Julian
I think you have missed the point in the introduction completely.
1. The answer that I think most appropriate is not antinomianism,
rather a diminishing interest in the OT - even in extreme cases of being
accused of Marcianism.
2. Again I am not sure you are correct. If I understand them
correctly they are here simply setting the ground for what is to
come i.e. that there is an unhealthy preoccupation with the Decalogue in
the life of the believer, instead of pointing them to Christ His Person
and teaching. The problem is linked logically to point 1. If one accepts
the priority of the NT then even our ethics should be based primarily on
the NT and not on the OT.
I hope others are going to contribute! This book is worthy of serious
study, as its implications are enormous.
I want us to look at the first chapter, and because it is long perhaps
section by section. So who is going to offer some comments etc?
Grace to you
Neil
-----Original Message-----
From: j.kennedy403@... [mailto:j.kennedy403@...]
Sent: 22 May 2003 15:07
To: soundofgrace@...
Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] Wells & Zaspel
Reply to Neil:
1. They set out the main parameters straight away:
".if the NT is the apex of God's revelation, then we ought to read the
earlier parts of Scripture in its light." This point is developed in
Chapter 1 and is surely at the heart of everything that they go on to
say. This is a hermeneutic that is rarely applied today.
Question: Are they right to state this? YES
Question: What dangers do you perceive that such a position might be
accused of? ANTINOMIANISM PRIMARILY
2. "The NT is very explicit in making believers "slaves" of Jesus
Christ."
NCT is at heart "Christo centric."
I AGREE
3. ".a nagging question arises when the law becomes too prominent in
discussions of Christian morals and ethics.Which is the higher
revelation of the character of God, the Ten Commandments or the Person,
work and teaching of Jesus Christ?"
This again is a very important hermeneutical principal.
Question: Are they right to make such a bold statement?
YES BUT RECOGNISING THAT CHRIST EMBODIED THE LAW HOW CAN WE SAY HE IS
OUR PERFECT EXAMPLE-CAN WE SAY HE KEPT THE LAW BY THE SPIRIT AND
FULFILLED NT LAW AND DISCARD THOSE ASPECTS OF HIS OBEDIENCE THAT WERE
FROM THE DECALOGUE AND KEPT FOR US SO WE COULD BE JUSTIFIED?
4. ".the renewed emphasis in our day on exegetical and biblical
theology as the source of systematics." As one who has been blessed to
have been on this list for a number of years, I see how easily we all
fall into this trap. We respond to questions that are asked by straight
away quoting from some confession or systematic theology, as if to say
that they hold the same authority as Scripture. The pre-requisite of
systematic theology is good and honest Biblical Theology (i.e. a book by
book approach or Author approach to a subject), rather than jumping into
a logical systematic theology. Are they and I right?
YES-nothing apart from Scripture is authoritative.
5. "Zwingli's idea of the idea of the unity of the covenant of grace"
6. A discussion on the word "covenant"
BOTH THESE POINTS WILL BE WELL WORTH DISCUSSING>
JULIAN
Sincerly, Julian
website:http://geocities.com/J_J_K52
--
To unsubscribe, send ANY message to
<soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...>
To view our online archive go to our web page at
http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace