;)
A Manifesto on Biblical Baptist Identity: Living Under Christ’s Lordship, Not Baptist Rules
Posted by Dave Miller in Baptist Life
(NOTE: Starting with comment 145, I have made some comments on the release of the GCR report, some of which applies to the subject we have been discussing)
In the summer of 1975, I yielded my life to Jesus Christ as Lord. When I turned to him as Lord, two important things happened. First, I made a commitment that I would live my life to please him and that his will would guide my actions. I have certainly been woefully inadequate in living up to that commitment, but it is the driving commitment of my life nonetheless. Jesus is Lord of my life.
It means something else, as well. Living under Christ’s Lordship means that I do not live by anyone else’s will, that I seek no applause but his. On Saturday Night Live news, Chevy Chase used to say, “I’m Chevy Chase and you’re not!” I would say something similar to every Baptist out there. Jesus is Lord of my life – and you’re not!
Issues We Fight Over
It is time, in my humble opinion, that we trust the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit, and stop demanding that people conform to our private interpretations on disputable issues.
The blogs have been alive recently with a withering debate about tithing. What shocked me was not that we would have a debate about tithing, but that the Baptist bona fides of those who did not teach storehouse tithing was so strongly questioned. “Antinomianism” was the charge. Is that really a sine qua non of Baptist identity? Do we really need to question the genuine Baptist identity of those who do not agree with us about storehouse tithing?
And the tithing debate has been tame compared to the debates that have raged over alcohol. The tone and tenor of those debates could make even a lifelong teetotaler like myself find a sudden urge to hit the bottle. I do not drink and could wish that others made that decision as well. But do we really believe that the Bible is so clear on the subject that we can condemn even moderate alcohol consumption? Wouldn’t even the most ardent abstentionist have to admit that one can make a reasoned arguement, using only the Bible, that it might not be a sin to use alcohol in moderation?
I’ve read more than one discussion about whether we should give invitations at the end of worship services. I have read some who seem to believe that it is an offense again God to present an invitation. Others have been just as adamant that an invitation is essential to true worship. Do we really need uniformity on something like this? Is that not something we can leave up to an individual’s conscience? Does my church have to do the same thing your church does in everything?
Private prayer language…Elder leadership in the church…working on Sunday…secondary issues related to baptism – do we need uniformity on all these issues? Can’t we agree to disagree on some things? Do we have to question whether those who disagree with us on these kinds of issues are true Baptists?
Romans 14-15
I would encourage the reader to examine again Romans 14 and 15. Paul dealt with the same kinds of issues in his day. Some Christians thought that the Jewish dietary laws should be observed. Some Christians thought the Sabbath was still binding on believers. Some thought it was wrong to eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols. And on each of these issues, other Christians disagreed. On issues of food and drink, on issues related to the observance of Jewish holy days, on “disputable issues” Paul had some very forceful advice.
He starts in Romans 14:1 by instructing the church not to “quarrel over opinions.” Clearly, Paul thought there were some issues that were left up to each person’s conscience, on which there was not a universal right and wrong. In verse 2, he makes this clear. “One person believes he may eat anything, which the weak person eats only vegetables.” Later, in verse 5, he adds, “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike.” Verse 21 might indicate that drinking wine is one of these “opinion” issues, one on which Christians have legitimate disputes and freedom to disagree.
It’s Okay to Disagree
What Paul says on these issues will be shocking to some Baptists who seem to think that holiness requires indisputable rules on these issues. Basically, he tells us it is okay for Jesus-loving, Bible-honoring, holy-living Christians to disagree on these things. In verse 5, Paul says that each person should be “fully convinced in his own mind.” In verses 6 and 7, he makes it clear that one person can observe the Sabbath to honor Christ while someone else can honor Christ just as much without observing the Sabbath. On these issues, we are to study the Word to develop a conviction and live by our convictions under the Lordship of Christ.
