Drama in Denton . . .

FRUSTRATING THE GRACE OF GOD

It is drama when a “conservative” Church of Christ preacher stands before a gathering of “liberal” Church of Christ ministers and pleads for a position that proves far too liberal for the “liberals”!

And what is more liberal than the grace of God? The position set forth was that man has always been justified, under any dispensation, by faith apart from works of law, and most certainly in the Christian dispensation. Emphasizing “We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law” (Rom. 3:28), he went on to say that Churches of Christ generally hold a law-gospel position, which, he charged (quoting R. C. Bell of Abilene of yesteryear) is neither law nor gospel. Further quoting the now-deceased Prof. Bell, he said: “The church has never committed her greatest blunder, nor suffered her greatest failure and defeat had she not faithlessly combined the principle of law and grace to concoct a law-gospel.”

The preacher was Arnold Hardin, who ministers to the Scyene Rd. Church of Christ (2920 Prairie Creek, Dallas 75227) from which he issues a bulletin, The Persuader, in which he deals at length with the issue now being dubbed “imputation of righteousness.” You may receive the bulletin for the asking. Arnold, who is an old friend of mine, is usually associated with conservative, non-institutional, anti-Herald of Truth churches (use what term you will), even if his relation with them has come upon hard times, not because he is saying anything different about the “institutional” issue but because of what he is saying about the grace of God. But in the Denton gathering, where he laid his views before “liberals,” he faired not one whit better.

Viewing the discussion philosophically as well as doctrinally, I saw something significant taking place. Here was a man from the far right wing of the Church of Christ, standing before 30 or 40 preachers who would not allow him in their pulpits (the gathering was at a cafeteria), calling for freedom from legalism and a recovery of the gospel of the grace of God. It was like the voice of Alexander Solzhenitsyn from behind the Iron Curtain, witnessing for freedom and moral values at a level that challenges the free world as few voices ever have. The ministers, some of whom were from the schools of preaching, would have suspected such a plea coming from some “wild-eyed liberal” from California, but not from an “anti” in Dallas. But God in history often lays such blessings on a humanity suffering from legal oppression, Saul of Tarsus being not the least, whom Arnold Hardin appropriately quoted: “I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain” (Gal. 2:21).

This is the size of it, frustrating the grace of God. The grace of God would have its way with us if we would but turn loose. From the outset man has sought to be God or partly God, or to save himself or partly save himself. Satan has sold us a bill of goods in the fallacy that what we do somehow gains brownie points in our climb to heaven. It is common among our people to suppose that going to church, visiting the sick, reading the Bible, and sharing our wealth merits us something. God is obligated to save us because we have been baptized!

I’m not easily shocked anymore, but the response made to brother Arnold’s presentation, which was reasonable, responsible, and eminently scriptural, was shocking. The young Texas preacher who responded was a classic example of the fallacy called argumentum ad populum, which directs the argument “To the people” or “to the gallery” rather than the facts. He was out to defend his fellow preachers against the “attack” of one who was only building a straw man, as he put it. It was the old role of hatchet man coming to the defense of the party. Rather than carefully analyzing the relevant texts, he carelessly charged brother Hardin with such doctrinal consequences as “eternal security,” “faith only,” and all or some of the five points of Calvinism. In an obvious appeal “to the gallery” of preachers he accused Arnold of being “sincerely dishonest” (before God, those were his words!) in his criticism of gospel preachers. He ignored the fact that the criticism that our preachers are preaching a law-gospel came not so much from Arnold, as from highly respected Church of Christ preachers of yesteryear whom he had quoted, R. C. Bell and G. C. Brewer.

The reader is to be informed in this context that there are currently two unpardonable sins according to many of our preachers. One is divorce. The other is to criticize Church of Christ preachers. Since they do indeed preach, as R. C. Bell and G. C. Brewer charged, a law-gospel, “which is neither law nor gospel,” they have to be right about everything. Law allows no room for error, you know, and grace only provides the “source,” leaving us to do the rest by our obedience and good works. It is a hard way to live, especially when we have to be right on all “the issues” or go to hell. To criticize those who preside over such a religion is of course unthinkable and unpardonable, and we can only conclude that Arnold Hardin got what he deserved. So, without the blessings of his fellow ministers, he is left only with the grace of God. Since Philip. 3:9 is one of his favorite texts, maybe he will make it without clerical blessings. Have you read it lately? “And be found in Christ, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness of God that depends on faith.”

The idea that righteousness is imputed to us of God through Christ seems to be a problem to my brethren. But in this passage the apostle sees no other righteousness. We only need to ask ourselves, Have I a righteousness of my own? If you answer yes, then you don’t need Christ. If you answer no, then the righteousness you have has to be imputed, or given to you by another. I am amazed that a gospel preacher would imply that we are righteous by our own good deeds. Through faith Christ imputes to us righteousness or justification, and because of this we do righteous things. It is not that we are righteous because we do righteous things.

Sometimes in these Denton preachers’ meetings I become “the issue,” just by being present. But this time around Arnold Hardin was sufficient for their attention, though I did get into the action by way of a handout. A brother from one of the schools of preaching is seeking to dilute the influence of K. C. Moser’s The Gist of Romans, and since this affair was an exposure of “the grace heresy,” he did his share by passing out his analysis of brother Moser’s book. One of the bad things he says about our deceased brother is that his definition of the gospel is what Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett have been saying, which is of course in some circles one way to “poison the well,” still another fallacy. Is Moser right in his definition of the gospel? is the question, not whether he happens to agree with a couple of renegades.

But the brother is right in concluding that all this hangs upon the nature of the gospel. Brother Moser says in that book that the gospel is what God has done through Christ --- “what he did for sinners” --- glad tidings, and not the word of God in general. These brethren, in order to carve out a law-gospel, make all of the New Testament scriptures the gospel, which enables them to make even “the issues” part of the gospel, whether it be the right position on instrumental music, missionary societies, or whatever. If you are wrong on one point of doctrine you are therefore wrong on the gospel!

I was convinced as I walked away from that meeting that we have a case of “gospel” preachers not knowing what the gospel is! If a person is “wrong” about when to take the Lord’s Supper or what day of the week to put his money in a plate, he is unfaithful to the gospel! No wonder R. C. Bell would say such preaching is neither law nor gospel. Well, at least it isn’t gospel, it may be law!

But this handout, written by a teacher of gospel preachers, says an astounding thing. It says that “the most serious problem” in brother Moser’s book is that it denies that Jesus was a lawgiver. Have we so abused the scriptures as to suppose that God nailed one law to the cross only to give us another law? God forbid! Are we so caught up in our doctrines as to suppose that we can be saved by any law, even a law that Christ would bring. Rom. 6:15 says “We are not under law but under grace.” If Christ brought a law to save us, then he need not have died. We would only need to keep that law perfectly, and man can keep no law perfectly, whether given by Jesus or Moses. And so Paul asks in Rom. 3:27, On what principle are we saved? “On the principle of works?,” he asks, referring to any works. “No, but on the principle of faith,” he answers, and then says: “We hold that a man is justified by faith, apart from the works of law.” Apparently a lot of our ministers do not “hold” what the apostle held.

But there was some good news at the meeting, along with the urgent call from Arnold Hardin that we not frustrate the grace of God. There were a few there (and many elsewhere) who are tired of being lawyers and are wondering if the brother from “anti” country doesn’t have something --- or Somebody! --- the Editor