Posts
If Jesus Christ, the Messiah, is the Covenant of the New Covenant the natural question arises as to what law must be obeyed under the New Covenant since the law delineated the stipulations of the Sinatic Covenant. Those stipulations under the Old Covenant outlined, among other things, the terms of righteousness and holiness. To keep covenant was to obey the law (a thought worth much more consideration at some other time).
Spurgeon, in a sermon on the subject of Christ as Our Righteousness -- taken from Jeremiah 23:6, drops this tantalizing thought: "Christ in his life was so righteous, that we may say of the life, taken as a vehicle, that it is righteousness itself. Christ is the law incarnate. Understand me. He lived out the law of God to the very full, and while you see God's precepts written in fire on Sinai's brow, you see them written in flesh in the person of Christ." -- Charles Spurgeon, "Jehovah Tsidkenu: The Lord Our Righteousness".
Much could be said about Spurgeon's perception, but in the interest of brevity we will suffice with this: Christ's perfect obedience to the law not only fulfilled the law, but incarnated the Law as a New Standard. Thus, to answer one question that arises from the reality of the New Covenant, Christ is “the LAW we need to obey” since He (and no longer the Decalogue), in and of himself, is the Standard by which all holiness is measured. The stone tablets have been exchanged for a Person, a Person who has fulfilled and now incarnates the tablets. Not only has he imputed that work to those who could never obey the law and were under its condemnation, in that imputation he has placed a new law on the heart, the Spirit, to conform us to the Incarnation of the tablets.
But there's more. "Written in fire on Sinai's brow." Such a "Spurgeonic" phrase brings to mind an incident in the life of Christ that not only tends to be overlooked in Christian theology, but tends to be ignored in the discussion of what *law* constitutes the righteousness of the New Covenant: the Transfiguration. The imagery and implications of the Transfiguration event cannot be understated in consideration of Christ as the Law Incarnate. We do not simply obey Christ because He is the Lawgiver, though he is surely that. When that voice that shakes the foundations of the heavenly temple booms out, “this is my beloved Son, listen to Him”, it’s not merely in the context of Moses. The gloriously transfigured Messiah descends that mount not merely as the New Moses, the ultimate Lawgiver, but as the new Law (note the language of Deuteronomy 33:1-5 and its NC/NT fulfillment in Matt. 17:1ff, Mark 9:2ff, Luke 9:28ff AND Acts 7:52-53).
Unlike Deuteronomy 33, the New Moses descends the Sinai of Transfiguration empty handed. Why? Because the former code has been incarnated in a Person (insert here the indicative of imputation and justification, not merely sanctification). We *listen to* or *obey* the new Lawgiver because the Lawgiver has personified that standard which had been foreshadowed in temporary stone.
He also descends empty handed because there is no new code to deliver. The entire paradigm for obedience has been flipped on its head. As this Incarnate Law descends the Sinai of Transfiguration, he descends to finish His work in His own Person of breaking the tyranny of the law… and in doing so, descends as a Law that will cause His people to conform to His Standard, His image.
And this is precisely what happens. The glory cloud, which was the top of Sinai Transfiguration, and the Spirit descends @ Pentecost, even as Christ ascends. The law written on hearts of flesh comes to dwell among His people, even as the Lawgiver, Law, and Judge begins His rule from the heavens. This isn’t simply an exchange of code for code. The new law written on hearts of flesh *causes* conformity to the image of the Son. This “law” is alive, doing what the old code could never do… effecting transformation in those who are “under” it. Because it is everything the old “law” is not, this “Law” really is the perfect “anti-law”.
And what of the imperatives that are so dominant in the Old Covenant schema? The imperatives of the NC don’t “replace” the old code. Christ Himself replaces the code and then implants Himself in His people via the Spirit on hearts of flesh. The imperatives are the means by which Christ through His Spirit is conforming us to the image of God in His Son. Yes, even the smattering of OC code which appear in the NT, even those moral principles in the backdrop of the Decalogue, no longer have the same function as they did in the OC. They cannot simply be listed in the same way as *code* (Christ Himself is the *code*, applied to the heart by the Spirit). The imperatives have a new identity (“grace and truth” - John 1:17, providing more parallel between “law” and “lawgiver”). They are no longer external, but internal, being worked out of us in the transformation of the Spirit. We work out the imperatives of the NC, we *do* the imperatives because conformity through them to the image of Christ is *who we are*. To suggest that the imperatives are new code replacing old code is pulling an old paradigm into the new, when in fact, the very nature of commands and imperatives in the NC has been changed.
W.D. Davies suggests the Messianic Age was so bound up with the idea of New Torah, the early disciples understood the New Age that dawned in Christ had its Torah personified in Christ himself: "Although Paul regards the words of Jesus as the basis of a kind of Christian halakah (the entire collection of Jewish law), it is Christ Himself in His person, not only or chiefly in His words, who constitutes the New Torah; and so too in the Fourth Gospel the New Torah is not only epitomized in the commandment of agape which finds its norm in the love of Christ for His own and in the love of God for Christ, but is realized also in the Person of Jesus, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, i.e. the personalized Torah who is set over against Moses… those in the Early Church…saw their Torah in Jesus Himself, as well as in His words…" W.D. Davies, "Torah in the Messianic Age and/or the Age to Come", p. 93
Davies isn't the only Johannine reader tracking John's portrayal of a New Torah come from heaven in grace and truth. It's interesting to read John 1 (LOGOS as Torah) in light of what Theodore Vriezen notes in Isaiah 42, 43 and 55. Of Isaiah 42, Vriezen writes: "God wants to use Israel to bring to the nations the knowledge of his Torah... (Isaiah) proclaims... the universal vocation of Israel... as a missionary task. Israel is to bring the message of the Torah to the world and to reveal the redeeming and vivifying power of suffering for the sins of the world... Here the Old Testament revelation of God reached its culminating point, especially in Isaiah 43, for here the idea arose that the Torah (revelation) not only leads to theocracy, the rule of God over Israel itself, but also to that love which suffers unto death for the sins of others.
"This is the last new element of the revelation of God given to Israel before the coming of Christ... Jesus Christ becomes the fulfillment of this divine vision. In this way the greatest and most profound message of the Old Testament is *actualized* (my emph., crb) by Him among men on this earth, and thus the true meaning of the word of God, spoken to Israel is revealed completely... There will be an everlasting covenant which will reveal all the faithful acts of grace granted to David, so that all the nations will run unto Israel which is His witness (55:3-5); Israel is called to be a 'light to the Gentiles' and a 'covenant of the people' to teach the world the Torah and 'Righteousness/Justice' (misphat)... Israel should become a light to the Gentiles so that God's salvation might spread as far as the ends of the earth. " Theodore Vriezen, "An Outline of Old Testament Theology", p. 18, 34
In John, then, we see the New Torah tabernacling (as the original tablets had done in the Ark of the Covenant) among His people. Stephen picks up on this theme from the Deuteronomy 33 passage in Acts 7, when he equates "the Righteous One" with the "law delivered by angels" (Acts 7:52,53). Something or Someone greater than the Torah has been delivered by angels. And as the disobedient Israelites rejected what had been delivered by angels, so too, disobedient Israelites, including this Sanhedrin, had rejected the fulfillment of the law which had been accompanied by angels to Bethlehem.
