that the Sabbath, which the Fourth Commandment prescribes, was a Jewish typical ceremony, foreshadowing the "rest" of a grace-faith relationship with Christ.  

A Quest for Godliness, by Dr. J .1. Packer, Crossway Books, 1990, pgs. 235,6

Packer, being a convinced covenant theologian, then proceeds to show how the Puritans “corrected" the “wrong views" of Calvin and Luther. There is not the slightest doubt that Packer agrees with the Puritans and disagrees with Luther, Calvin, and Augustine on the subject of the Sabbath. However, nowhere does Packer say, as Banner of Truth and Chantry constantly do, that the Reformers and Puritans were in agreement on the Sabbath. Packer does not try to re-write history, as Banner of Truth does, and attempt to re-make Luther and Calvin into Sabbatarians. Compare Packer's understanding of Calvin's difference with Puritans over the Sabbath with the following statement by Chantry. Someone is not being honest with the historical facts or else there are two different John Calvins.

Calvin's only difference from the Puritan's was his refusal to specify a particular day in seven as the divinely appointed day for rest and worship. GRK, p. 138 ¹

The second quotation is from A Layman's guide to the Sabbath Question by Dr. Richard Belcher and his son Richard, Jr. The purpose of the Belcher's book is to give three different views of the Sabbath. By and large the book seeks to be objective and fair. The three views presented are: (1) The Seventh Day View (Seventh Day Adventist); (2) The Christian Sabbath View (Puritan view of Banner of Truth and Walter Chantry); and (3) The Lord's Day View (Basically my view but not articulated very well by the Belchers.) It seems obvious which view the Belchers hold but the other views are dealt with fairly. The view I hold is given the poorest treatment but I suspect that was only because the authors did not truly understand what we believe. I honestly do not think they intentionally short changed the view.

Notice that the first quotation from the Belchers' book clearly acknowledges the historical fact that the differing views of the Sabbath have a "longstanding history" in the Reformed community. Banner of Truth and Chantry strenuously deny this and seek to paint our view as a "Johnny come lately." The Belchers' book ends with an urgent appeal for tolerance with these words:

Finally, there is sent forth a plea for unity in the body of Christ even though there exists a difference of conviction on the subject. Not only is there a difference between various theological traditions, but there is disagreement among those within the same theological tradition. Whether it be Baptists or Presbyterians or even some other group (though not every group), there is disagreement. One author admits that there is a family quarrel of longstanding within the Reformed tradition. Two different meanings of the Sabbath commandment flow to the Reformed community today from two different [Reformed] standards of faith, the Heidelberg Catechism and the Westminster Confession.

A Layman’s Guide to the Sabbath Question, by Richard and Richard, Jr., Belcher, Crowne Publishers 1991, p.135

We would echo this appeal for tolerance. Chantry advocates a sword since a false unity at the expense of defending God's holy Law in unthinkable:

But neither can there be silence for the sake of unity when distorted teachings menace the church of our Lord. GRK, p.10

The difficulty lies with those whose Covenant Theology forces them to insist that the Ten Commandments, as written on tables of stone, including the fourth, or Sabbath, commandment is just as much "unchanging moral law" as the other nine. Such a conclusion is an absolute theological (not a Biblical) necessity once you adopt the "one Covenant of Grace, one people of God under that one and same covenant, and one unchanging code of moral conduct (The Tablets of Stone) for that one people" system of theology. You are locked in with no choice. Chantry can no more give up the fourth commandment than we, or he, could give up the seventh which forbids adultery. Most of those defending his view desperately try to make it appear that we, not they, make a big fuss over the Sabbath question. Chantry does not want to make the Sabbath a central point in the law/grace discussion. However, he is forced to do this simply because it is the only one of the Ten Commandments over which we disagree. And even here the disagreement is purely the logical and has nothing at all to do with how you actually behave on the Sabbath.

This is why modem Sabbatarians refuse to make any specific objective rules or enforce Sabbath behavior in anyway. It is immaterial how you actual behave on the "Christian Sabbath" as long as you admit there is a Christian Sabbath. This is why you never hear of anyone being disciplined for "Sabbath breaking."

Today, we are told, all behavior on the Sabbath is governed by your own "personal Christian liberty." To theologically deny that there is a “holy day" for the Christian is a far worse sin than how you actually live on that holy day. Believing that the fourth commandment is still in effect and actually obeying the specific things that it commands are two totally different things. The first is absolutely essential in Chantry's mind, but the second is next to impossible simply because there is no specific list of "do's and don'ts" set forth. "We will make no rules" is the practical application of most Sabbath teacher's today. Theologically denying the Sabbath means, to a covenant theologian, that people like me are "wicked antinomians" that despise "all moral law." However, those who adamantly insist the Sabbath is a moral absolute while, at the very same time, insisting there are no specifics on how to observe it as a moral commandment are treated as great believers in Christian liberty. I have labeled this view "Sabbatarian Antinomianism."

The Belchers, immediately after appealing for unity, make the following insightful statement:

In stressing unity it is recognized that the Lord's Day view [my view] is more conducive to an attitude of unity than the other two views. Or to turn the matter around, the Seventh Day view and the Christian Sabbath view [Chantry's view] find it more difficult to join in a spirit of unity. ibid, p.135

The statement that the "Christian Sabbath view finds it more difficult to join in a spirit of unity" is the greatest understatement in the book. If this view is honest and consistent, it must find it impossible to accept my view as anything less that lawless antinomianism. It is forced to do this in order to be logically consistent with itself (but not with Scripture). This is precisely the charge that God's Righteous Kingdom makes.

Someone may say, "John, why are you making such a fuss over the Sabbath." Actually, it is Chantry who must hang his whole position on the Sabbath. As I just mentioned, this is the only one of the commandments written on stone where Chantry has any real difference with us. We believe, preach, and seek grace to obey, all of the other nine commandments. Does Chantry believe it is a sin to steal? So do we. Does he teach that adultery is a sin? So do we. We believe and teach that nine of the ten laws given through Moses are repeated and enlarged by our Lord in the New Testament Scriptures. This new and higher version of God's moral law is just as binding on Christians as the older version given to Israel . Chantry's only possible disagreement is over the fourth commandment. We sincerely believe and earnestly teach the other nine commandments. At the very worst we are only 1/10 antinomian and 9/10 law keepers.

It is Chantry's Covenant Theology, because it is forced to take an "all or nothing" view, that always winds up fighting the whole war over the Sabbath, and remember the war is only over theologically acknowledging that there is a Christian Sabbath day and not a practical living concern. The Christian Sabbath is essential to Covenant Theology. If the fourth commandment is totally fulfilled and done away in Christ, then the whole system is destroyed. This is why Chantry is willing to whet his sword over the Sabbath issue.

The third quotation is from Dr. James Montogomery Boice. He is beyond question one of the foremost leaders in the Reformed movement today. I personally think he is the clearest and most consistent voice for true Biblical theology in the world today.

Dr. Boice, in the April 1994 issue of his Bible Study Hour monthly magazine reviews the same three basic views of the Sabbath that the Belchers did. However, Dr. Boice holds the view that the Belchers rejected. After stating the Sabbatarian view, Dr. Boice acknowledges that the "Westminster Confession of Faith takes this view, calling the Lord's Day the 'Christian Sabbath' ... This was the view of the English and American Puritans. It is held by many Reformed churches today."

Dr. Boice then gives his own view which is "Sunday Worship as a new 'Lord's Day:'"

This view holds that the Sabbath has been abolished by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and that a new day, the Lord's Day, which has its own characteristics, has replaced it ... This is my view also.

Are differences on this matter divisive? Yes, in some cases. Speaking of my own denomination only, it is worth pointing out that the most serious conflicts within the Presbyterian Church of America, which is a conservative denomination, are between those who insist on a strict adherence to the Westminster Standard, with its "Sabbatarian" view, and others who hold to the Standards more loosely... In our denomination there are people who would like to get pastors such as myself excluded, because we think this is a non-essential matter on which the Westminster Confession of Faith has gone beyond what ought to be required of anyone.

Bible Study Hour; April 1994, pg 38

Dr. Boice then gives his reasons for rejecting the "Sunday worship but as the Sabbath" view and accepting the "Sunday worship as the new 'Lord's Day.'" He shows how the first view can easily lead to legalism and the second view can lead to libertinism, and then warns against both dangers. The context in which Dr. Boice is discussing the whole Sabbath question is Christian liberty as set forth in Romans 14:5,6. His conclusion would be "vile heresy" to anyone who worships the creeds.

