Dear Chad,
I hope you don't misunderstand, I do not agree with Master (I sound like
Gollum, there.) The only reason I read his paper was that I was doing some
internet searches for folks in my background just to see what had become of
them. I have not been a dispy since my first year at Cedarville (1975). I
only mentioned his article because it had set me to thinking aloing those
lines, and I linked to it for it seems you enjoy reading theological
material and you are quite good at analyzing it.
I think that Master makes one of the common mistake in analyzing arguments
such as is found in Hebrews: The confusing of temporal and logical uses of
"Since" and "Now" and other temporal-sounding words.. The easiest example
to illustrate is the the phrase from Hebrews 4 "there remaineth therefore a
rest to the people of God." It would be easy to mistake that the writer
means that another rest future to the time of his writing awaited the people
of God. But all he meant was that at that point in his argument, there must
be some other rest for the people of God that he had not yet mentioned, to
wit, Christ and faith in Him.
Master makes much of the fact that he thought the OC was still in force
because the writer spoke of the works of the priests as present, and,
therefore, the the NC could not yet be in effect. But that ignores the main
argument that the writer was making" ( I wish we knew who wrote Hebrews so I
wouldn't have to say, "The Writer) The problem the writer was addressing
was an attempt by some Jewish believers to maintain their attachment to the
OC and its temple, priesthood, sacrifices, etc. so as to avoid the
persecution "going outside the camp" would bring them. So the writer's
argument is, You claim the OC is still in effect and you claim Christ as
your priest, but if he were here on earth and the OC was still in effect, he
would not be acknowledged by the OC as a priest, for he comes from the wrong
tribe: so you must choose between the OC priests of Levi ot the NC priest
whose tribal ancestry is Melchizedekian. (Of course, our preterist friends
will love to jump on the phrase: "If he were on earth (Heb 8.4) saying that
referred to the OC, and there Christ has no authority as priest. Only in
the new earth (NC) does he have authority as priest. And though I do not
swallow it whole as they do, I think it is an intersting thought which
deserves more of my consideration.) Also, the fact that the OC priests were
still doing their work did not mean the OC was in force; it just meanst they
were wasting their time.
What's NPP?
Too bad you missed McGoldrick. He is the only man I know who could speak
extemporaneously with the accuracy of a formal paper. And he was and is a
truly gracious grace believer.
Joe T
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chad Richard Bresson" <breusswane@...>
To: <soundofgrace@...>
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] inferred deeper meanings
> Joseph,
>
> I don't disagree with you necessarily... I think would see God's
> glorification of the Son and Redemption as one and the same. After all,
> Christ is presented to the ages in Revelation 5 as the Lamb *slain*.
>
> I also think there is a danger (via NPP) of downgrading the significance
> of
> Genesis 3:15 in affirming Master's presupposition without qualification,
> because of the antithesis necessary for the gospel. The eschatology that
> precedes Genesis 3:15 is always in relation to the fall, even as it is
> pre-fall. The light of Genesis 1:4 is set over against the darkness. The
> rest of the seventh day is set over against the chaos of Genesis 1:2. The
> tree of the knowledge of good and evil is set over against the tree of
> life.
> Even in the prelapsarian eschatology is a prefigurement of sin and
> darkness
> (it's almost as if God skewed the creation itself toward the fall).
>
> When Vos says that redemption is the raison d'etre of revelation, it is
> not
> in the anthropomorphic view of redemption but the christological.
>
> All that to say that Master isn't necessarily *wrong*... but may be in
> need
> of further nuancing.
>
> I got through four years of never having McGoldrick. :-)
>
> Chad Bresson
> Xenia, OH
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joseph R. Terrell" <pastor@...>
> To: <soundofgrace@...>
> Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 8:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] inferred deeper meanings
>
>
>> Dear Chad,
>>
>> Just a thought regarding the quote below:
>>
>> A couple of weeks ago I read a paper on Dispensationalism written by the
> one
>> of my early theology professors, Dr. John Master, now a professor at PBU.
>> At any rate, he was trying to predict the next step in the developement
>> of
>> dispensational theology. Part of his argument concerned what I would
>> call
> a
>> pan-hermeneutic, i.e and over-riding principle or telos of Scripures and
>> history, to wit, redmeption. (I cannot recall if he out it in so many
>> words, I just recall that I thought he was setting that forth. I also
>> remember my history professor (You likely remember Dr. McGoldrick) saying
>> that history was redemptive.
>>
>> However, as I considered that, it occured to me that redemption is not
>> the
>> over-arching hermeneutical principle of scripture and history. Rather,
> all
>> things are to be interpreted in the light of the God's glorification of
>> Himself in His Son the Lord Jesus. Redemption is subservient to that
> goal,
>> as are all other things.
>>
>> This serves to enhance your point that eschatolgy precedes soteriology,
> for
>> it does preced soteriology as a motivating principle in the decrees of
> God.
>> The fulfillment of that goal (God self-glorification) IS eschatology, in
>> fact, it would be good if all eschatological statements were tested and
>> framed teleologically: that is, how does my view of things to come
>> conform
>> to the ultimate glorification of God in Jesus Christ.
>>
>> Sadly, most eschatological systems have little to do with Christ and his
>> glory. They have more to do with setting dates or ordering events or
>> describing future creation.
>>
>> At any rate, I think we will understand history and Scriptures better if
> we
>> keep that telos in mind.
>>
>> BTW, one way in which this telos has been acheived in the fullness of the
>> gospel is the way in which Jesus fulfills all the mediatorial offices of
>> messiah: He is more than just the prohet, priest and king of his people:
> He
>> is prophet, AND the message; Priest AND the sacrifice, King AND law. All
>> things, indeed, have joined in him. He is the perfection of God;s
> purpose.
>>
>> I know this is a bit rambling, but I'm writing fast!
>>
>> Joe T
>>
>> BTW, if you want to read the papaer by Master, it can be found at:
>>
>> http://www.etsjets.org/meetings/2002/future-of.PDF
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Chad Richard Bresson" <breusswane@...>
>> To: <soundofgrace@...>
>> Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 3:28 PM
>> Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] inferred deeper meanings
>>
>>
>>
>> > Redemption is the central thought/reason for revelation.
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
>
>
>
>