Into the Old Testament line of martyred prophets, Stephen places the baby delivered by angels to be the new Torah. It is that baby, who is both Law and Lawgiver who would be martyred. It is the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, the Righteous One who numbered himself with the transgressors and made many righteous. It is the Righteous ruler and redeemer that Zechariah says would come riding into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey that has been betrayed and murdered. Surrounded by a heavenly host giving praise to God, the New Torah had been delivered and subsequently rejected, just as Israel had done to so many prophets who had proclaimed the Messiah’s coming. Stephen would soon experience that very same rejection.
Stephen's sermon, though, pulses with the energy of Pentecost. The Sinai of Transfiguration which displays the Torah Personified is brought to bear on the Upper Room as the New Torah ascends to the heavenly temple and the Law written on the Heart descends to indwell a temple made without hands, the church. Just as the external law descended on a mountain with fire in a shekinah glory-cloud with a roar producing fear and trembling (Exodus 19:16-20, 24:15-18), so too the Law written on the heart descended on an "Upper" room with fire in a shekinah glory-wind with a roar producing amazement and "fear" (Acts 2:1-12,33,37). Pentecost not only duplicated Sinai, but superceded Sinai bringing a greater, permanent glory than the one that was fading away (2 Cor. 3).
But Pentecost as Lawgiving in the descent of the Spirit occurred only because the Greatest Law and Lawgiver first had descended on a mountain with the radiance of light "like the sun" in a glory cloud with a voice producing fear and trembling (Matthew 17:2, Mark 9:3,7, Luke 9:29,34,35). Rather than hearing the commandments and indeed the entire Mosaic Covenant from Moses, the disciples are told to listen to Christ. It is Christ, not Moses, who is the new authority, the new Torah, for the new era that is about to dawn in the cross and resurrection. Sinai. Transfiguration. Pentecost.
Thus, Christ’s descent from Sinai Transfiguration, his ascent to His throne, and the descent of the Spirit to indwell Christ's temple must change everything we ever thought about law, law keeping and imperative obeying. Christ the King is Christ the Law. The very fingers that carved out the words in the tablets have now taken on flesh and have *become* the Word imprinted by the Spirit on the heart. In Christ, not only has David's throne found its promised and eternal Successor, but the law enforced by that throne has found its ultimate Endpoint and Final Expression.
This New Torah descending the New Sinai of Transfiguration wasn't New Torah for Torah's sake. While condemnation came through the law of Moses, "grace and truth" came through this New Torah (John 1:18). This New Torah descended the mount in order to effect a new order in His people. The One who became a New Covenant for His people now creates covenant keepers through His Spirit Who produces covenant keeping. The New Torah, who is both the original Lawgiver and perfect Lawkeeper, produces obedience in those who are indwelt by the Spirit, the law written on the heart.
But that's not all. This New Torah grants the lawless a righteousness that perfectly meets the standards imposed by the Sinaitic Law. The righteousness required by the condemning law comes from the One who obeyed it perfectly on behalf of those who could not keep it. Again, Spurgeon is sublime: "He carried out the law, then, I say to the very letter he spelt out its mystic syllables, and verily he magnified it, and made it honorable. He loved the Lord his God, with all his heart, and soul, and mind, and he loved his neighbors as himself. Jesus Christ was righteousness impersonated…the Law-giver has himself obeyed the law Do you not think that his obedience will be sufficient? Jehovah has himself become man that so he may do man's work: think you that he has done it imperfectly? Jehovah—he who girds the angels that excel in strength—has taken upon him the form of a servant that he may become obedient: think you that his service will be incomplete? Let the fact that the Saviour is Jehovah strengthen your confidence. Be ye bold. Be ye very courageous. Face heaven, and earth, and hell with the challenge of the apostle. "Who shall say anything to the charge of God's elect? "Look back upon your past sins, look upon your present infirmities, and all your future errors, and while you weep the tears of repentance, let no fear of damnation blanch your cheek. You stand before God to-day robed in your Saviour's garments, "with his spotless vestments on, holy as the Holy One." -- Charles Spurgeon, "Jehovah Tsidkenu: The Lord Our Righteousness".
This is the New Covenant. Things are not the same. We’re not in Kansas anymore (and all praise to Him who is our Covenant that we are not). Is it any wonder that one of the disciples at the foot of the mount would later write, "In the beginning was Torah (Logos/Wisdom), and Torah was with God and Torah was God"? -- crb
He Came to a World at War: O King of Nations
-
[image: He Came to a World at War]
O come, O King of nations, bind
In one the hearts of all mankind.
Bid all our sad divisions cease
And be yourself our Kin...
18 hours ago
42 comments:
Although I fully understand the concept, Chad, denomination of Jesus as "New Torah" is quite disconcerting ... not only to me, I'm sadly confident. For the sake of NCT, I pray that the concluding sentence will be deleted; it is eisegesis AT BEST.
What attracted me to NCT is (was?) the faithful exegesis of Scripture upon which Scripture-driven theology has been developed. Propagation of merely alternative system-driven (Covenant Theology: Extreme Makover?!) will surely prove to be the undoing of NCT. Until / unless the "trajectory" of "NCT" currently in evidence is redirected to that which was evident quite recently (merely months ago?!), the time which I allocated to writing my comments to the February 25 "post" herein (below) will be tantamount to spitting into the wind. May it never be!
It shouldn't be disconcerting. It's fairly well known that the Jewish understanding of "Logos" was "Torah". John's choice of "logos" reflects the Septuagint's use "logos", not the Greek society's (a common misperception of the term).
Further, the way he develops Christ as Torah in John 1:15ff gives context to the first 3 verses (not to mention that Torah is in the backdrop of Christ being "The Truth").
Thanks, Chad, but I'm cautioned by Dr. James R. White's analysis, especially regarding Sabellianism (Modalism) "at" http://vintage.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html (John 1:1 Meaning and Translation). I'll quote two brief portions thereof (the second is Dr. White's quotation of Dr. A.T. Robertson -- "the most quoted scholar on this subject"):
"Much has been said about how John got the term "LOGOS," the Word. Some say he borrowed it from Greek philosophy, a sort of philosophical subterfuge. No, he filled the Word with personality and identified the Word not as some fuzzy, ethereal essence that was the guiding principle of all things [] (as the Greeks thought), but as the eternal Son of God, the One Who entered into time, and into man's exerience as Jesus of Nazareth. The "Word" reveals that Jesus is the mind of God, the thought of God, His full and living revelation. Jesus did not come to tell us what god is like -- He showed us. He is the revelation of God."