Let me say that I do not believe you are "breaking the Sabbath" by eating out on Sunday, playing ball with your children, going to a football game or even-horrors of horrors-going to a movie. When my wife and I lived in Switzerland we used Sunday evening for evangelistic work, and that sometimes included taking our non-Christian friends to movies. But even though the right approach is not legalism, surely you can see that you are somehow missing the boat if Sunday is not a day of spiritual refreshment, an evangelistic opportunity, hours of genuine worship, and a time of joy for you. If going to church is something you want to get over with quickly, I would almost rather have you think of Sunday in a legalistic fashion. Ibid, P.41

It is interesting that both the Belchers and Dr. Boice plead for tolerance and acceptance since there are sincere Christians who hold both views. It is even more interesting that both the Belchers and Dr. Boice realize that the strict Sabbatarian view of the Westminster Confession finds it essential, in most cases, to make that view of the Sabbath a test of fellowship. This is exactly what God's Righteous Kingdom does. Compare the appeal of Dr. Boice with that of Chantry:

Dr. Boice says, "In our denomination there are people who would like to get pastors such as myself excluded, because we think this is a non-essential matter on which the Westminster Confession of Faith simply has gone beyond what ought to be required of anyone." ²

Chantry says: "The time has come to reform the church by ridding them of those who are so impressed with their own learning that they have no respect for church creeds. " God's Righteous Kingdom, Page 149

Both Dr. Boice and the Belchers believe that the Sabbath question should not be a test of fellowship. Chantry advocates "ridding the churches" of anyone who disagrees with the creed. It is not that Chantry is being mean spirited or narrow minded. He is simply being honest and consistent with his view of the authority of the creed. Boice, the Belchers, and Chantry all agree that the Westminster Confession clearly teaches the Sabbatarian view. They only differ on the authority of the confession's view over the conscience of the individual. Chantry, whether he admits it or not, gives the confession an authority that belongs to the Bible alone.

Question #5: What effect has the book God's Righteous Kingdom, had, especially among Reformed Bapists?

Answer: It has been extremely successful in attaining its stated goal. It has driven many out of our churches.

As noted earlier, there is no question that Chantry's sword has shed much blood and has successfully" rid our churches" of many "perverse men" for the great sin of daring to question four hundred year old creeds. This is especially true in the area of the Sabbath. However, we have used both the Scriptures themselves and the clear writings of Bunyan, Luther and Calvin in challenging those creeds. Our view of the Sabbath is not a "new thing in the land," but is as old as Luther, Calvin, Augustine, and, we might humbly add, the Apostle Paul along with the writer of the Book of Hebrews.

What we continue to insist is that disagreements within the Reformed community, as everywhere else, must be discussed and answered with God's own Word and not by creeds. We will gladly submit our conscience to the sword of the Spirit, but we will not bow our conscience to a sword molded at Westminster and sharpened with the human logic of fallible men. We will, and do, respect and love church creeds to the degree they clearly agree with Scripture. However, we will not discuss points of Biblical theology and accept a statement out of a creed as equally authoritative as a verse of Scripture! If such an attitude means being falsely labeled an antinomian and maliciously treated as if the accusation were true, then so be it.

Some Observations

God's Righteous Kingdom enables the reader to use several very simple theological questions (not Scripture references) to immediately pigeon hole anyone as either orthodox or antinomian. One of these questions is, "Do you the believe the Sabbath commandment is part of the one unchanging moral law of God?" If you answer "No," then the devotees of the theology espoused in God's Righteous Kingdom are more than justified in calling you a "crank who foments against Sinai" (p.82), a "Neo-antinomian who demands the rash obliteration of the Ten Commandments" (p. 83), one who "hates the ten commandments" (p.87), one who" demeans" (p.88), "hates," (p.93) "attacks" (p.93), and wants to "suspend the moral law" (p.98). Not to mention trying to" demolish the only Biblical summary of moral obligation" (p. 125) by firing “enthusiastic assaults against the moral law" (p. 125) and using "meat-cleaver hermeneutics" to totally "amputate the Old Testament from Scripture" (p. 125).

We are accused of all of these wicked things just because we believe that (1) only nine of the Ten Commandments are enduring moral laws and one of the Ten is a ceremonial law, and that (2) the Sermon on the Mount is a higher ethical and moral standard than the Tables of Stone. For these "perverse teachings," Banner of Truth, via Chantry's pen, hurls all of the above epithets, plus a lot more, against us.

I find it amazing that Chantry would even think twice about identifying the ungodly people against whom he is writing. Unless, of course, there really are no such people. Unless Banner of Truth and Walter Chantry have accepted an extreme view of the "carnal Christian" doctrine there is absolutely no way the people he describes can be considered true Christians. The people described in the above epithets are as lost as the Devil and dare not be treated as "sincere brothers who disagree on a few points of theology." Chantry is not arguing with fellow believers who hold a different theology. He is writing against people who hate God's authority, and to hate God's authority is to hate God Himself. Chantry is more than justified in shedding blood if there are such people. If I fit Chantry's description of the people he is writing against, then I cannot possibly be a saved person. I am as lost as the Devil himself.

I find it even more amazing that lain Murray , the edi1Dr of Banner of Truth, did not insist that Chantry name the enemies whom he was opposing. In 1967, Murray wrote a booklet (now in it's fourth printing) entitled The Invitation System. It is a criticism of the altar call and is well worth reading. Murray does not hesitate to mention Dr. Billy Graham by name as the chief exponent of the error being opposed. Here is lain Murray 's reasons for mentioning Dr. Graham by name:

Before writing the following pages I sought to understand the case which is put forth as "the invitation," both by reading what it's advocates have to say and by attending meetings where a public appeal was made for decisions. I do not want to misstate the case. This leads, however, to a difficulty. To shroud in anonymity the quotations which I shall give would be both irritating to the reader and against the interest of a fair debate. Discussions of a controversial subject demands documented references. On the other hand, the danger is that, once names are quoted, interest is switched from the clarification of ideas to the person whose words are under review . . . I have therefore concluded that the only way adequately to present the arguments used to support the practice is to quote directly from the most forceful contemporary spokesman for gospel preaching who uses it, namely, Dr. Billy Graham 
The Invitation System, by lain Murray, Banner of Truth, p.4

Murray then proceeds to give many documented quotations from Billy Graham. If Murray acted as he did toward a man he considered a fellow believer, surely Chantry should be doubly responsible to identify by name and give quotations when he is writing against "wicked enemies of the gospel." Why would both Chantry, as the author, and Murray, as the publisher, totally ignore the sound reasons set forth in The Invitation System for the absolute necessity of "a controversial subject demanding documented references?" We can only conclude that Chantry is unable to document and prove the horrible accusations that he makes.

One of the things for which we are severely condemned in God's Righteous Kingdom is believing and teaching that Christ is "that Prophet" that was to replace Moses as the new Lawgiver over God's people. We do indeed teach that Christ is the new and greater Lawgiver predicted in Genesis 49:10 and not, as Chantry insists, merely the great expositor and enforcer of the Law of Moses. Here is a quotation from a message I gave at the 1992 International Conference on Theology. I was discussing ways that the Lordship of Christ is denied today.

The third of four denials of Christ's Lordship dealt with denying His authority as the New Lawgiver.

This aspect of our subject, to my mind, has the most serious theological implications for Baptists who are convinced of Reformed soteriology. Let me try to explain what I mean. Christ exercises His Lordship as prophet by fulfilling the prophecy of Deut 18:15,18:

The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him. . . I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. Deut 18: 15,18.

Christ is "that prophet" and He has replaced Moses. Because He would be "the Son" and not just a servant (Heb 3:1-4), He would speak "all," not just a part (Heb. 1: 1-3), "that I have commanded." The Lordship of Christ as demonstrated in the fulfillment of this prophecy means that He is the new Lawgiver who supersedes and replaces Moses. It is impossible to get this prophecy to mean that Christ would merely interpret what Moses had spoken. The coming One would be a Prophet who would be given new revelation to speak. We seem to have little problem seeing the total superiority of Christ in His other two offices. However, we have allowed the sacral theology of the Reformers and Puritans (which was used to persecute and kill our forefathers) to deny the Lordship of Christ as new Lawgiver.

It is clear that Christ exercises His Lordship as Priest by the power of His Person and finished work. We all agree that Christ has superseded and replaced Aaron. Who would dare suggest that we send believers back to sit under Aaron's ministry in any sense whatever? It is equally clear that Christ exercises His Lordship as King by taking total charge as lawgiver and personal ruler, through His Word and by His Spirit, over His Church collectively and over every believer individually. Why do some believers see this fact so clearly in the case of Aaron, but radically and vehemently deny the same fact in reference to the ministry of Moses? I repeat, it is because of the logical deductions of sacral theology.