It’s NOT Okay to Force Your Convictions on Others
What is wrong is trying to force others to live by your convictions on disputable, non-fundamental, “opinion” issues. In verse 3, Paul tells the one who eats not to disdain the one who abstains. What an apt observation. Those who love their freedom in Christ often disdain and scorn the “legalists.” Paul says that is wrong, that we must respect the views of those who abstain. On the other hand, those who abstain often judge and condemn those whose opinions on these matters disagree with theirs. Paul tells them that they must not condemn others for their different opinions.
This is, I believe, the revealed will of God for many of the issues we fight about on the blogs. If you feel that it is okay to sip a glass of wine now and again, do not view yourself as superior to abstainers. And, those of you who make a choice to abstain should not condemn those who sip. If you want to practice storehouse tithing – God bless you! If you do not believe storehouse tithing is no longer a binding concept – God bless you, too! Don’t disdain. Don’t condemn. If you want to give an invitation, then give it. If you don’t, don’t.
Paul says it is okay to disagree. What he says is wrong is disdaining those whose views are more strict than our own or condemning those whose views are more lenient.
It is time we obeyed the Bible we claim to love, folks. Those who cherish their liberty in Christ should not be disdaining toward their stricter brethren and those who are more strict in their convictions should stop heaping condemnation on those who disagree.
Antinomianism? I Don’t Think So!
Is the rejection of storehouse tithing an antinomian act that will take us down the slippery slope to the acceptance of homosexuality? I wish I were making it up, but that very argument has been made publicly and forcefully on Baptist blogs. Really? Really? To believe that the tithe is not binding in the New Testament era is a rejection of moral standards in general – “antinomianism”. Wow!
That such an argument would even be made is the motivation for this post. I consider some of those who have argued the storehouse tithing side to be my friends (after my post, I may need to put that in the past tense). But I think there is something more important than these issues – it is how we deal with them. Fundamental to our future as a denomination is our ability to develop a biblical response to disagreements on disputable issues. We have to obey God’s Word and stop disdaining and condemning one another.
So, what about the accusation of antinomianism? Does it hold any weight? Certainly, Paul warned that some would take grace as an excuse to sin (Romans 6). Like any biblical doctrine, grace can be abused to our detriment.
But giving people the freedom to follow their own consciences on these disputable, “opinion” issues is only antinomian if you do not acknowledge or understand the Lordship of Jesus Christ. In Romans 14, Paul develops this teaching clearly. In verse 4, Paul states, “Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.” They are strong words. What gives any of us the right to pass judgment on those whose opinions and preferences on these issues disagrees with our own? Jesus is my Lord and you are not. You have no right to try to act as my Lord and to tell me what to do.
Oh, on the big issues we can speak with uniformity. Adultery is wrong. Homosexuality is wrong. Lying, stealing, hatred, gossip – these things are clearly sinful. But on issues of food and drink, on issues related to the Jewish law, on personal or lifestyle issues – we can disagree and each of us can still honor God.
Why did Jesus die on the Cross? To forgive us of our sins, right? Of course! But Romans 14:9 gives us another reason. “For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.” Jesus went to the Cross and suffered anguish and agony and then rose from the dead so that he could be the rightful Lord and Master of all. He died for the right to be my Lord. He redeemed me to be my Lord.
Please hear me on this. I am not saying that we are each free to do as we please. What an amazing concept. We act as if there are only two possibilities here. Either people follow our human rules and conform to our opinions and preferences, or they run wild and live as they please.
But according to Paul there is another way, a better way. Each of us lives our lives under the Lordship of Christ with a constant knowledge that one day we will give account to him. I must make every decision of my life to please him. I don’t get to “do as I please.” Under the Lordship of Christ I live to please him in everything I do.
Why is that threatening to anyone? Why is anyone bothered by the idea that I might live under the Lordship of Christ and not obey all the Baptist rules? Could it be that we have an underdeveloped sense of the Lordship of Christ? Could it be that we really do not understand the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit to motivate us to holy living.
A Manifesto on Biblical Baptist Identity
I got into blogging because I believed there were men making decisions based on a set of principles I do not share. I would set forth the following principles as a manifesto of Baptist Identity – the kind I believe will help us become what God has intended us to be, to push us toward a more biblical response on these issues. It is not meant to be exhaustive, but only to deal with those issues that relate to this post.