"And the Word was God (KAI THEOS EN HO LOGOS). By exact and careful language John denied sabellianism by not saying HO THEOS EN HO LOGOS. That would mean that all of God was expressed in HO LOGOS and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (HO LOGOS) and the predicate without it (THEOS) just as in John 4:24 PNEUMA HO THEOS can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1 John 4:16 HO THEOS AGAPE ESTIN can only mean "God is love,", not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say."
Nothing I have written here is at odds with what White has to say. Nor does what I have to say lend itself to modalsim any more than what White says: "He is the revelation of God". Modalism is a red herring.
However, what White isn't doing here is placing the Greek grammar back into the context of John's argument. Grammar is not the final arbiter of hermeneutics... context is. The context for John 1 is "Torah" (and "Temple").
If there's anything missing from what White says it's an acknowledgment of all of the scholarship indicating John was borrowing from the Septuagint's use of "Logos". And it makes sense, since the rest of the book of John is presenting Christ as the New Torah.
But then again, understanding John's use of Logos to pull in Jewish understandings of Torah (and sophia... the language here mirrors Proverbs 8-9) doesn't negate anything White says. It's apples vs. oranges... I wholeheartedly concur with what he is saying.
If this is germane to the discussion, the Gospel of John is written to a Jewish audience. That idea was abandoned along time ago but is now revived and rightly so IMO. In John, so much of the fulfillment imagery is directly related to Jewish festivals etc., that a non-informed gentile audience would be hard pressed without commentary to know what was going on.
Jesus is the temple, Jesus is the light (while standing outside the illuminated temple during the feast and so on in John.
And as good as A.T. is I don't think he gets it right here as an example, " I came not to destroy, but to fulfill . The verb "destroy" means to "loosen down" as of a house or tent (2Co 5:1). Fulfil is to fill full. This Jesus did to the ceremonial law which pointed to him and the moral law he kept. "He came to fill the law, to reveal the full depth of meaning that it was intended to hold" (McNeile).
The fullest implications are missed. Relating Logos to Torah is not a big jump for them. We can see it as both.
Some good thoughts there, Joe, especially with the word "destroy". The same thought is present in John 2:19 where Christ declares himself to be the New Temple. In the raising of the Temple made without hands, he "revealed the full depth of meaning that 'temple' was intended to hold".
Of course, unlike Joash, we don't have to discover the long lost law in the temple... we have both wrapped up in a Person.
And a sweet Amen and Bingo re: Joash.
well, Joe, next time you give me an Amen, make sure I've said it correctly the first time: Josiah.
:-)
OOPS. MY bad. Got a little excited. Thanks for the spanking.
Thanks, guys, but I remain cautioned, as "the most quoted scholar on the subject" presumably was well aware of John's usage of the Septuagint; whether such is acknowledged via what Dr. White quoted is anything but determinative of such. I also remain disconcerted, as -- as I more fully delineated via my coments to the February 25 "post" -- logical deduction is the tool of system-driven theology; "NCT" which is not inductive (Scripture-driven) is merely alternative system-driven theology (not SIN CERA New Covenant Theology).
Again / as surely must be patent by now, NCT is being hooked up to a respirator and in critical and unstable condition as a result of the current "trajectory". The paralysis {resultant from all focus being required to be on the tail (issues pertaing to law) because the dog itself [again, its heart is Hebrews 9:15 - 17; see my comments to the February 25 "post" (below)] is -- to mix the metaphor -- the pink elephant} has imperiled the brain stem. The prognosis is bleak; may our Lord refrain from pulling the plug and resuscitate NCT, restore it, and use it as a tool of Truth. We wrestle not against flesh and blood ... . The clock, of course, can't be turned back; we NCT proponents, however, surely can (and should!) take a (huge) step back, pray, and be reminded as to how the forest looks. Amen?!
@Jim McDermott
The Biblical Theology/redemptive-historical basis for Chad's post and the others on here is anything but hewing to a system, especially CT. I'd submit that it is far less systematic than those who would constrain NCT to a warmed-over dispensationalism or covenant theology with a replacement decalogue.
Hi, Ed; Does such an individual exist? My interaction with NCT proponents is surely limited as compared to others'; that said, those with whom I've interacted share my disdain and contempt for any semblance of system-driven theology as being anti-Truth*. I don't, of course, consider Biblical Theology or the redemptive/historical hermeneutic to be hand-in-glove with system-driven theology (Covenant Theology, of course; Dispensational Theology, of course, claims "literal/grammatical/historical" except when such is inconvenient).
* If it's not true, it's false; Jesus is Truth; we're either with Him or against Him. Our accountability for what we teach (of course, each comment herein is a form of teaching) imperils us. False teaching (teaching other than Truth) invariably and inevitably leads to sin -- usually by those (mis)taught. How can we ignore Jesus' admonition that it may be better that a millstone be tied around our necks and that we be heaved into the sea than that we lead one of His into sin?
JIm,
There are those historically who have promoted biblical theology and have no regard for systematic at all. And the car drives down the other road other as well.
Everyone one of us has taught error of some kind at one time or another. We would not be pursuing NCT with such exuberance if that were not so. I can be for Him and be in error. Peter was for Him and erred concerning the Gentiles for a while. Tom Wells admitted such about his own ministry in The Priority of Christ. JGR has admitted the same and so has D.A. Carson ( I believe you have read exegetical Fallacies). Teaching error until I know better does not "imperil" me. I should upset me once I realize it.
When I was a young preacher boy I preached a sermon and afterwards went o my pastor and said, Curtis, may I preach that sermon again in a few weeks." He asked me why. I told him it had some errors that needed to be corrected. Folks had responded rather favorably to the message. When I preached it the second time, I asked everyone to destroy whatever notes they had taken during the first message after they compare them tot he corrections I made in the second version. That taught me alot.
Deliberately teaching false doctrine to take one from Christ, to destroy the temple of God, is a different matter, as Paul writes in 1 Cor. 3 11:* ¶ For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.12* Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,13* each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work.14* If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward.15* If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.16* ¶ Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?17* If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.18* ¶ Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become wise.19* For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, “He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS”;20* and again, “THE LORD KNOWS THE REASONINGS of the wise, THAT THEY ARE USELESS.” 21* ¶ So then let no one boast in men. For all things belong to you,22* whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; all things belong to you,23* and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God. NASB
No one , in a lifetime will teach everything in fullest truth this side of heaven. That has been the historical problem of being "driven" by systematics and confessions attitude. They say, " Now that it is written - it is finished" and Semper Reformanda is forgotten. The peril, I believe, is a temporal loss of "quality of spiritual life" which can always be overcome by understanding more of the truth by the grace of God and the causality of the Holy Spirit as we are being continually transformed by the Sprit, not just His work and by the renewing of our minds as we contemplate though all the means Christ has provided for us concerning our oneness in Him. And that includes our brotherly engagement of one another on this blog.
Jim and everyone.
I made a mistake concerning Tom Wells. It is in his book Christian Take Heart that he addresses the issue.
Joe
Please read if you never have. He really addresses the "carnal Christian" issue.