Baptists are just now seriously coming to grips with the unique and final authority of Jesus Christ as Lord over the life, worship, and holiness of the Church. This may be the moment in history when the Holy Spirit is pleased to finish the Reformation. I think we all agree that the Reformation was one of the greatest movements of God since the Day of Pentecost. If we are historic Baptists in any sense whatever, we also have, as did the Anabaptits, some sharp disagreements with the Reformers.

From: Christ the Lord of the Church, by John Reisinger, Toronto Baptist Seminary Convocation, 1992.

A short quotation from another booklet that I wrote will sum up what I mean:

One of the greatest tragedies of our past efforts as Baptists was our use of nothing but Presbyterian literature. We set up the conferences, got those to attend whom we had taught the truth of sovereign grace, and then we stuffed Presbyterian books and speakers down their throat by the carload. It is time to set up a BAPTIST Banner of Truth. It is time to quit feeding the best of our young men to Presbyterian schools.

In Africa , the evangelical missionaries taught the people to read and then the communists gave them literature. In our case, it was even worse. We Baptist did both for the Presbyterians. We taught people the doctrines of grace, and then we gave them nothing but books written by Covenant Theologians.

It is time to finish the job of the Reformation. Let us not make the same mistakes that the Reformers made. They thoroughly reformed the gospel message of justification by faith but they failed to reform some other doctrines. They threw out justification by the works of the law, but they held on to sanctification by the law. They threw out the church's authority over your soul but hung on to the church's authority, through the creed, over your conscience. They threw out priestcraft but kept clericalism. They rejected the authority of Roman church tradition but replaced it with man-made creeds that have now become the authoritative "Reformed" church tradition. They cried "Sola Scriptura" while waving a creed in one hand and a sword in the other hand.

I do not question that the Reformation was the greatest movement of God in history since the days of Pentecost. However, the Reformers were only men of clay like you and me. They brought a lot of baggage over from Romanism. The present day revival of the doctrines of grace is another great movement of God. The leaders that God has been pleased to use have been primarily Baptists. I fear that some of these Baptists have sold their birthright for a mess of pottage in order to gain credibility among the "truly Reformed community" that was responsible for destroying the power of the doctrines of grace in the first place. And, I might add, until recently the so called "truly Reformed community" has done precious little to restore that power.

Brethren, it is time to apply the search light of Scripture to the Westminster Confession, the Philadelphia Confession, and every other confession, with the same honesty and consistency that we applied to the Scofield Reference Bible some years ago. It is time to say "Sola Scriptura" and really mean it!

From: When Should A Christian Leave A Church, John Reisinger, Sound of Grace, p.12

We sincerely believe that the unique and absolute Lordship of Christ over the Church is denied when Christ is not allowed to make new and higher laws than Moses ever gave. In the theology of God's Righteous Kingdom, all that Christ is allowed to be is the final and authoritative interpreter of Moses. He dare not give any new or higher standards. In Chantry's mind, the so-called "unity of the one Covenant of Grace" is at stake the moment we exalt Christ above Moses as the new and higher Lawgiver. We believe the exact opposite. We see the very Lordship of Christ over the church at stake if we refuse to exalt Christ above Moses. It seems to us that the following two quotations do that very thing. Chantry is making Christ to be merely a rubber stamp of Moses and not a lawgiver in His own right. The emphasis is mine:

Unfortunately those who snipe at the Ten Commandments never give their hearers an objective canon of moral law to follow. Thus the hearers of anti-law men are cast back upon the uncertain resources of a depraved conscience and a personal judgment rising from a perverse heart. GRK; P. 81

Chantry constantly insists that the NT Scriptures are not, nor do they contain, a clear and understandable "definitive code of morality." Such a definitive code" according to Chantry, is found only one place, namely on the Tablets of Stone. Is he not implying that Paul's epistles are no more than strong suggestion and really not moral absolutes unless Paul is, at that moment in each specific instance, expositing and reinforcing one of the true moral laws given through Moses on the Tables of Stone? Putting a Christian under the absolute authority of the Sermon on the Mount and the Apostolic epistles is, in Chantry's mind, identical to "casting [the hearers of anti-law men] back upon the uncertain resources of a depraved conscience and a personal judgment rising from a perverse heart." What kind of twisted logic is that? If anyone feels I am putting words into Chantry's mouth, let him speak for himself:

. . . Our Lord Jesus Christ himself did not give a condensed and definitive code of morality. In his great sermon on kingdom righteousness (Matt. 5), the greatest Prophet produced no new standard. He merely gave clear expositions of old statutes. GRK, P. 81

If that statement does not in essence deny the reality of Christ being a new and higher lawgiver than Moses, then I cannot read or words have lost their meaning. Those words limit the teaching ministry of Christ to that of merely an interpreter of Moses. Chantry cannot allow Christ to give any "new standards," or higher laws, of His own. It is this view that constantly makes the classic and incorrect statement, "Moses will drive you to Christ to be justified and Christ will send you back to Moses to be sanctified."

Our awful sin, which, according to Chantry, justifies calling us "anti-law men" is our believing that the Sermon on the Mount is not only a real summary of moral obligation, but it is actually a much higher standard of moral absolutes than anything and everything found in all of the Old Covenant. As one opponent said, "Christ is a law keeper not a lawgiver." We believe he was both! He kept every single law of Moses and then added so~ higher ones that were rooted in pure grace.

We also believe that comparing the Ten Commandments, as a rule of life, to the Sermon on the Mount is like comparing a candle to the sun.

We believe as strongly as anyone that the Tablets of Stone were the highest moral standard that was ever given up to that point in history. We differ with Chantry when he insists that neither Christ or His Apostles added any new or higher spiritual laws than those given at Sinai. We do not question that the Ten Commandments, as' they are interpreted and applied in the New Testament Scriptures are a very vital part of the believer's rule of life today, but we do not believe, as Chantry adamantly insists, that the Ten Commandments as they were written on Tables of the Covenant (Ex.20 & Deut. 9:9) were, or are, THE only code of moral conduct that sets forth THE "one, eternal, unchanging moral law of God."

When anyone says to me, "Do you believe the Ten Commandments are the rule of life for a believer today?", I reply, "Oh, my no. They are far too low a moral standard for a child of grace indwelt by .the Holy Spirit."

Randy Seiver has responded to the particular point under discussion far better than I could:

It seems obvious to many that the best way, indeed, the only way to avoid antinomianism is by imposing a healthy dose of the Decalogue on new covenant believers. It seems clear to them that all of the ills of society, both secular and sacred, can be traced to our failure to preach the Ten Commandments.

In defending the Ten Commandments as the standard for Christian behavior, Walter Chantry has written,

All who labor to topple the Ten Commandments serve the cause of moral confusion, whatever their intended aims may be. Once deny that the Decalogue is a synopsis of the moral law and men are sent into a haze of imprecise ethics. They are adrift, without a definitive objective standard by which to judge righteousness. Consequently unsafe subjective impulses begin to direct moral thinking; for the other divinely given impressions of the moral law are too complex for most to grasp." Gods Righteous Kingdom, p. 80,1.

It seems that Pastor Chantry did not have time to think through the implications of this statement. Yet, his statement does seem to capsulize the opinions of those who contend for the perpetuity of the Decalogue as the summary of God's "moral law." His statement reveals two startling ramifications of that view.

First: A Diminished View of the New Testament Scriptures. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that, for Pastor Chantry, as well as for others of his theological persuasion, the New Testament body of truth is, in some way, defective as "a definitive objective standard" of behavior. To say that we who have been given the New Testament Scripture may be "sent into a haze of imprecise ethics" unless we cling to the Tables of Stone as a synopsis of the moral law, is to diminish the value of the New Testament Scripture as an objective standard of behavior. The truth is that it is impossible to give such a disproportionate emphasis to the Decalogue without deemphasizing other expressions of the will of God. Are we who, for our final authority, look to Christ who has replaced Moses as the greater and final law-giver, really "adrift, without a definitive objective standard by which to judge righteousness?" If so, the writers of the New Testament Scriptures will be astonished to hear that they wasted so much papyrus.

