Dear Chad and Harry,
I too, appreciate these discussions. Chad, thank you especially for the
time you put in thinking about and writing your lists. Very thought
provoking.
Some thoughts you've provoked lately:
Even Jesus and the Apostles used double meanings. Yes, but does that
give us the right to do so. I think their being inspired gives them a
special place. We are not so inspired are we? The examples could be
multiplied concerning how many different interpretations expositors have
arrived at using uninspired sensus plenoir. How can you control such
excesses? IYHO, do you think you share such authority with the writers
of Scripture? :- (spoken in true brotherly love)
Your view of Christ as the OT Law, and your stating that we are under the
same law as well as being under grace raises these objections: If you
view Christ as the OT Law, since that was God's unchanging word, and we
are under Christ, then we are under OT Law, correct? You seem to state
that we are under OT Law and under Christ and that this is fine because
Paul's statements of discontinuity were not meant to be taken as
either/or, but as both/ and. (Please correct any incorrect
summarizations on my part). This is tied to the Jewish way of thinking
as opposed to the Greek, you say.
I do not believe that Scripture and the truth therein can be altered that
significantly by cultural factors.
Furthermore it is very suspect that Paul's original hearers were
primarily Jewish. Was he not the Apostle of the Gentiles who wrote to
primarily Gentile cities. Yes he was Jewish, and those churches were
often started in Synagogues. But what was the purpose of him framing a
statement in antithetical terms, 'not this, but yes this', if he did not
mean them to be antithetical but overlapping. It would not only be
senseless for him to frame his statements like that, it would send the
wrong message.
Don't you accept the basic logical premise that the law of non
contradiction is necessary for any truth claims whatsoever to be made?
Otherwise the contrary of any truth claim could always be true.
You seem to use the Lord Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the OT as
somewhat of a trump card or "Sacred Cow" in your argument. I do not at
all mean that you think of him that way, only that you use Him that way
in the way you frame your argument. It is hard to object to Christ being
the fulfillment of everything in the OT. Indeed He is and the OT is His
word. However, that does not mean that there cannot be anything in the
OT that is set in opposition to Him i.e. the Law. Paul and John do set
up the Law as being somehow antithetical to Christ's present ministry,
"The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ"
Jn. 1. "You are not under law, but under grace" Rom. 6. "The letter
kills, but the Spirit gives life". 2 Cor. 3.
Since the same ethical commands which were presented in the OT are in the
NT, then the point of contrast must not be in the ethical code, but
somewhere else. (Although in my opinion careful exegesis free from
assumptions does see that they are raised to a higher level in the New
Test, Christ certainly has the right to do that. I think it is an
assumption imposed on the text to deny Him that right). However, since
all of the Ten commandments are repeated ( the Sabbath in a spiritual way
in Heb. 4), the opposition and antithesis between law and grace does not
primarily reside in the ethical code itself, but in my opinion more in
the manner in which it is applied. I agree with the statement that the
Law devoid of its penalties is merely good advice and not the OT Law
anymore. Therefore, I think it is appropriate to talk about the
principles in the NT as a guide or perhaps a new kind of law. They are
ethically similar, and the OT Law is fulfilled in those who walk by the
Spirit (Rom 8, a proof text for you, :-), but that is as a byproduct to
the new code of grace/faith/Spirit/obedience that the Christian lives
under (see Moo and F. F. Bruce for this interpretation)
I just read some of Calvin's statements re: this issue, and He
distinguished between a more narrow use of the word "law" and a broader
sense. Westerholm does the same in "Israel's law and the church's faith"
It seems to me that in this more narrow sense as a command needing to be
obeyed, with promises and curses for respective responses, that the Law
can be set up in opposition to the NT's grace. I believe that this must
be the case. Otherwise you have to lessen the authority and meaning of
Paul's words when he sets them in opposition.
It seems clear to me that the Israelites could only remain on the Land as
long as they were obedient, and in contrast that we have been guaranteed
and in fact already given a place in Christ, in the heavenlies (Eph. 2),
which could only fade away to the extent that Christ can fade away, we
being joined to Him in an eternal oneness, based on unconditional
election. This is a great contrast, and may constitute a large part of
what it means to be "not under law but under grace".
Anyhow, I hope this does not overly distract you from your vacation if
you have a lap top or other access. May God give you rest and
refreshment. Have a great time with your family enjoying the warm
weather. After 10 years in CA, I still haven't gotten use to this PA
cold.