Thanks, Joe; I appreciate your comment (as I appreciate you) notwithstanding the fact that I was already "on the same page" [what you wrote will nevertheless edify (an)other(s)]. My exhortation is that NCT proponents SHOULD know better (and, at least until quite recently, did!) than to contrive and pursue theological constructs {"accumulate for themselves teach[ing] to suit their own passions" (2 Tim. 4:3)}. The portions of SCRIPTURE wich I've cited via my comments to the March 19 and February 25 "posts" herein [including, but not limited to Hebrews 7:11-12, 18-19, and 10:9; 2 Cor 3:7-17, and Galatians (chapters) 3 and 4] are SUFFICIENT for our teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness.
As to NCT proponents who ostensibly didn't know better, the past tense is operative -- the warning sirens have sounded and the distress flags have been raised (not by me only, of course). The time of reckless disregard for Truth is now past; any continued teaching along the current "trajectory" will be, as you put it (via your 5:50 a.m. comment today), "[d]eliberate[ ]".
Scripture is, of course, inexhaustible; there's more to exegete than there is time. The tail has wagged the dog beyond long enough. As I exhorted via my first comment wrt the February 25 "post", focus on Hebrews 9:15-17 (as informed by Galatians 3:16 and 29) is warranted not only because it is the "heart" of the "dog", it's warranted because the Truth taught therein will obviate the discrepant, all-too-often silly (at best) paths of error currently being blazed.
The road is narrow; few there be that find it. Thanks be to our Lord, error-free belief is not prerequisite (were it, the road would be nonexistent). That said, the "ante is upped" significantly wrt teaching error; s/he will "suffer loss" (1 Cor. 3:15) who does so. Stifling [HCSB (most translations of 1 Thess. 5:19 ~ Quench)] the Spirit is another matter; pride is, of course, the root sin. Continued theological contrivance and pursuit thereof is pride on parade; I'm quite confident that it's grotesque and repugnant to our Lord.
No, I don't enjoy writing these comments. Yes, it would be incomparably easier to "go along and get along". Not claiming the mantle of the apostle Paul, I'll (again) quote him notwithstanding: "For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a [DOULOS (slave)] of Christ." Gal. 1:10. Of course, Paul began what we call Galatians 3 with "O foolish Galatians" -- literaly: "morons". He was more concerned with Truth than with "feelings" ... thanks be to our Lord (the same, of course, is true of Him).
Ideas have consequenes; Paul's rebuke which comprises his letter to the churches at Galatia is in response to such. The theological contrivances advocated herein are no less potentially eviscerating of the Gospel.
@Jim,
I fear your the points of your posts are being obscured by your verbosity. Could you be specific about those things with which you take issue rather than writing in long generalities?
[Laconic (effectively the opposite of verbose) is the more frequent complaint, btw!]
My first comment to this (March 19) "post", as well as via my final (March 11) comment to the Feb. 25 "post" should suffice, Ed; please review them and inform me if otherwise. Thanks.
As lamentable as it is that theological contrivances such as "Christ, the New Torah" are, more lamentable is that which created the "climate" for theological contrivance. That Jesus was given "as a covenant to the people" is indeed revealed truth; Scripture, however, does not elaborate. Not only is it audacious for us to attempt to embellish Scripture, it's absolutely unnecessary. Truth about Jesus vis a vis the New Covenant is that "HE is the MEDIAtor of a new covenant, so that THOSE WHO ARE CALLED may receive the PROMISD eternal INHERITANCE, since a DEATH has occurred ... . For where a WILL is involved, the DEATH of the one who made it must be established. For a WILL takes effect only at DEATH, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive." Hebrews 9:15-17 [ESV (emphases mine)]
Jesus' DEATH is the MEANS (Heb. 9:15, NKJV) by which He is the "one mediator between God and man" (1 Tim. 2:5) ... the "way" wrt "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except by me" (John 14:6).
Our Lord's plan of redemption [the essence of Scripture (John 5:46, Luke 24:27)] -- the pinnacle being the New Covenant (and the fulcrum of the New Covenant being Hebrews 9:15-17) -- is delineated via THOSE verses. Informed by Galatians 3:16 and 29 and Romans 9 - 11, our Lord's plan of redemption includes ethnic / national Israel as A PEOPLE only as "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" (Romans 9:22). Ah, but there's the rub: That's "no man's land". So, placement of a "governor" on pursuit of Truth, ostensibly in order to promote (specious) unity among NCT proponents, has resulted in fragmentation which may be irremediable and which has neutered and eviscerated NCT.
The Holy Spirit doesn't, of course, wave a "magic wand" to overcome stifling (grieving) of Him; He uses members of the Body to exhort other members of the Body. Y'all have been exhorted ... and then some. It is you who will give an account for the idle (at absolute best) words herein. May you someday -- for your sakes -- thank me (and others) for (attempted, at least) exhorataion. May y'all redeem the time; there's much GOOD FIGHTing to do and y'all need to get back to it.
Wow. That's a breath of fresh air. And yes, I agree that in the backdrop of this conversation is Christ's imputed righteousness... a righteousness that is applied by and through the Spirit. This is Christ in us the hope of glory.
Phil,
It seems that you see many implications of what is being said without it all being written out. It also seems a bit more than just thinking out loud to me and I agree that it is refreshing. Not because there is agreement but because you can see the importance of the Holy Sprit and His work in us, and in one way they are inseparable. ( a red flag to take some heat- I know). It is obvious that you can discern enablement/empowerment and connect the dots to faith/works, law/laws and how it all comes back to the Sprit of Christ and not us in the end.
Hi, Joe; as you may recall (if not, it's just a click away), it was effectively deemed "obvious that [I] can discern enablement/empowerement ... " after my first comment (to the February 25 "post"); that's not the issue. The issue (question begged) is: "enablement/empowerment" to do what? The dreadful obfuscation [and concomitant evisceration of/attempt to eviscerate NCT (indeed, the concomitant attempt to eviscerate Truth)] bemoaned by so many NCT proponents (mostly, I guess/as denominated herein: "classic") is/are the theological contrivance(s) pertaining to that issue (question).
Scripture, not human reasoning (logical deduction included, of course) reveals what was the ministry of death/condemnation [(2 Cor. 3:7, 9; the means wrt "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" (Romans 9:22)] -- as well as WHY it was such: "finding fault with THEM [ethnic/national Israel], ... ."
Hebrews 8:7. "[T]hrough one Man's righteous act" (Romans 5:18), those who are "Christ" (Galatians 3:29) / "those who are called" (Hebrews 9:15) are no longer FAULTy (in Adam). He became sin for us [2 Cor. 5:21 (He didn't become Torah, either; again, He isn't "Torah" incarnate)]. "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome." (1 John 5:3) "If you love Me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15)
Of course, it's the Helper (v. 16), concomitant to our FAULTectomy (at least there's Scripture behind THAT notion), by Whom we're enabled/empowered ... TO KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS. His New Covenant commandments are "not burdensome" despite the fact that they require INTERNAL conformity to Him rather than mere obedience to external laws ... because He transforms us by the renewing of our minds (Romans 12:2). It's not mystical ... it's Scriptural (concomitantly, it's supernatural).