Second: A Lack of Confidence in the Work of the Spirit. Another alarming implication of Pastor Chantry's statement is that it seems to betray a lack of confidence in the work of the Holy Spirit. Does Chantry really believe that apart from the Decalogue, the moral thinking of the child of God is directed by "unsafe subjective impulses?" If so, then what does that say about his confidence in the ability of the Spirit to lead and sanctify believers, in accordance with the Scripture. Is the New Testament expression of the "moral law" really so complex that believers cannot be led by the Spirit to grasp its significance for a life of godliness? If so, why did the writers of the New Testament spend so much time and energy composing such enigmatic letters? Why not just give these poor, baffled saints a copy of the Decalogue?  
Fullness of lime, By Randall Seiver, Sound of Grace, 1991.

We believe the cross of Christ, not Mount Sinai , is the starting point and the whole foundation of the Christian's moral standards. An example of this is Ephesians 5:25. Paul, as usual, references his appeal of the husband's duty, not to the Tablets of Stone but to the redemptive claims of our Lord Jesus Christ. "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it. n This points out the really dangerous part of Covenant Theology's view of law and grace. The following quotation is from a paper I gave at the graduation service of Toronto Baptist Seminary. The entire message is available from Sound of Grace.

What are the practical implications of what I am saying for the Church as a whole and for the individual Christian? Is this just a big ado about nothing? As I said earlier, the problem is the lowered standard of Biblical holiness in the church. Now listen carefully:

If the Sermon on the Mount and the New Covenant Epistles do indeed, as we maintain and Covenant Theology denies, teach a higher and more, spiritual standard of holy living than the Law of Moses, do we not effectively, in the very name of holiness, lower the actual standard of holiness sunder which a Christian is' to live when we send him hack to Moses to learn ethics and morality?

The bottom line in any discussion of law and grace is always the authority of the Lordship of Christ in relationship to the authority of Moses. Is Moses the final and full Lawgiver and Christ merely the true interpreter and enforcer of Moses, or is Christ the new Lawgiver Who supersedes and replaces Moses with higher laws? It is one or the other! ³ Moses and Christ are not equal authorities over the Church and the Christian's conscience. If they are, then Peter was correct in his desire to build a tabernacle for Moses, Elijah, and Christ.

In reality, classical covenant theology produces a two tiered system of morality and holiness. Unfortunately, Moses occupies the top tier. Let me explain what I mean. Suppose a married couple comes into a pastor's study for counseling. There is no hint that either party was unfaithful and broke the Law of God, but the marriage is none the less in real trouble. Do you get the picture? Do you realize what I have just done? I have redefined the commands of Biblical marriage in terms of a two tiered ethic. I have reduced "unfaithful to God's Law" to mean that no one was involved in sexual immorality thereby breaking the seventh commandment, or "God's Holy Law." In so doing, I have clearly implied that Paul's imperatives, or commands, are not "law" to a Christian but only good spiritual advice. I have also clearly inferred that whatever Biblical "rules of marriage" the couple may have violated, those rules are not in the same category as God's Laws. It is obvious that one, or both, of these two people have been very unfaithful and disobedient to some "laws" that the Word of God teaches about marriage. However, with a two tiered ethic, you have God's real laws, ten of them in fact, and you also have excellent spiritual rules found in the Epistles of the New Testament Scriptures. These "rules" of spiritual advice given by Paul are on a lower tier than God's unchanging "Laws" given to Moses.

What will the pastor say to this couple? He will NOT go back to the Tablets of Stone since (1) none of those unchanging laws were "broken," and (2) none of the ten "laws" directly apply to the present problem since neither party "broke the law" by being "unfaithful." No, the wise pastor will go to the Epistles of Paul (the lower tier), and start with the truth of the cross. He will urge the husband to "love his wife as (in the same way) Christ loved the Church." The pastor will earnestly plead, on the ground of redemption (not unchanging law), that the couple must begin to apply the spiritual "principles" that Paul lays out. He assures them that this is the only way to have a happy marriage.

In essence, the pastor is saying, "I urge you to apply these Biblical principles, but what ever you do, don't break God’s law and commit adultery." The Ten Commandments are the "biggies" on the top tier and disobedience to them leads to church discipline. Paul's epistles are on the lower tier. They are indeed excellent spiritual advice and disobedience to them leads to more counseling session, but they are not on the same level as God's holy Law. Must we not all admit that the words of Paul do not carry the same authority over the conscience of a Christian as does "God's commandments" written on Tablets of Stone? Must we not also admit, unless our conscience is married to a creed, that the real cause of this tragic reality lies at the feet of the "one covenant, one church, and one unchanging moral code" theology?

What am I saying? Am I suggesting that the "laws" in the Epistles of Paul are of equal authority with the Ten Commandments over the conscience of a Christian. No, I am saying the moral absolutes that Paul lays down in Ephesians should have a greater authority over the Christian's conscience than any and all of the laws that governed Israel . I am also saying that it is impossible, in an experimental sense, to make the new covenant teachings of Christ, given through His Apostles inspired by the Holy Spirit, carry the weight of absolute law in either the life of the Church or the conscience of an individual believer as long our theology insists that the Tables of Stone are the highest standard for holiness that was ever given. It is a hollow victory that magnifies the Law of Moses by minimizing the Sermon on the Mount and the Epistles of Paul. The victory is even more hollow when it was sought for the sole purpose of protecting a system of theology built solely on the supposed "unity" of the socalled "Covenant of Grace."

You cannot posit a two tiered ethic, with Moses on the top tier, in your theology without practicing the same thing in everyday life. Moses cannot be Lord in your theology of morality and Christ be Lord in your daily life!

From: Christ, the Lord of the Church, by John Reisinger, Sound of Grace, 1992.

Chantry accuses us of trying to "demolish the only [my emphasis] Biblical summary of moral obligation, the Ten Commandments" (page 125). We are not trying to "demolish" anything. We are seeking to exalt Christ in His office of Lordship over His Church. We are simply saying that Christ is a new Lawgiver and He, because He is Lord over the Church, replaces Moses. The Ten Commandments are not, as Chantry insists, the "only Biblical summary of moral obligations," nor are they the highest summary ever given.

We believe Christ fulfills and replaces Moses exactly the same way that He replaces Aaron. We believe that Moses could no more have given a complete law code to govern believers indwelt by the Holy Spirit and living under grace than Aaron could have offered a complete and sufficient atonement for sin. We in no way belittle Moses by insisting that Christ is a greater teacher anymore than we belittle Aaron by saying he has been replaced as High Priest by Christ. We do not downgrade Moses when we insist that Christ goes far beyond Moses as a teacher of righteousness. We agree with the writer of Hebrews:

Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house. For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honor than the house. For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God. And Moses verily was faithful IN all his house, as a SERVANT, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; But Christ as a son OVER his OWN HOUSE; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end. Heb 3:1-6.

We are no longer servants but are now sons. We are no longer under the lordship of Moses the servant, but we are now under the Lordship of Christ the Son. We are not without moral law, we are under a new Lawgiver.

Part Two

Seven Theological Presuppositions Examined ~ Randall Seiver

Pastor Chantry's book has many laudable features. As usual, his style is lucid and his book well organized. His emphasis on the centrality of sin and righteousness in relation to man's standing before God (holiness rather than happiness, p.67) as the real issues in gospel preaching is one that needs to be carefully heeded in this day when "easy-believism," "liberation theology," and "the prosperity gospel" are so prevalent. His characterization of the kingdom as spiritual and eternal rather than material and temporal provides a helpful corrective to the delusion that the kingdom will come through social reform and "sword's loud clashing." Furthermore, we could not agree more that Christ's kingdom is a righteous kingdom, governed by a never changing standard of righteousness. Not one single "moral law of God" can be safely disregarded.

ONE: Pastor Chantry's Presuppositions

The heart of Pastor Chantry's book, God's Righteous Kingdom, beats in chapters nine and ten of that work. If the presuppositions upon which those chapters are based were valid, then Pastor Chantry's position would be unassailable. But, are they valid? There is nothing wrong with a presuppositional approach as long as one's presuppositions are based on a careful exegetical study of the Scripture. If, however, they are merely logical deductions of a theological system, superimposed on the Bible, then they are worse than worthless. They will lead men to wrong conclusions every time. The following are the obvious presuppositions on which Pastor Chantry has based his conclusions. These will be stated briefly and examined carefully..

Presupposition #1. The Mosaic law contains three kinds of law, moral, ceremonial, and judicial (civil).

Pastor Chantry writes,

When these series of texts are placed side by side, it becomes perfectly obvious (to anyone who believes in the plenary inspiration of Scripture) that the Lord is speaking of different kinds of law or different elements in the same law (p. 14).