Grace to you in Christ,
Mike,
PA
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 22:13:49 -0500 "Chad Richard Bresson"
<breusswane@...> writes:
> We may not always agree. But we are a kindred spirit. This is a
> journey,
> one that is via bits and bytes. You challenge me; I learn... and
> maybe vise
> versa. We're still headed together to bask in the glow of the Son.
>
> Read Beale before you read Vos. Vos may make more sense.
>
> And as per your questions... the simplest answer I have is my own
> presupposition, one I think is justified as it rises from the text:
> you must
> *believe* in Genesis 3:15. When you do, Christ will jump off every
> page you
> care to meander. The OT writers were keying off that promise in
> everything
> they wrote. It doesn't mean they understood it all; but there is a
> Messianic consciousness embedded in the narrative, poetry, prophecy,
> wisdom,
> song, etc.
>
> btw... 24 hours from now, my family and I will be in Homosassa
> Springs, the
> beginning of a 2-week hiatus in hurricane country. I hope the
> thermostat is
> UP. :-)
>
> Chad
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "H Dorrington" <hjdinfl@...>
> To: <soundofgrace@...>
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 9:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] inferred deeper meanings
>
>
> > Hi Chad,
> > First of all I want to thank you for your time and all the
> information you
> have shared. I sincerely appreciate it.
> >
> > I am going to take some time and reread this but I am having
> trouble
> accepting that they all understood the types, prophecies, shadows
> of
> everything to come when they wrote the words. I have it all before
> me and I
> don't yet understand it all!
> >
> > I am sure this has happened to you as well, but you teach a class
> or
> preach a sermon and someone comes up to you later and tells you how
> that
> talk was exactly what they needed and they share how God spoke to
> them
> through it and they thank you. You smile but inside you are
> scratching your
> head because nothing you said even is close to the application they
> arrived
> at! Still God uses it for His purpose in the lives of those who
> heard what
> you said.
> >
> > So did all the OT writers fully understand the prophetic
> statements they
> penned and how everything would be shown to be a shadow of their
> coming
> Savior? I don't know.
> >
> > Harry
> >
> > Chad Richard Bresson <breusswane@...> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "H Dorrington"
> > > Are you saying that when they told of Jonah being in the belly
> of the
> > > great fish for three days that they knew our Savior >would be in
> the
> tomb
> > > for three days as well?
> >
> > Exactly. And we know that because that's how Christ himself
> exegeted the
> > passage. And we know from Luke 24, Christ expected his disciples
> to
> > understand the suffering nature of that Messiah.
> >
> > From the very beginning of the canon, we have a death/resurrection
> theme
> in
> > the redemptive story pointing forward to the seed of the woman.
> Not only
> is
> > this running theme through the Old Testament narrative tied to
> the
> Messiah's
> > death/resurrection in the New Testament, it is tied to our
> understanding
> of
> > the New Birth, Regeneration, The Exodus, New Heart, New Creation,
> and in
> > some cases, Reconciliation. The language Eve uses in naming Seth
> is our
> > first hint that Eve recognizes Seth is a living substitute for
> Abel who
> > died. The most vivid death/resurrection type in the Old Testament
> is Isaac
> > being laid on the wood (for all practical purposes he was dead)
> and then
> > rising again... even Jewish theologians of Christ's day saw this
> in the
> > Moriah narrative. Joseph rises from the pit/imprisonment to be
> exalted
> > king. The Israelites are given new life in rising from Egypt to
> Canaan.
> > Solomon is the risen son of David (the first one for Bathsheba
> died).
> > Ezekiel's dry bones that are resurrected also touch on this (the
> bones of
> > ch. 37 are in the context of the new heart 36).
> >
> > In three of these death/resurrection narratives, a vessel is used
> in the
> > resurrecting of the life from within. Noah's ark, Moses'
> ark-cradle, and
> > Jonah's fish. Jonah's fish, to the jewish reader/hearer would have
> brought
> > to mind the Noah and Moses narratives. And we have to keep in mind
> the
> > progression of revelation. The seed of Genesis is unfolding toward
> the
> > flower of full bloom in Christ. The dark room of faint shadows in
> Genesis
> > is slowly increasing in candlepower as more details come to light.