PLEASE don't be encouraged to squander your opportunity to extricate yourself from the web of religion that has been and may still be being weaved. "For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. To the one we are the aroma of death leading to death, and to the other the aroma of life leading to life. And who is sufficient for these things? For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as of from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ." {2 Cor. 2:15-17 [NKJV (as were previous quotations)]}
Jim my dear brother.
I don't know why you would believe that my post was in any way directed at you personally. Your tone is a bit legalistic and defensive. I know that you can discern the above and it agrees with my post on this blog about the eternal word of God and looking at Romans 12:1-2. Enablement/empowerment is misunderstood in a much broader range of pneumatology than with some possibly within the ranks of NCT. For too many iin the broadness of the "reformed" and others, IMO, it becomes nothing but a performance/law based sanctification and for many promotes the so called third use of the law or for others the "carnal" Christian doctrine, It even exists in texts concerning counseling that is problem based rather that Christ centered. I have no problem with a Christ centered hermeneutic that is concerned with working toward a better understanding of the importance of the Holy Spirt in regards to why and how we obey (yes - we obey the commands of Christ and no one here has ever denied it) but we are not worried about parsing out the particular "laws" as such as to understanding what it means to be walking in the Spirit, being driven,led, filled by the Spirit in the fulness of who we are because of our adoption and so on. It just seemed to me that Phil understood that.
Thanks, Joe; "legalistic" as in writing as an attorney, you mean? I'm not being defensive, btw; I didn't consider your previous comment to be one to be taken personally ... thanks, though, for indicating otherwise. I merely sought to identify the issue (enablement / empowerment ... to do what?).
I, likewise, understand that you understand that the Law written on the heart (New Heart / circumcised heart) is a "word picture" for the indwelling Holy Spirit who enables / empowers us to "keep His commandments" ("[f]or this is the love of God") and that antinomianism / "no Lordship" theology is anti-Truth. I know that you understand that Jesus is the reigning Davidic King and that such is the basis for His Lordship. I know that you understand Jesus' question Why do you call me Lord yet don't do what I say? is the reason "No, Lord" is an oxymoron.
My concern is that you apparently don't realize that the manifested "trajectory" is publicly eviscerating NCT (or that that's why I comment). Said "trajectory" betrays NCT as neo-mystery religion.
I'm fully confident that you, too, want our Lord to use NCT in general and its proponents in particular in work for His Kingdom (the "already" aspect thereof, of course). Since, unlike you, I don't know the other men, I can only pray that such is true of them. Time will tell; exhortation (again, not just by me) cannot ensure outcome, of course. Either way, the bell cannot be "unrung" and much damage has been done; I pray that such damage is not irreparable.
May your travel to and from the Philippines be safe; vaya con Dios!
@Jim
If NCT as broadly understood were actually an odd meeting of lukewarm dispensationalism, rampant eisegesis and New Covenant replacement decaloguianism, then it would deserve to be eviscerated.
Jim,
Attornyish-yes. But, that is your realm of everyday as is journalism for Chad. Perceived as personal, I am glad that it was not. And thanks for the prayers.
I can take an exhortation anytime. And thank you that you consider it such and having read the Puritans as you have, I consider it pleasing that you are concerned "for my soul" with a proper intent.
Now, concerning exhortations that have been public on these issues. Neither. JGR, Tom Wells, Gary Long, Geoff Volker, Steve Lehrer, Mike Adams (Mike has dialogued) ,Jon Zens, Murray McClelllan or others who have been engaged in the matters of NCT (and published in various forms) for much longer than I, have done so.(unless you know differently). Each of these brothers has a long reputation concerning NCT and there are some disagreements even among them on certain NCT points. Such is Semeper Reformanda. The only vocal-via the pen/keyboard, exhortations that I am aware of have come from Greg G, Dustin C., Doug S. and Kerry K. and all has not been total disagreement but varying depending on the individual and what part of NCT is being discussed.
It is a fact that the bell for some in the world of NCT was unrung for many, when Steve published his book, particularly over one chapter. The same charges were leveled against Steve at that time all over the web and in theology journals and conferences etc. Regardless of one's position concerning that, NCT is still viable. For others it became a good opportunity to engage in conversation and study.
This is the history of NCT at present and in and of itself it is not a bad thing. In most cases, knowing most of these men over the years, there has not been any major breakdowns in relationships as I have seen them gathered together at various times and that includes the "signers on " of this blog.
Jim stated:
"I, likewise, understand that you understand that the Law written on the heart (New Heart / circumcised heart) is a "word picture" for the indwelling Holy Spirit who enables / empowers us to "keep His commandments""
I respond:
According to the text, this 'enables/empowers' idea falls short of the Spirit's help as promised by our God.
Ezek 36:26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and **CAUSE** you to walk in My statutes and to keep My just decrees.
The Spirit IS transforming us to LIVE the righteousness of the Lord in the exact image of Christ, just as God promised he would achieve in us. He does more than enable. He transforms us to utter righteousness.
John Piper also states it well:
"But don’t miss the crucial place of the new birth in relation to the manifestation of God’s love as well as the nature of God’s love. When John says in verse 11, “Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.” When John writes that, how are we to understand this word ought? If you forgot everything in the preceding five verses, you might be able to say: “Well, the point of the incarnation is imitation. God loved us. We look at how he did it and we do it too. We’re obliged to.
But John has not forgotten what he wrote verse 7-8. “Whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.” So when he says, “We ought to love each other,”
**he means ought the way fish ought to swim in water and birds ought to fly in the air and living creatures ought to breathe and peaches ought to be sweet and lemons ought to be sour and hyenas ought to laugh. And born again people ought to love. It’s who we are. This is not mere imitation. For the children of God, imitation becomes realization. We are realizing who we are when we love. God’s seed is in us. God’s Spirit is in us. God’s nature is in us. God’s love is being perfected in us.***" (*** emphasis mine)
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2008/2686_The_New_Birth_Produces_Love/
BTW, I would add that this transforming to perfection which the Spirit is causing in us functions precisely as a codified law of the letter cannot.
As an aside just for you Jim; if our civil code could be consumated as this kind of living indwelling Spirit-law, there would be no more need for lawyers. ;)
I'll quote a Bible teaching M.D. whose father is a pastor (whose father is a Rabbi!) who was a roomate of Charles Ryrie at DTS: "Lawyers are the bane of my existence." In part, that's because lawyers deal in facts and operate according to applicable rules; we -- the ones who remain competent, that is -- don't invent words ... nor do we create straw men.
Another reminder (see my final comment to the Feb. 25 "post"): Mike Adams ("a patient man") awaits response. More as to that shortly.