I, for one, was extremely thankful for Pastor Chantry's "or" since it means that I can still be counted among those who believe in the plenary inspiration of Scripture. The question is, Does Chantry mean "different kinds of law" or "different elements in the same law?" These are two decidedly different things. Although it is true that the law of Moses enjoins moral, ceremonial, and civil requirements (three dimensions or elements of one law), the distinction that is often made between moral (Decalogue), ceremonial, and civil or judicial law, as though these form three distinct sections of the Mosaic code, is a distinction of systematic theology rather than of sound exegesis. Both the OT and NT use the term "law" to refer to the whole Mosaic law, not to particular aspects of it. In fact, there are some writers who take a position contrary to ours who are honest enough to admit that this kind of distinction is artificial. Knox Chamblin, who writes on the continuity between the Testaments with respect to the law of Moses and the law of Christ, has commented, "The moral, ceremonial, and civil laws are inextricably bound together in the OT, each kind being intelligible and operable only in relation to the other two " (Chamblin, "The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ" in Continuity and Discontinuity ed. John S. Feinberg) An example of this inextricable union may be seen in the fact that the sabbath commandment which is found in the Decalogue is the ceremonial sign of the Mosaic covenant (Exo 31: 12-17). It is, moreover, connected with civil legislation requiring capital punishment for disobedience, v.14.

Presupposition #2. The 10 Commandments are the summary of the “moral law of God."

In Chantry's thinking, the "moral law of God" that was inscribed on man's heart at creation was the Decalogue. It is, therefore, impossible for him to conceive of being free from the Tables of Stone without being free from the "moral law of God."

According to the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Decalogue is "commonly called moral [law]" (WC.F:,Chap. 18, XIX,3). It might be asked, however, by whom the Tables of Stone are commonly so called? Does any writer of the Old or New Testament Scriptures ever refer to these Tables of Stone as "the moral law"? A careful search will reveal that the term" moral law" is never found in Scripture at all. A thoughtful consideration of Paul's use of the word "law" will reveal that he regarded the law as a covenant, governed by one covenantal document--the code of the old covenant (see Gal. 5:2-4). It is the Mosaic law (the old covenant) as a whole that has been fulfilled and therefore set aside in Christ.

On page SO, Pastor Chantry tells his readers that the Decalogue is a" synopsis" of the moral law. If this is the case, what is the moral law? The Tables of Stone cannot be the moral law of God and a "synopsis" of it at the same time. On pages 118-19 he writes, «Civil laws administered moral and ceremonial regulations on a nation-wide scale. Each judicial statute built its pedagogy for under-age believers round a moral core (emphasis mine)." Now, if the Decalogue is a "synopsis" of the "moral law," then the "moral law" must consist of those statutes that are built around this "moral core," i.e., the judicial laws of Israel . Therefore, if Pastor Chantry admits (as he does on page 118) that the judicial laws of Israel have been rescinded, then he is open to being labeled "antinomian" since he, in this case, must believe that at least a portion of the «moral law of God" has been rescinded. If, as he writes (p.119), ". . . even ceremonial and civil laws in Israel rose ultimately from the righteousness of God," then, since God's righteousness has not changed, these laws should also be perpetual.

Now, it should be obvious that these "tongue in cheek" remarks are not to be taken with absolute seriousness. Pastor Chantry makes it clear in other sections of his book that the word "synopsis" is used unadvisedly here. What he really believes is that the Tables of Stone are "the moral law of God," and everything else is either an inferior expression of it or an explanatory expansion of it. However, he holds this view without a shred of biblical support.

If you want to see a true summary of the righteousness required by the law of God, consider Jesus' answer to the lawyer's question:

"Which is the great commandment of the law?" Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets (Matt 22:37 -40).

Notice that neither of these commandments is taken from the Tables of Stone. There is no question that the righteous requirements of the law are reflected in God's covenant with Israel written on tables of stone and given on M t. Sinai. Any Israelite who failed to keep a sabbath day holy, demonstrated a defective love for God. What needs to be understood, however, is that the same was true for all of Israel 's many laws. Prior to the advent of the Messiah, the Israelite's love for God and neighbor was expressed in obedience to every point of the law, not just the Decalogue. It was unholy to commit adultery. It was unholy to gather sticks on the Sabbath (N urn 15:32 - 36). It was unholy to reap an entire field (Lev 19:9-10). It was unholy to eat certain kinds of food (Deut 14:7-8). It was not possible to omit any duty prescribed by the law or commit any transgression forbidden by the law and still be considered holy. It is absolutely impossible for the righteousness required by the true "law of God" to change. How is it then that the child of God under the old covenant could not eat pork without being unholy, and the child of God who lives under the new covenant is now free to eat every kind of food? This is true, not because God's righteous demands have changed, but because, under the new covenant, love for God is expressed differently than it was under the old covenant. The issue, then, is not whether believers under the new covenant are under the law of God or not. The question is how the righteousness required by the law, i.e., love for God and neighbor, is to be expressed under the new covenant.

Presupposition #3. The 10 Commandments provide the only definition of sanctified behavior.

This conclusion arises from the fact that Pastor Chantry insists on identifying the Tables of Stone with the "moral law of God." On the bottom of page 72 he writes, "Nothing but the moral law can define for us what sanctified behavior is." On this point we agree thoroughly. Our point of disagreement concerns the identification of the" moral law of God" with the Tables of Stone. In defending the Ten Commandments as the standard for Christian behavior, Pastor Chantry has written,

All who labor to topple the Ten Commandments serve the cause of moral confusion, whatever their intended aims may be. Once deny that the Decalogue is a synopsis of the moral law and men are sent into a haze of imprecise ethics. They are adrift, without a definitive objective standard by which to judge righteousness. Consequently unsafe subjective impulses begin to direct moral thinking; for the other divinely given impressions of the moral law are too complex for most to grasp" (Chantry 1980, 80-1).

It seems that Pastor Chantry did not have time to think through the implications of this statement. Yet, his statement does seem to capsulize the opinions of those who contend for the perpetuity of the Decalogue as the summary of God's "moral law." His statement reveals two startling ramifications of that view.

A Diminished View of the New Testament Scriptures

It is impossible to escape the conclusion that, for Pastor Chantry, as well as for others of his theological persuasion, the New Testament body of truth is, in some way; defective as "a definitive objective standard" of behavior. To say that we who have been given the New Testament Scripture may be "sent into a haze of imprecise ethics" unless we cling to the Tables of Stone as a synopsis of the moral law, is to diminish the value of the New Testament Scripture as an objective standard of behavior. The truth is that it is impossible to give such a disproportionate emphasis to the Decalogue without de-emphasi2ing other expressions of the will of God, Are we who, for our final authority, look to Christ who has replaced Moses as the greater and final law-giver, really "adrift, without a definitive objective standard by which to judge righteousness?" If so, the writers of the New Testament Scriptures will be astonished to hear that they wasted so much papyrus.

A Lack of Confidence in the Work of the Spirit 

Another alarming implication of Pastor Chantry's state men t is that it seems to betray a lack of confidence in the work of the Holy Spirit. Does he really believe {hat apart from the Decalogue, the moral thinking of the child of God is directed by "unsafe subjective impulses?" If so, then what does that say about his confidence in the ability of the Spirit to lead and sanctify believers, in accordance with the Scripture. Is the New Testament expression of the "moral law" really so complex that believers cannot be led by the Spirit to grasp its significance for a life of godliness? If so, why did the writers of the New Testament spend so much time and energy composing such enigmatic letters? Why not just give these poor, baffled saints a copy of the Decalogue?

Presupposition #4. The Mosaic covenant is not separate and distinct from the Abrahamic covenant or the new covenant.

It is merely a different administration of the one overarching covenant of grace. He writes,

“There is but one covenant of grace (of promise) with varying administrations" (p..103).

One problem with this view is that the writers of the New Testament recognized that the principle of the old covenant was not a principle of grace at all, but a principle of works. What else could James mean when he wrote, "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all" (Jas 2:10 )? What does Paul intend for his readers to understand when he contrasts the "righteousness which is by the law" with the "righteousness which is by faith" in Rom l0:5-6? He writes,

For Moses describes the righteousness which is of the law, "the man who does those things shall live by them." But the righteousness which is by faith speaks in this way. . . if you shall confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

Is Paul suggesting that there are two possible ways" of justification, works of obedience under the law and faith in Christ under the gospel? Of course not! But what does Paul mean when He writes, "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified" (Rom 2:13 )? Where is the grace in that? Does this not suggest that the law was a purely legal covenant? What does Paul mean when he writes, "Now the law is not of faith, but on the contrary the one who has done these things shall live by them" (Gal 3: 12)? If the Mosaic covenant was but a different, legal administration of the one covenant of grace, how can the writer to the Hebrews argue that the new or gospel covenant that has now been ratified by the death of Christ, the mediator of that covenant, is not like that old covenant? He writes,

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he says, behold the days come, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant and I regarded them not, says the Lord.. .In that He says, A new covenant, He has made the first old. Now that which decays and waxes old is ready to vanish away (Heb 8:7-13).