1) May we affirm our absolute trust in the truthfulness of scripture. I am an unabashed and unapologetic inerrantist and have no desire to be part of a denomination that does not prize this doctrine. I have no desire to go backward and reintroduce moderate or liberal theology into our denomination.
2) May we affirm our belief in the Great Commission. Jesus gave us his orders. We are to evangelize the world and then teach those who are converted to live in complete obedience to Christ. May our mission truly be our motivation in all we do.
3) May we affirm baptism by immersion of believers (only) in the name of the triune God as a symbol of salvation (not as a saving act.) While I accept that many genuine Christians have different views of baptism (paedobaptists, etc) and I affirm them as my brothers and sisters in Christ, I think this is a biblical doctrine worth holding on to.
4) May we affirm the Priesthood of believers and the competency of the soul. I’m a pastor, not a priest. We do not need a Baptist Pope telling us what is right and wrong, nor do we need any college of Cardinals defining our Baptist identity according to their opinions and preferences. I am blessed to go directly to God without the intercession of anyone but my Great High Priest and we are each competent with a Bible and the Spirit to walk in relationship with Christ.
5) May we affirm that Baptists live under the Lordship of Jesus Christ in everything. On those lifestyle issues that are clearly defined in scripture, we will require uniform obedience. But on those issues that are not as clearly defined, on issues related to food and drink, to the observance of the law, to personal lifestyle issues, we will walk according to our own conscience and permit others to do the same, recognizing that Jesus is the only rightful Lord and that each of us must give account to him (and to him alone).
6) May we affirm our trust in the power of the Holy Spirit. He dwells in each of us and can empower us to live holy lives. I don’t need your rules and you do not need mine. As we walk under the Lordship of Christ, the power of the Spirit within will produce true holiness in us. It is not rules against alcohol or in favor of storehouse tithing that will make us holy. It is the work of the Spirit of our Sovereign Lord that will do what rules can never do.
7) May we affirm that the unity of the Body of Christ is more important than the imposition of conformity on issues of personal preference and opinion.
I know that my words here will anger some – some whom I consider friends and whom I respect. But I believe that we have headed in the wrong direction in recent years and that we are in danger of becoming too narrow, too legalistic, too rigid on issues on which there is room for disagreement. A spirit of condemnation and disdain threatens the unity of the Body of Christ. And it needs to stop.
May a new spirit of unapologetically conservative, uncompromisingly biblical, and graciously free Baptist identity replace the spirit of rigidity and pettiness that has often marked our discussions.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
I realize this post has the potential to offend some folks. I write this under the conviction that an important biblical position is at stake, and that the principle is important enough to offend.
But I hope that we can discuss with grace and mercy as we deal with these issues.
David,
An Excellent and Timely article…
I could not agree with you more when you say: “I believe that we have headed in the wrong direction in recent years and that we are in danger of becoming too narrow, too legalistic, too rigid on issues on which there is room for disagreement. A spirit of condemnation and disdain threatens the unity of the Body of Christ. And it needs to stop.”
AMEN and AMEN!
Grace Always,
Greg
Brother David,
I believe if our motive is to truly love our brothers and sisters in Christ…we will ask God to work in us the fruit of the Spirit. That fruit maintains unity and brings peace….
Good word here brother…..
Rom 14:16-19 Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; (17) for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. (18) For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. (19) So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another.
As we become better slaves (doulos) of Christ, we tend to be less about demanding rules.
Blessings,
Chris
But Dave, would you at least say that many people seemingly reject the seeking of holiness before God in favor of self-indulgence?
Dave, we here in Alabama are facing the issue of legalized gambling….again. Some of us are giving our time and efforts to stop it. One thing that harms our efforts in the fight against it is the fact that many pastors not only refuse to take a stand, but are involved in Casino gambling themselves. There are pastors who gamble at the Casinos on the Indian Reservations here in Alabama and feel they are exercising their freedom in Christ. Sadly, SBC pastors are not immune to this destructive vice and it does not happen only here in Alabama.
Are we free in Christ? Yes we are. We are free to glorify God, seeking to be His holy people. And we do it by faith or not at all. For without faith we cannot please Him. But we are not free to live in a manner that is destructive to others, our personal witness, The Church (both local and universal) and that does not glorify God.