I've more than clearly indicated that I recognize that (too) many NCT proponents are "leaky" NCT (at best). Indeed, I've more than clearly indicated that any semblance of Israel-centered / system-driven theology is simply not NCT. That said, I'm aware of no NCT proponent who advocates a mere swapping of laws; whatever one's understanding of the Law of Christ, libel and slander surely are in violation thereof. Ad hominem (against the man) arguments are employed by those against whom the facts and/or applicable rules (Scripture -- what it actually says, that is) militate. Such advocates seem to not hesitate to claim personal attack when it's actually their specious arguments which are exposed.
Of the men named as having exhorted those who advocate what is to them and to me bastardization of NCT, Kerry Kinchen is the only one I've had the pleasure of meeting (by-the-way, I may have failed to include Moe Bergeron among those whom I've had the pleasure of meeting; if so, I'm sorry, Moe!). Were Kerry to exhort me, I'd thank him, seriously consider his exhortations, and, I expect, heed such. Although I haven't met the other named men of that grouping, the comparably limited interaction I've enjoyed with them would lead me to seriously consider their exhortations as well.
Baffling is insufficient to describe the enduring with much patience by the other named men of what they (the ones, if any, who've paid any attention) should also consider to be bastardization of NCT. What those men have taught and written is not recognizable vis a' vis what is being taught and written as ostensible NCT herein. More accurately: What is being taught and written as ostensible NCT herein is not recognizable vis a' vis what those men have taught and written. The FACTS which demonstrate such have been delineated.
Would Moe, Joe, and/or any of the men named by Joe deny that "no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit" (sadly, most ostensible Christians today would deny such)? Would any then attempt to assign Jesus' question -- asked after only two sentences declared by Him in support of the just-quoted assertion -- "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?" to a previous dispensation?
I don't know what's happening now/recently wrt Steve Lehrer; I do know, however, that his work which culminated in his book (New Covenant Theology: Questions Answered) -- including the illustration via which he answered an actual question pertaining to the Law of Christ [Steve's helpful "What I Should Have Written" is, unfortunately, no longer available (it once was available via IDS)] is one of the most edifying tools of Truth I've read ... and I've read multiple dozens of consensus "must read" volumes, including many written by the named men.
Whether via my first comment to the February 25 "post" or via my more recent comments (or in-between), I've expressly declared the necessity of transformation by renewing of mind and being driven thereby to know what our Lord has revealed and do accordingly. Singling out a sentence (which employs the WORDS OF one who truly loves Truth -- including sin cera NCT -- yet is somehow-blind-to-and-concomitantly-sypmathetic-to the mutilation of NCT) as ostensible error is specious.
Error, including among NCT proponents, must battled with Truth. If what is being advocated herein is in response to error -- actual or imagined -- it is typical "pendulum effect" response to such. Even though advocates of extreme postions taken against perceived error probably would not deign to deny that "If [we] love [Him], [we] will keep [His] commandments" (John 14:15) or that "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome" (1 John 5:2-4)", what is being taught herein is contrary to such Truth. The proof of the pudding's in the eating.
While I've said (written) enough (not too much, I pray; again, I neither enjoy writing these comments nor write for MY benefit), I must at least mention that there appears to be grand confusion wrt, as the writer (recent archaeological discoveries corroborate the scholars whose best guess that it was Apollos) of Hebrews put it at 10:14: "For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified". Grace [giving what isn't deserved (mercy is withholding what is deserved)] pertains to our perfection (justification); the inevitable outworking of grace-wrought perfection is the being set apart via transformation by renewing of the mind. Again, it's Scriptural (supernatual indeed), not mystical. One more time: Teachers of pseudo-intellectual mystery religion would do well to heed Jesus' admonition that "it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and be drowned in the depth of the sea" than to "cause one of [those who] believe in [him] to sin". Please, for your own sake, cease and desist such teaching and return attention to the good fight!
Dear Phil,
Any chance we can communicate directly. You have much wisdom and insight. You can email me directly if you'd like at moebergeron at gmail dot com.
Grace!
Jim,
Regardless of the strong bias against NCT as a whole this is pertinent because regardless of the criticism of Steve's book, they have a completely distorted understanding of the centrality of Christ re: NCT because they can only respond to the "law " ideas within the context of NCT as they had read them at the time. That is the same as Barcellos etc.
Read the post and comment. (this is just an example of what is on the web)
http://joshbrisby.blogspot.com/2007/06/brief-critique-of-new-covenant-theology.html
SOME of what Steve had written, that set off alarm bells was not received much better by some NCT folk but the disagreements were often, not always, stated with more objective criticism than by revulsion or profound disapproval. It is obvious that many anti-NCT bloggers out there never read Steve's "what I should have said" and that makes it even worse, not that it solved all the difficulties.
I would also remind you, that many NCT folk are not any longer being driven to work out NCT as a response to CT and DT critics and are no longer allowing them to set the agenda for discussion. It really never should have been that way but that was the course that seemed to be necessary historically because of the doctrines of grace foundations of NCT and some kinship with others.
It is obvious that you deem our understanding to be egregious and exasperating regarding good exegesis and sound biblical expositon.
You said, "One more time: Teachers of pseudo-intellectual mystery religion ( that is equal to what the above blog reference says in general by labeling all NCT as a cult no better than Rome) would do well to heed Jesus' admonition that "it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and be drowned in the depth of the sea" than to "cause one of [those who] believe in [him] to sin". Please, for your own sake, cease and desist such teaching and return attention to the good fight!"
If, as you say, we are so unbiblical and in danger, then your exhortations are sufficient if we are being miscreant and you have done what you deem to be right.
You need to say no more.
Joe
One more, Joe; I appreciate that you appreciate that my concern is for you and for Moe and for those I haven't met as it is for Truth Himself. Until quite recently, I hoped that NCT would be our Lord's vehicle by which He would truly reform His Church; indeed, my first comment to the February 25 "post" expresses such. It's His battle; it will go as He allows and directs. NCT has a tumor and the prognosis is bleak, I must now concede; may He heal NCT and use NCT as He once did ... and more so.
Wisdom (SOPHIA) is grossly inapt; sophistry is the word to describe what is being advocated. By what means is the mind renewed?! NCT proponents once (oh so recently) well-understood that Scripture is the means and that the indwelling Holy Spirit (New Heart, circumcised heart, law written on the heart, etc.) drives the regenerate elect to know what our Lord has ACTUALLY revealed and to do accordingly.
Again, the Holy Spirit doesn't wave a magic wand; the stuff of transformatin is not the nebulous mumbo-jumbo [replete with word-invention (straight-faced; no indication of tongue-in-cheek)] theological contrivance being weaved by NCT proponents gone astray. Again, it's pseudo-intellectual pride-on-parade disguised as ostensible "deeper meaning" ... 21st Century Mystery Religion. It's so far removed from exegetical Scripture-driven (inductive) theology that it is indeed repugnant [again: My (and others') disdain for it SHOULD serve as warning that our Lord may (I'm quite confident that He does) despise it]. It's the nasty ingredient in the modern-day parable about the dad who made brownies for the kids who wanted to watch a film which featured exquisite cinematography and acting of a fabulous, masterfully directed screenplay ... but promoted insidious ideas. The brownies, in turn, were (the dad told the kids) made with the finest chocolate, walnuts, etc., ... and excrement. The kids got the point.