It seems clear that the writer, in describing the new covenant, is depicting not ~rely a different administration of the same old covenant, but a "brand new" covenant that totally replaces the old.. The old covenant is described as "decaying, through old age and near destruction and abolition." That doesn't sound like a covenant that continues under a new administration, does it?

Paul also speaks of that old covenant as "being abolished" in contrast to the new covenant which remains (2 Cor3:11). In that passage he describes the old covenant, not as a gracious covenant, but as "the letter that kills" (v.6), "the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones" (v:7), and "the ministration of condemnation" (v.9). Does that sound like a gracious covenant to you?

An important fact that should not be missed (though it often seems to be) is that the blessings promised to Israel under the Mosaic covenant are conditioned upon Israel 's obedience to the voice of the LORD and her keeping of His covenant (Exo 19:5). Jehovah told Moses to speak to Israel and say, "Now therefore, if you will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then you shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: . . ." Is this not plainly the language of a conditional covenant? What else can “if you do this, then I will do that" possibly mean?

To suggest that the Mosaic covenant was a covenant of works in the sense that God now, in contradiction to the promise that He had made to Abraham 430 years earlier, intended to grant eternal life to sinful rebels on the basis of their own works rather than on the basis of promise would suggest either that God is a whimsical God or that God is not one, i.e., He has given two contradictory covenants to the same people, at the same time. Whatever the full meaning of that much discussed verse, Gal 3:20, may be, it clearly teaches the unity of God. Moses was the mediator of the old covenant. Israel was the one party in the covenant; who was the other? A mediator is not needed when there is only one party.. "a mediator is not of one." The obvious answer is that God is the other party. It is God who gave the old covenant to Israel . Paul then logically asks. "Is the law then against the promises of God? May it not be!" In other words, God is not pursuing two separate purposes in giving the law and the promise. Such a thing is impossible. In fact it was through perfect obedience to the law that God intended to fulfill the promise. If there is an inherent contradiction between the promise made to Abraham and the law given to Israel , then God is not one. In that case, He has given two contradictory methods of justification - one by grace and another by the sinner's own works. In Gal 3:21, Paul argues the impossibility of righteousness ever coming to sinners on the basis of their own law keeping. If such a thing were possible, surely righteousness would have come by the law ( 3:21 ).

It is important to understand at this point that this impossibility does not arise from the character of the old covenant (it, indeed, promised life on the basis of obedience) but from the sinful character of those to whom it was given. Not one of them could render the obedience that it demanded. What Paul is saying is that the law and the promise could not be contradictory since the law was never intended to do what the grace of God alone is able to accomplish. Although "operating in different spheres," they are moving in the same direction. Thus, we may say that God was gracious in giving the law to Israel in that the whole Mosaic economy was intended to prepare for the corning redeemer through whom alone the covenants of promise could be fulfilled. If rightly understood, the law shut out all hope of justification apart from the corning Messiah. But, it could never have fulfilled this function apart from being an inferior, conditional covenant. Indeed, it was the very inferiority of the old covenant that enabled it to perform its task so splendidly. The writer to the Hebrews argues, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second" (Heb 8:7). This does not mean that there was anything wrong with the Mosaic covenant. It did everything that God intended for it to do, but having fully discharged its function, it was incapable of meeting man's most basic spiritual needs. It was just because the law (old covenant) could not meet these needs that it was so effective in pointing forward to the One who could.

Presupposition #5. "Israel was a nation of God's people" (p"112).

Pastor Chantry seems to imply that the only difference between ethnic Israel and the Church is that Israel had not yet reached maturity.

Reformed writers often speak of Israel being the "chosen, called, and redeemed people of God" as though these designations were true of them in the same sense that they are true of God's new covenant people (see Robertson, O. Palmer. The Christ of the Covenants. p.174 and Murray, John. Principles of Conduct. p.197). Pastor Chantry seems to assume that the Israelites were on the same spiritual footing with the spiritual heirs of the Abrahamic covenant, referring to them as "a nation of God's people." But, it must be asked, "In what sense was Israel 'a nation of God's people?'" Had all the members of that nation that God was now establishing a covenant relationship with been justified freely by the grace of God through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. The answer is of course not!! The grand majority of those who were "redeemed" out of Egypt , perished in the wilderness in unbelief. Their "redemption" was physical and temporal in nature. The only relationship it bears to the eternal redemption of God's spiritual people by the blood of Christ is that of type to antitype. While it is to be expected that God's redeemed and regenerate people will evince, by holy behavior, their true natures as those who have been taken into an intimate covenant relationship with God, the same should not be expected from Israel , that rebellious and unregenerate nation with whom God entered into covenant at Mt. Sinai . The relationship that they sustained with God was nothing like (in the true spiritual sense) the relationship between God and His justified people.

The relationship between the covenants is that of type to antitype. Israel (natural) does not equal the church. She is a typical foreshadowing of the church. Her redemption from Egypt is not the same as the believer's redemption from sin's bondage. It is only a foreshadowing of redemption from sin in Christ. Baptism as the initiatory rite of the new covenant is not the equivalent of circumcision under the old covenant. Both have reference to the same need in the human heart. Both point to the same covenant God who sovereignly saves His people. But, neither, apart from faith in Him who justifies the' ungodly; places sinners in [spiritual] covenant relationship with God.

Presupposition #6. The validity of the Old Testament Scripture rests on the essential unity of biblical covenants (Mosaic covenant and new covenant being merely different administrations of a "covenant of grace") and the consequent continuing validity of the Mosaic covenant. "

On page 119 Chantry states that those who" declare all [Mosaic] ordinances null and void for the Christian. . . in effect rob the Christian of a large segment of the canon of Scripture" [emphasis mine].

This statement makes it abundantly clear that Pastor Chantry has confused the old covenant with the Old Testament Scriptures. "Old Testament Scriptures" designates, not a covenant, but a body of literature in which God's revelation stands (and will continue to stand, Matt 5:17 ) on record for all to read. Although the old covenant has been replaced by the new covenant, the Old Testament Scriptures continue as a revelation of the absolute holiness of God and the awful character of man's rebellion against God.

We see the Scriptures of the new covenant as the sole expression of Christ's authority over new covenant believers. This is not to say that the Old Testament, Scriptures are unprofitable for today's believer. In our view, the law of Moses contains valid moral principles that have abiding validity for (2 Tim 3:16 -17), but not binding authority over, the lives of new covenant believers. The fact that the Mosaic law has no binding authority over the new covenant believer has nothing to do with whether or not its commands have abiding moral validity. Of course they do! The principles of righteousness which provide the foundation for every administration of God's Kingdom arise from the character of the law-giver Himself, not from the epochal, cultural, and geographical situations in which those principles are articulated. Why, then, do we insist that these principles do not have binding authority over the new covenant believer? The answer is simple. It is because he is not "under law" (the old covenant) but "under grace" (the new covenant). Under the new covenant, every truly "moral" principle (I would prefer to call them righteous principles) of the old covenant is repeated in the New Testament Scriptures and becomes the "binding authority," under the Lord Christ, for the new covenant believer.

Presupposition #7 It is not possible to assert that the new covenant believer is free from the law of Moses without experiencing antipathy toward (or at least fear of) that standard.

On page 87 Chantry writes, "Ten Commandment abolitionist often seek to set aside the hated standard by seeking to convince us that the Decalogue blends with all other Mosaic institutions (emphasis mine)." See also "Sinaiphobia", p. 73; "assailants of the Decalogue", p.86; “Aversion to an entire day of worship and service to the Lord each week seems to fire enthusiastic assaults on the moral law" (emphasis mine), p.l25.

It is perhaps true that there exists, here and there, a heretic who "hates God's righteous standard" and who is the enemy of all righteousness. All the more reason why those who know the identity of these people owe it to the Church to "mark them out" so that they might be avoided (Rom 16: 17 ). I can think of no better way to do this than to produce actual quotations from the works of these despicable fellows so that what they believe may be seen and read by all. Until someone actually produces such quotations, however, may I suggest that you carefully read several of the works that are reputed to set forth these horrible doctrines and compare what they actually say with the charges that law preachers allege against them.