Dave,
I agree with you at these points:
1. No position on the question of “storehouse tithing” belongs among the list of Baptist distinctives.
2. One’s conclusion about “storehouse tithing” does not conclusively indicate whether one is an antinomian.
I will add only this in addition: When one is indeed an antinomian, one’s antinomianism will show up in a particular viewpoint on the question of tithing. To put it another way, there are perhaps many paths that lead to a rejection of tithing. Antinomianism is one of them, and on the question of tithing, antinomianism can lead nowhere other than a rejection of tithing. Does that make sense?
Furthermore, if someone writes a blog post about tithing, and only about tithing, it is possible that one might convincingly and conclusively determine that the author is indeed an antinomian. That conclusion would arise not so much out of the position taken on the question of tithing, but out of the form of argumentation employed to get there.
For example, consider this hypothetical syllogism:
Major Premise: No Old Testament laws are normative for Christian believers.
Minor Premise: Tithing is an Old Testament law.
Conclusion: Tithing is not normative for Christian believers.
Anyone who advances that syllogism is an antinomian, not because of the conclusion drawn, but because of the major premise used to support the conclusion. The major premise is nothing more nor less than a definition of antinomianism.
On the other hand, consider this hypothetical syllogism:
Major Premise: None of the ceremonial laws in the Old Testament are normative for Christian believers.
Minor Premise: Tithing is a ceremonial law in the Old Testament.
Conclusion: Tithing is not normative for Christian believers.
Same conclusion; vastly different logic behind it. We Baptists may argue the minor premise all day long and none of us be antinomians.
Dave:
Thanks for this. The recent tithing fiasco surprised and shocked me. That some hold that the tithe is binding (or STRONGLY recommended) isn’t new. That it is somehow the defacto Baptist position was surprising. The charge of antinomianism was even more so. It is astonishing that someone can fully subscribe to Christ’s two great commandments and be charged with antinomianism.
On a positive note, I was encouraged by David Allen’s defense of William Dembski’s book on Old-Earth Creationism even though Allen is a young earther. It appears that at least on the issue of the age of the earth, Baptists won’t be forced to toe the line.
Bart (and Dave since it is your post)
I agree with you about the storehouse tithing “war.” Silly business all the way around.
I also want to say that one’s Antinomianism will reveal itself in all of a person’s actions and words. The reason some are taken back when they are called Antinomians is because they do not understand what it means anymore than they understand the relationship between law and grace.
CB,
I agree with you that some have used “grace” as an excuse for slovenly Christian living. Paul warned about that in Romans 6 – not to use grace as an excuse to sin.
I believe there are two problems that need to be addressed.
1) There are Christians who are, in fact, antinomian in their behavior.
2) There are Christians who seem unwilling to allow basic Christian freedom to other Christians.
You brought up part of the scenario that I did not deal with. I believe that in anything not clearly addressed in scripture, we are free to act according to our own consciences. But we must also be careful not to do anything that might cause others to fall into sin.
It is hard to believe that with all the obsessive, problem gamblers out there, that any pastor would think that going into a casino was a good idea.
Bart, as always, your approach is unique and instructive.
I would agree, undoubtedly, that there is an antinomian streak among some who reject tithing. Basically, they embrace the concept that tithing is not a NT teaching to allow themselves to give little or nothing. They justify self-indulgence by teaching freedom.
I think the NT teaching is clear. “As much as you are able and even beyond your ability.” It is not moving a decimal point, it is giving sacrificially and generously, investing in the kingdom.”
so, I would absolutely agree with you that antinomianism is active with some people.
My primary point, as you have indicated, is that there are different ways of viewing tithing and we should accept that Baptists will view things differently and still can be good Baptists.
CB- re comment #7.
I think we have a lot of work to do in balancing grace and the applicability of the OT law.
My primary point is that as we define this, we can also accept with grace those whose views on some of these issues differ with our own.
For instance, we elevated, inspired and enlightened Hawkeye fans try to be understanding of misguided SEC folks.