History isn't repeating itself only on a worldwide scale; it's repeating itself on a supernatural scale. Of course, that's no surprise; we wrestle not against flesh and blood ... .
The teaching herein won't result in modern-day Gnostic "gospels", but that doesn't mean that Tom Hanks won't jump at the chance to be directed by Ron Howard in a film based on it in another attempt to deceive. As Cher exhorted Nicholas Cage in MOONSTRUCK: "Snap out of it!" To which I add: Please!!!!!!!
Jim,
1. For all your pontification about where you fear NCT is headed and "nebulous mumbo-jumbo", you have provided precious little, if any, concrete or explicit example of the "nebulous mumbo-jumbo".
2. You seem to think at some point in the past NCT had a quantifiable identity. Not only would most of us here at this blog disagree, some of those NCT giants you've mentioned would disagree as well (John Reisinger has stated this many times on the Sound of Grace list). In fact, NCT not only has not had an historic identity, there have been significant disagreements between those "giants", those disagreements have been over core elements of supposed NCT thought (Reisinger had some fundamental disagreements with Lehrer's book). To wit: NCT, both in its past and in its present, is not as monolithic as you portray it to be.
3. Despite your claims, this isn't about exegesis vs. eisogesis. This is about whose exegesis is most accurate to the text and whose hermeneutic is most reflected in the text.
4. Given no other of those names (Zaspel, Lehrer, Reisinger, Wells, Volker, Long) have contacted any of us, not to mention -- have not joined you in your critique, I have no reason to believe your critique of what is written here is solely your own. I'm not saying they wouldn't or don't agree with you. I'm merely saying there is reason to be skeptical that your opinions are as broadly accepted as you seem to state.
5. Please remember that you are a guest here.
I should add...
6. We welcome meaningful, point by point dialogue and debate over specific exegetical points. We know we have our share of critics. However, the broad lambasting that has been tolerated here is not healthy and not conducive to discussion.
Legitimate discussion, dialogue, and debate -- even contentious -- is good for everyone, even if positions are not changed. The condescending rhetoric is not.
And at some point, there will be an end to the tolerance so far employed.
Jim, not only have you once again ignored calls to provide evidence of the "nebulous mumbo-jumbo", you have engaged in falsehood ("Men seeking to exegete Scripture responsibly have been squashed like bugs").
If you desire to continue posting here, I would encourage you to tone down the condescending rhetoric (which is implicit by assuming an NCT "mantle" which doesn't exist) and engaging in meaningful dialogue and discussion over exegetical points.
If you have a complaint about specific doctrinal claims being made by some of us, give specifics. Otherwise, the posts will be deleted. I think we have been more than tolerant of these baseless claims to this point.
For Phil's sake and that of any readers who aren't entrenched (may no one reading this be ultimately intractable), I'll try this one more time, as it's that with which I started (via my first comment to the Feb. 25 "post"; I don't presume that Phil has read that comment or the others) via which I've articulated the essential Truth which is obfuscated by that which I'm resisting (not that it's at all tempting):
"[Jesus] is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised INHERITANCE, since a DEATH has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions commited under the first covenant. For where a WILL is involved, the death of the one who mad it must be established. For a WILL takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive." Hebrews 9:15-17 {ESV [emphases added pursuant to Phil's assertion (the next sentence -- below)]}
"[W]e ultimately have an inheritance because of" Jesus' DEATH -- according to SCRIPTURE; "we" are "those who are called", those who are "Christ's" (Galatians 3:29) -- "heirs according to promise". "now the promises were made to Abraham and to his Seed. It does not say, 'And to your seeds,' referring to many, but referring to one, 'And to your Seed,' who is Christ." Galatians 3:16. We inherit only if we were in the WILL; "the promised eternal inheritance" (Heb. 9:15) never belonged to "seeds" (ethnic / national Israel). The picture promises to the picture people were fulfilled in their entirety (Joshua 21:43-45); theology founded upon ostensible future fulfillment of promises to "seeds" or upon ostensible identity via "covenant of grace" between ethnic/national Israel and the Church are in rebellion to our soveriegn Lord's plan of redemption -- as revealed via the quoted verses. Such Truth not only is worthy of your focus and would obviate continued propagation of error, it demands your attention.
Delete at your peril; it'll be recognized as par for the course. As I exhorted via that first comment, though, the quoted verses are what ought to be -- must be --
the focus. Were they the focus, even the discrepancies among the "giants" would be obviated -- as I contended via that first comment. Full circle.
Again, Jim, falsehoods will not be tolerated ("par for the course": to date, no comments on this blog have been deleted). Continue to do this, and you will find your comments to be the first deleted here.
And again, for the 3rd time, you have not provided any specific quotes from us as to where we are propagating error. Is it that hard to engage in dialogue 101:
1. provide concrete, explicit, specific quote from Chad, Steve, Joe, Moe, or any others listed under stream #4.
2. provide chapter/passage showing the concrete, explicit, specific quote to be in error.
3. provide your exegesis of the passage showing the concrete, explicit, specific quote to be in error.
None of this you have done. In this last post you merely provide a passage with some apparently related (to us, it isn't apparent) claim about a group of people in general. Again, this isn't meaningful discussion or dialogue... merely more baseless opinion. In fact, if you were sincere about warning us from danger, you'd be much more concrete about what you perceive to be error than you have been.
Your recent comments, Chad, are precisely that to which I've referred (your most recent comment is quintessential); I didn't write or imply that it's happened here (this site) before . To be accurate, I shouldn't have written "squashed like bugs", as the actual result is that Kerry, Dustin, Greg, Doug, (et al.?) more than hold their own.
"The ball's in your court" as service has been made -- or is it 30-love? You returned service (my first comment wrt your concluding sentenc), but I went to the net and you didn't even attempt to volley (no, I don't play tennis). I just served again, and you're responding as though I didn't. Are you sure that you want to do this?
It would be a first, btw, for a comment by me to be deleted. I doubt that you truly speak for an "us"; to the extent that you have, therein lies the rub. Joe, it surely seems, recognizes my sincerity and the Scriptural bases therefor (like the spaghetti sauce, "it's in there"; indeed, it permeates my comments. If you can stifle (quench) Hebrews 9:15-17 (quoting Scripture is not, of course, offering opinion thereto), there's not much hope that you'll learn. For your sake, that of those whom you influence, and that of sin cera NCT, I pray that that's not the case.
Either way, I'm about to leave my computer until tomorrow afternoon. We're commanded (oh, the irony!) to pray for eachother; I expect to obey. I can and intend to genuinely seek our Lord's best for you; I recognize, I concede, that such is part-and-parcel of a recovery for NCT.