It must not be assumed that those who understand Paul to mean that the law as a whole (including the Tables of Stone) has been abrogated, necessarily have a sinister motive for doing so. This position in no way suggests that there is no absolute, universal, everlasting, moral standard that men must obey and by which they will be judged. As long as there is a holy God who governs the universe and holds men responsible for their actions, there must be an objective standard by which He rules and administers justice. The point at issue is not whether or not the NT believer is required to obey the law of God. It is rather a question of whose covenant administration the NT believer is under. To which covenant authority does he bow?

Furthermore, it must not be assumed that those who hold this view do so because they have a secret desire to commit some sin forbidden by the law. The issue is not whether the righteousness required by the [Mosaic] law should be produced in the life of the new covenant believer, but how it will be produced. Does the believer's love for God spring from his knowledge of the strictness and holiness of the covenantal document of Sinai? Does he keep in line because he hears the law's loud thunder, and trembles beneath its dreadful curse? What is it that actuates the great apostle as he labors to the point of exhaustion in the work of the gospel? What is it that restrains him from living a life of sin and self-pleasing? Is it the law, with all its threatenings, that hems him in? No! Paul answers, "The love of Christ constrains us. . ." (2 Cor 5:14 ). Why should those who belong to Christ "love, and sing, and wonder?" Why should we "praise the Savior's name?" John Newton answers,

He has hushed the law's loud thunder,
He has quenched Mt. Sinai's flame;

If our love and service to Christ is to be acceptable, then it must spring from His .love to us (see-1John 4:10 ,19; Heb 12:28 ). We have no aversion to an entire day set aside for the worship of God. We simply assert that we worship Him with delight, not because His law tells us that we must do so, but because His redeeming love, revealed to us in Christ, assures us that we may do so and, indeed, invites us to do so with boldness. We do not hate God's righteous standard. Rather, we delight that God the Spirit dwells in us to produce "the righte6usness required by the law in those who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit" (Rom 8:4).

TWO: Our Presuppositions

1. All Scripture is God-breathed and is profitable. .(2 Tim 3:16).

2. God's righteous requirements never change from age to age, since these requirements are a reflection of God's righteous character. This is not to deny that God's standard is articulated differently at different times, depending on the maturity level of God's people. In reality, the New Testament standard is higher than the Old Testament standard, not because the righteousness that God requires is different, but because God's people are now treated as mature sons who live in an age of fulfillment rather than in an age of type and promise.

3. God's righteous requirements are revealed more fully to some than to others (Rom 2:12 -15).

4. The two tables of stone ("ten words") are the covenant that God made with Israel through Moses (Exo 34:28).

5. Biblical writers regarded the Mosaic covenant as one law that embodied different elements but not three separate and distinct codes of law.

6. The Mosaic covenant was a legal, conditional covenant that promised life to all who obeyed it but brought death to all who sought to be justified by it. This was true, not because of a deficiency in the law covenant, but because of the sinful inability of those who were under it.

7. Israel, as a nation, was a type or foreshadowing of the church, the true people of God. Thus, election, calling, redemption, adoption, inheritance, etc., are terms that, when applied to Israel, should not be understood in the true, spiritual new covenant sense.

8. The New Testament Scriptures define sanctified behavior for the new covenant believer (1 Thess 4:1-3).

9. God's righteous requirements (not just the Ten Commandments) are summarily comprehended in Jesus' words in Matt 22:37-40. "Love God. . . love your neighbor. . ." is the summery of universal man's duty to his Creator regardless of when he lived.

10. The advent of Christ/advent of the Holy Spirit is the great watershed event of redemptive-history.. The cross is the great divide between the old creation and the new creation.. This decisive act of God signals the inauguration of that period which Paul refers to as "the fullness of the time" (Gal 4:4) and marks a radical change in God’s covenant dealings with His people.

THREE: Areas of Agreement

Although there are basic areas of disagreement between our position and Pastor Chantry's position, there are many of his statements with which we agree. We have listed some of these statements below. In some cases we have given direct quotes. In other cases, we have given a summary of what Pastor Chantry' wrote. In every case we feel that we have represented his position accurately and fairly

1. Law in Gal 3:15-4:11 refers to the covenant administration [we would simply say “covenant” see our comments below] of Moses as a whole (p.101).

2. Gal 3:24, 25 does not mean that moral law brings conviction of sin to a man's heart (p.101).

3. Men are never justified before God apart from grace (p.l03).

4. The Mosaic law was not a blueprint for social, political, or economic reconstruction in the present (p.l04).

5. Abraham and Moses are not in conflict with one another (p.l05).

6. "Faith" in Gal 3:23 is to be understood as objective, not subjective in nature (p.l05).

7. Everything in [Moses' writings] was not invalidated with the corning of a new covenant (p.lO6).

8. Believers under the old covenant were no better off than slaves (p.lO8).

9. New covenant believers are now treated as mature sons (p.109).

10. There are three different elements in the law (p.113). See our comments above.

11. "Moral law" [righteous requirements] continues in force today (p.115).

12. The whole of the Mosaic system was built on the 'ten words' [We believe that this is true, not, as Pastor Chantry has suggested, because the Tables of Stone are the "moral law of God," but because these 'ten words' were the national covenant (Exo 34:28)] (p.118).

13. All three kind's of law [We prefer "elements in the law"] are woven very tightly into a unified covenant administration in Moses (p.119).

14. It is questionable whether the state (outside Judaism) was ever intended to enforce the first table of the law (p.120). [In our view, this is true because the tables of stone were inscribed with Israel 's national covenant, not a universal expression of "moral law"].

FOUR: Miscellaneous Observations

One: Our first observation is that we will never come to the same conclusions on this subject as long as our presuppositions are so vastly different. In my opinion, the best way to seek reconciliation between the antagonists in this debate is to carefully examine our presuppositions to see if they will stand in the light of Scripture. This is what Pastor Chantry has done with the presuppositions of the Theonomists. He has found that they will not stand. Re needs to do the same with his own presuppositions. We believe that the linchpin in Chantry's position is the idea that there were three separate and distinct codes of law given to Israel and that the Ten Commandments can be labeled entirely "moral." Unless this can be supported scripturally, his entire position falls to the ground. Where does any Old or New Testament writer ever make the distinction that systematic theology has made between "moral" "civil" and "ceremonial" law? Where, in Scripture, are the Tables of Stone ever referred to as "The moral law of God?" We are told, however, that these 'ten words' are God's covenant with Israel (Exo 34:28).

Two: Pastor Chantry contends that in Galatians". . .'law' must be 'the covenant administration of Moses" (p.101). This is certainly a true statement if by it he means that Moses administers a covenant that is separate and distinct from the Abrahamic and new covenants. There is certainly continuity in all of God's dealings with His people, but Paul's argument in Galatians emphasizes contrast, not continuity. The new covenant is really a new covenant that renders the old covenant obsolete (Heb 8:13 ), not merely a different administration of an overarching covenant of grace. The writers of the Bible refer to the arrangement under which Israel lived as a "covenant" not an "administration." It is quite true that there was a Mosaic administration. But, of what was Moses the administrator? The answer is that he was the administrator of the covenant "written and engraven in stones." When Jesus established the new covenant, He abolished not only ceremonial and judicial laws by which the covenant was administered. He also abolished the covenant itself. See 2 Cor 3:6-.11, cf. Exo 34:28; Deut 9:9,11,15, and Heb 8:6-13.

Three: Pastor Chantry is quite right when he points out that Gal 3:24, 25 should not be understood to mean that the moral law brings conviction of sin to a man's heart and thus was a schoolmaster to send him to Christ for grace. But, then he writes, "That is a truth taught in the Bible... ."{p.lOl). In response to this assertion we would simply ask, "Where is this taught?" Rom 3:20 does indeed tell us that "by the law is the knowledge of sin," but there is nothing in the context to limit law' to the so called "moral law." In addition, Rom 3:20 is simply a statement of fact, not a statement of purpose or a prescription for preaching the gospel.

In his book Today's Gospel, Pastor Chantry argues that the law must be preached as a preparation for preaching the gospel since this was the way that Jesus evangelized the rich young ruler. But, what about all of the other examples of evangelism in Jesus' ministry in which He never mentioned the law?

Four: Pastor Chantry is certainly correct when he asserts "a uniform arrangement pertains to the times of Abraham and Christ." It also needs to be acknowledged, however, that there is discontinuity between the Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant. The Abrahamic covenant belongs to the realm of promise. The new covenant belongs to the realm of fulfillment. In addition, in the Abrahamic covenant God makes promises of national blessing on Abraham's natural seed as well as spiritual promises to all who are united to Christ by faith. Although Israel , Abraham's physical seed, is clearly an old covenant type of the new covenant Church, it is erroneous to think of the Church as equivalent to Israel .