> To
> > Christ, who obviously understood the death/resurrection theme
> through the
> OT
> > better than anyone, Jonah's fish gives him a detail that the
> other
> > narratives don't: three days in His vessel.
> >
> > > Are you saying that because they spoke so plainly about God
> entering
> into
> > > covenants with Noah, Abraham, etc that we >would understand that
> there
> > > were also covenants of works, grace, creation, and redemption
> even
> though
> > > they never >mentioned them?
> >
> > The question is whether or not "they never mentioned them". Again,
> I go
> > back to the imposition of our Greek mindset on a Jewish text. The
> Jews
> were
> > more interested in theology through the narrative than we are. We
> want
> > things explicitly laid out for us, usually in systematic fashion
> (which is
> > why we tend to create systematic theology in order to understand
> the Bible
> > better). We aren't satisified trying to understand the theology of
> the
> > narrative because we Greeks prefer ontological communication. The
> Jewish
> > mind and therefore literature didn't function that way. Ideas and
> realities
> > are presented in the narrative by explication AND implication.
> >
> > Would it have been a big deal for the Jew "not" to see the word
> covenant
> in
> > a passage yet understand covenant is in the passage? No, because
> the
> > narrative is conveying the understanding of covenant without using
> the
> word
> > (anytime we read God saying "I will" we can be virtually certain
> that some
> > kind of covenant is in play... which btw, is why it is interesting
> that
> the
> > king of tyre is using "I will" against God. This obviously doesn't
> answer
> > all of the questions... it's just an example of what Jews would
> have
> "heard"
> > in a narrative).
> >
> > > Most of the time the Apostle who walked with Christ had no
> understanding
> > > of what He was saying, do you really believe >that all the OT
> writers
> > > fully understood all the pictures, types,and prophecies their
> writings
> > > inferred?
> >
> > Fully understood? Of course not. They didn't know the specifics
> because
> > they were in shadow. But they did know a lot more than we give
> them credit
> > for. And they certainly understood inherent to all special
> revelation is
> > the Messiah. These were writers in the line of the seed of the
> woman
> > projecting forward in the historical narrative the seed of the
> woman.
> Which
> > is *why* we're not imposing anything to the text that isn't
> already there.
> > Redemption is the reason for the revelation.. and the Messiah is
> the
> object
> > of that revelation. Always. Without the Messiah, there's no
> purpose for
> > the revelation.
> >
> > >Or was it more of a matter of progressive revelation with each
> one adding
> > >another part? Even Paul stated we know in >part...
> >
> > Correct. Again, think of the dark room that is slowly gaining more
> light.
> > Nothing in the room has changed. It's just we see things a little
> more
> > clearly as the light enters the room. And that room is still
> gaining
> > light... hence Paul's statement.
> >
> > > I have been told repeatedly that baptism replaces circumsion as
> the sign
> > > of the covenant and this is found by inference in >Colossians.
> Are you
> > > saying that this is what God is telling us since inferece
> affirms it?
> >
> > Well, no... not necessarily. I still haven't come to place where I
> could
> > affirm baptism as THE sign... I tend to think of the inner
> circumcision as
> > the sign (since it is using the same word as the sign of the
> OC)... if
> > anything, baptism might be a sign of the sign of the reality
> (union in
> > Christ is the reality). But the problem with paedobaptists isn't
> the use
> of
> > inference, it's the use of inference rightly. I know it gets
> complicated
> at
> > this point and I'm running short on time for now. The Westminster
> > Confession speaks of good and necessary consequence. The irony is
> that
> > their understanding of infant baptism is neither a good or
> necessary
> > inference/consequence. They have a ton of assumptions being place
> on top
> of
> > other assumptions. We saw this in a recent discussion on the
> rtdisc list.
> > Peal one layer off and there's another layer of assumptions. While
> we both
> > bring assumptions to the table, IMHO, our assumptions are stronger
> and are
> > more justified by better rightly dividing.
> >
> > anyhow... now i'm rambling. hope this helps.
> >
> > Chad
> >
> > --
> > Read the Sound of Grace pages at
> > http://www.soundofgrace.com
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
> > --
> > Read the Sound of Grace pages at
> > http://www.soundofgrace.com
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Read the Sound of Grace pages at
> http://www.soundofgrace.com
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
--
Read the Sound of Grace pages at
http://www.soundofgrace.com
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