Well, Jim, contra your own opinion of what you have done here... the ball has been in your court for the past 3 hours and you have yet to provide any proof of the bold claims you have made on this blog. No, you didn't just "serve again"... I've already given you a 3-point outline of engagement as to why you haven't served.
Further, you have been warned about false statements and you insist on continuing to make them (I did indeed provide an answer as to why it is exegesis, not eisogesis, to speak of Logos as Torah).
But Logos as Torah isn't the issue here. You have claimed that the proponents of stream #4 are guilty of "nebulous mumbo-jumbo" and yet you have not provided *any* proof. And you continue to use this blog to propagate falsehood about those of us in stream #4. You may be sincere, but that doesn't make it falsehood any less.
Unless you can stick to the three rules of engagement we have provided for you as a guest on our blog (and yes, I speak for Joe, Moe, Steve, Ed, Josh, and Jack), any further posts will be deleted. Please recognize we value discussion and dialogue with you and others. But it will be about specifics and exegesis. And the 3 rules of engagement you have been provided are the least one can do toward meaningful discussion.
Since Mr. McDermott has ignored our warnings and has continued to make groundless and baseless accusations, his latest post has been deleted.
If and when Jim realizes he is a guest on this blog and that he would like to engage in meaningful dialogue by using the 3 rules of engagement we have requested of him, his posts (even in sharp critique) will be more than welcome.
I believe those of us who have put together this blog have bent over backward in tolerating dissent here, and we will continue to do so. There is room for much discussion between various proponents of NCT regardless of stream. But the critiques that challenge integrity and claim that error is propagated here must be specific in their aim and genteel in their demeanor. Truth must be spoken in love. Unfortunately, the former seems to have gotten the short end of the stick in some of these groundless accusations.
A recent comment was deleted because it improperly named names which were not associated with this site or its content.
Where the real eisogesis is going on is among those who would change Christ's teaching into ordinances and statutes. If you look at the use of the words translated in the NT as ordinance or statute, they are used in the negative everywhere except in Luke 1 when Zechariah and Elizabeth are described as keeping them -- as those under the Old Covenant.
To take all of the teaching about law, and to change imperatives to the equivalent of Mosaic Law is the dangerous eisogesis masquerading as NCT. It is denying the work of Christ and the teachings of Him and the apostles ... and it is wrongly enslaving believers to a law of letters.
We are to obey Christ, of course. We are discipled to do so by the word of God. But that does not turn His commands into laws. There is nowhere in Scripture that His commands are called laws. You cannot turn two mentions of the Law of Christ -- in one place love and in another bearing one's burdens -- into a set of replacement laws. There is a completely new relationship to God. The Holy Spirit dwells in believers, conforming them to God's image. The Holy Spirit informs that through the word of God ... which is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Any continued straw man arguments that this is all mystical and devoid of the word of God and devoid of any sort of imperatives will no longer be tolerated. Such comments will be considered a deliberate attempt to misstate what is published on this blog.
Reasonable comments interacting with the material will be graciously and gratefully accepted.
Hi everyone, I have been following this debate, both here and on Mike Adam's new site, moseswroteaboutme.com. Perhaps you could clarify what your position is exactly on the means of sanctification in a believer's life.
Are you saying that, were a believer to go his/her whole life without a bible, that s/he would be sanctified in exactly the same way, and at the same rate as a believer who lived with scripture each day of his/her life?
If this is what you are saying, how would you respond to Paul's wide ranging admonition of the Corinthian believers.
Furthermore, would you say that Romans 8:13, "if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live", is pointing to the work of the renewed will in the believer and that, in accordance with the work of the indwelling spirit?
If so, does this text not beg the question, how does the believer know what the 'misdeeds' are, if not by objective directive?
Certainly, 'sin is the breaking of God's law'. What would you say about this?
Thanks for the ongoing discussion. It is what England lacks so badly!
May God grant grace to us all, and prevent us from biting eachother - Gal 5:15
Tim,
Thanks for your series of questions. Let me try to respond to all of them with what I believe is a common core to all of them... and if that doesn't answer your question, feel free to respond again.
First, no one here is denying the objectivity of Scripture or its use in sanctification.
Second, what seems to be missing from most "formulations" of sanctification, even in Reformed thought, is the union of Christ with Spirit and the work of the Spirit from the inside out of the regenerate. IOW, even as the Scriptures objectively inform our sanctification, the Spirit is already working from the inside out, not only internalizing what is objective, but producing the fruit of the Spirit. The Spirit uses the objective text for His purposes in working out our sanctification within us. Scripture is not independent of the Spirit's work in our lives... in fact, it is the primary means by which the Spirit accomplishes his work.
Further, it is the objective text proclaimed through which Christ feeds his people. The Spirit uses that word to produce in Christ's people the fruit of the Spirit.
Most importantly, the gist of this article and indeed of what we're trying to say on this site is that Christ has the primacy in the entire sanctification formulation. Christ is the "yes" and "amen" of the text. He is both the text's source, producer, and object. The Word is a *product* of The WORD. Just as a *product* is never greater than its creator, so too the Word is never greater than the WORD... it is always pointing to the One greater. The Word is living and active (Heb. 4:12) because the living and active Christ (the WORD) is breathing life into His people through the Word.
Certainly you will pick up on a refrain here of Christ, our all in all. You will not find us talking about "balance", an Aristotelian and pagan category typically foisted not only onto the text but also onto the sanctification paradigm, the net effect of which is throwing a wet blanket on Christ's glory (not to mention the text itself). We here affirm Christ as the Standard by which all holiness is measured, and we affirm that it is through His Word He reveals to us just what that holiness looks like and what his people are to be like.
And...while the characteristics and expectations of His people are revealed to us in the imperatives, the imperatives do not exist independently of nor are they the emphasis or object of the text. Such a place is solely reserved for Christ. Because Christ is the grand indicative of the text's grand narrative, the indicative gives rise to the imperative; the imperative is grounded in the indicative; it is from the indicative that the imperative flows. Before we ask of any text (esp., in this discussion, where imperative and law are concerned in the NT), "what does this text want me to do?", we must ask "what is this text telling me about the person and work of Jesus Christ?" and "what does this text tell me to believe?" The imperatives are baseless, groundless, pointless, moralized, and legalistic if we do not first ask the latter two questions before proceeding on to the former.
Thus, it is the indicative that has primary place in Christ's ethic, not to mention Paul's and the other NT writer's ethic. This does not mean we deny the necessity of the imperative. But what you will find here at this site is an inherent push back against what we believe to be a subtle and insipient moralization of both text and imperative, as well as a tendency toward bibliolatry in eclipsing Christ with the Bible. God magnifies His Word because His Word speaks to and magnifies Christ, the Ultimate revelation of God (John 1:1-3, Hebrews 1:2)... and it is there where we must begin any discussion of sanctification, imperative, and law.
If this still leaves some specific questions, we'll be happy to answer.
Post a Comment