Five: It is true, in any age, that sinners will never be justified before God apart from grace through faith, i.e., accounting God faithful to His promises. But, this is far different from seeing a total continuity or unity between all covenants, and referring to them as merely "varying administrations" of one "covenant of grace." The old covenant is clearly separate and distinct from the new covenant; so much so that one (the old covenant) cannot continue after the other (the new covenant) is established.

Six: Pastor Chantry is also right when he states, ". . . God never intended at Sinai to repeal salvation by promise. It was impossible for Jehovah to suggest any other way of salvation but that which was embedded in [emphasis mine] Abraham’ s covenant~-by grace through faith in Jesus Christ" (p.lO3). But, it must be remembered that, given the holy character of God and the sinful nature and guilty condition of fallen man, full conformity to and penal satisfaction of God's righteous standard must have been "embedded in" the Abrahamic covenant. Justification has always been by grace, through faith. But, it has, at the same time, always been granted only on the basis of perfect obedience to God's righteous requirements.

One of the plain teachings of the Bible is that God never bestows grace on sinners at the expense of His own holiness. How, then, could God grant blessings to Abram and his offspring as guilty sinners? Was it Abram's faith that formed the basis of his justification? Was he declared righteous in God's holy sight because he was obedient to God's voice? Of course not!1 The Bible leaves no room for doubt concerning these questions. The only possible basis on which God could grant blessings to sinful Abram is perfect conformity to His holy will and full legal satisfaction for his sins. It is true that Abram was declared righteous in God's sight apart from personal obedience and apart from an acceptable sacrifice having been offered for his sins. He simply accounted God faithful to fulfill His promise of blessing, and God put it to his account for righteousness (Gen 15:5-6). But the basis of this promise of blessing had not yet been fully revealed. We could also say that the obstacles to the granting of these blessings had not yet been fully revealed. God's purpose in giving the Mosaic law was to erect a barrier to the fulfillment of the promises, that He might demonstrate more clearly the gracious nature of the covenant that He had made with Abraham and his seed. It was this barrier that He purposed to remove through the seed in reference to whom the promises were given. On the one hand there was the obstacle of the infinite holiness of God and the inflexible nature of His righteousness. On the other hand, there was the obstacle of the guilt and depravity of Abram. Though these obstacles were just as much a reality then as they are now, they had not yet been clearly defined. Only a conditional, legal covenant such as the Mosaic covenant could adequately give such definition.

Conclusion

There is much work to be done on this subject. We should not be satisfied with the exegesis that has formed the basis of past creeds and confessions. We must come to the Scriptures for ourselves and honestly examine our own presuppositions in the light of God's word. If after doing so we remain convinced that we are right, then we must seek, in meekness, to instruct those whom we feel have erred from God's truth.

We have heard enough theological pontification. We are sick of the caricatures and misrepresentations that are so often heard in this controversy. Our energy should be spent in engaging the hard task of biblical exegesis rather than in assaulting our brethren and hurling wild accusations at them. We must give ourselves to quiet reflection on the issues at hand, diligent exegesis of the relevant texts, and meaningful dialogue between the opposing parties in this debate.  

Personal Note

For the past several years I have chosen to keep a low profile in an effort to avoid the controversy surrounding the "law-grace" issue. During that period I have moved freely among brethren on both sides of the question. I have heard both sides argue their positions and have made the following observations:

1. Those who propound the perpetuity of the so-called "moral law," are guilty of breaking God's law at several points. They have, wittingly or unwittingly, "borne false witness" against their brethren in the opposite camp by misrepresenting their position. Of course, they have covered themselves by never clearly identifying the horrible heretics about whom they are writing or speaking. They seldom, if ever, quote passages from their opponents works in an effort to demonstrate that such "Sinaiphobes" truly exist. If they were forced to produce a bibliography it would probably look like this,

Thesaurus of Straw Men, by Mr. Misrepresentation Prodigious, Fabrication & Caricature Press, 1980, Creedaltown, Any State.

It is perhaps true that there exists, here and there, a heretic who "hates God's righteous standard" and who is the enemy of all righteousness. All the more reason why those who know the identity of these people owe it to the Church to "mark them out" so that they might be avoided (Rom 16:17 ). I can think of no better way to do this than to produce actual quotations from the works of these despicable fellows so that what they believe may be seen and read by all. Until someone actually produces such quotations, however, may I suggest that you carefully read several of the works that are reputed to set forth these horrible doctrines and compare what they actually say with the charges that law preachers allege against them.

Some preachers (of the law) are also guilty of stealing, since, by means of their unfounded charges, they have robbed men of their good reputations.

In addition, they are guilty of murder in that they have used the sword of tongue and pen to shed innocent blood. Often their language is abusive, e.g., "cranks who foment against Sinai" (Chantry 1980,82). See Matt 5:2l, 22. At times they question the intelligence or diligence ("unlearned", "lazy minds"-Ibid., 87,123) of their antagonists. In fact, they even suggest that those who deny that new covenant believers are under Mosaic law are not Christians at all. If these people (whoever they are) really hate God's righteous standard, then they must hate God Himself.

It is difficult to believe that these men are treating their opponents as they would desire to be treated under the same circumstances. Yet1 Jesus summarized the righteousness required by the law when He said, "Therefore, all things whatsoever you would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them" (Matt 7:12 ).#

2. Those who are described as "assailants of the Decalogue" (Chantry 1980,86), are no less concerned about living righteous and godly lives than are those who so bitterly (and falsely) attack them for being "antinomians." They have no less delight in worshipping God on the Lord's day than do their so-called Sabbatarian opponents in this controversy. One Reformed Baptist summed up the situation well, after hearing one of these "enemies of the Ten Commandments" set forth what he really believes on the subject. He said, "So, what's all the fuss about?" No wonder Reformed Baptist writers are slow to produce actual quotations from the works of their opponents. Their hearers might begin to see that all their railing is really "much ado about nothing."

3. Those who clamor and make such a fuss about the "Christian Sabbath" are not consistent about their own observance of the Lord's day. A few years ago, one of the speakers at a Reformed Baptist Family Conference told me that when he and his wife were at home, they never ate out on Sunday because they felt it would be a bad testimony. When they were away from home on vacation, however, they felt free to eat out on Sunday. I wondered if the same reasoning might apply to the seventh commandment.

A Reformed Baptist friend of mine once told me that he had gone over and "cooled off" in his neighbor's Swimming pool on Sunday afternoon. I suspect that any other day of the week he would have referred to the same activity as "Swimming." I wonder how long it has been since a member of a church committed to the belief that the Sabbath is a "moral" enduring commandment was disciplined for Sabbath breaking. Do you suppose that the Elders would be so lax if one of the members were to be caught in adultery?

It is just this sort of gross inconsistency and casuistry that has caused me to look more carefully at the real issues in this controversy. There is perhaps no better way to do this than to scrutinize the charges made by law preachers and compare them to what their opponents are really saying. There is perhaps no better book to examine than God's Righteous Kingdom by Walter Chantry, since that book sets forth the official position of the Banner of Truth and most groups like the Refom1ed Baptists on this subject. It is regrettable, however, that his work is marred by a vitriolic spirit, monstrous caricatures of his opponents' positions, and an outright misrepresentation of their beliefs. It is extremely heavy on theological pontification and very light on biblical exegesis. He totally fails to document his opponents' positions. In fact, he does not even identify these horrible heretics so that we can examine their works for ourselves to see if his accusations are valid. Pastor Chantry, please name these sinister haters of God and His righteous standards so that we might avoid them.

1.      The following quotation gives a totally different view of history than what we usually hear. It is taken from Disciplines of Grace, by R. Kent Hughes, Crossway Books, 1993, p. 81 "We must also understand that rest and relaxation are not mutually exclusive. John Calvin knew how to pray and play. His reputation for humorless austerity doesn't square with the facts. He led his congregation in worship in the morning and in the afternoon went among the people of Geneva and played skittles, an ancient version of bowling!"

2.      For a clear presentation of Dr. Boice's view of the Sabbath see, The Gospel of John, by James Montgomery Boice, 5 Vols. in 1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1985), pp. 316-320, and Foundations of the Christian Faith (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1986), pp. 233-235.

3.      Chantry, by insisting that the Ten Commandments are the highest moral standard ever given, is advocating the first statement. Because we believe the Sermon on the Mount and the Epistles give us higher laws than Moses gave, we insist the second option is true.