We are cool that way.
CB,
I agree, my brother.
A wise post. I appreciate the presentation that gives us that which binds us while allowing for freedom of conviction.
Dave, I concur with the need to apply grace and I appreciate your timely admonition to do so.
Indeed, the SEC needs to treat the Big 10 with more Christ-like favor. It is the least they can do.
When it comes to those who are not motivated to give of their time, talent, and treasure to the work of advancing the great commission both at home and throughout the world, I seriously doubt that among Southern Baptist the culprit is antinomianism. Perhaps this is true among some fringe groups within Christianity, but I do not believe this is a true among Southern Baptist. No, I fear the real reason why many Southern Baptists do not give of their time, talent, and treasure is not antinomianism, but unregenerate membership.
Grace Always,
Greg
Dave,
Our having agreed so far, now I have to ask you another question: Are you sure that Les Puryear’s objection is to the conclusion (rejection of tithing) and not to the Major Premise (his belief that some people are arguing against tithing because they have a wrong view of the relationship between Old and New Testaments)? Perhaps Les believes that only antinomians reject tithing, or that the rejection of tithing is a certain indicator of antinomianism.
Or, just perhaps, Les believes firmly in tithing, launched a conversation about tithing, and in the midst of it, discovered to his horror that some people arguing against tithing were doing so as antinomians, which he considered a matter far more grave.
I may have misunderstood Les. In the past, the relationship of SBC Impact with Les has been closer than my relationship with him (He wrote for you guys, right?). But if I understand him correctly, what he’s trying to say is something close to what I’ve just said.
Greg Alford,
I agree that the number of unregenerate is more of a problem than is the number of antinomians. This fact does not make antinomianism any more acceptable than it was before, but I do believe that it is likely true.
Les’ relationship with sbcIMPACT was prior to me being invited to join, so I really don’t know anything about that. I have never met Les – actually the only regular blogger I’ve met is David Rogers. I wrote Les after Wade published the private email and expressed my sympathy for him even though I disagreed on this issue.
Two things bothered me about the discussion, though I will freely admit that I may have misunderstood things (secret emails and all).
1) The idea that Croteau/Kostenberger’s position was somehow outside the boundaries of Baptist discourse. The fact that Les felt it necessary to email Dr. Akin because of this was mind-boggling to me. My son put me onto this paper (he’s a Liberty student and went to church with Croteau for a while). At the least, I think , one has to admit that it evidences a respect for scripture and a desire to identify what the Bible teaches about tithing – whether you agree or disagree with the conclusions.
2) The slippery slope argument sort of blew my mind. I’m not sure, (at my age, some of this gets blurry in my recollections)whether Les or Tim Rogers or someone else advanced this first, but the idea that rejecting storehouse tithing was somehow a first step on the road to accepting homosexuality as okay; that seemed quite a logical stretch.
As to what you say, it was not my impression that he was saying that “among the non-tithers there are antinomians.” My impression was that he was saying something more like “non-tithers are antinomian.” Of course, my impressions could have been shaped by what others said.
Greg, I agree with Bart on this one.
We have many problems. Unregenerate Baptists? That’s a problem. Legalism? That’s a problem. Antinomians? Another problem. They are all real and serious.
Greg Alford,
I may be mistaken, but I don’t think anyone said, relating to Christian giving, “that among Southern Baptist the culprit is antinomianism” as a complete picture of the problem. But it is true of more than we realize in the SBC.
And I agree that “unregenerate membership” is another reason for people not giving in a biblical manner within the SBC.
Frankly, there are probably many reasons (none good or proper) as to why SBC folks do not give as they should.
But, Greg, if you are suggesting (and you may not be) that Antinomians are confined only to “fringe groups within Christianity” but you “do not believe this is a true” problem “among Southern Baptist” you are mistaken.
Antinomians in the SBC are, to quote a fellow from Mark 5, “LEGION.”
And I agree with Dave in his agreeing with Bart, but let’s face it; My agreeing was far more colorful than his agreeing…..with Bart that is.
I thought maybe we’d have a brouhaha here. Let’s all join hands and sing “Kumbaya” – sound good?
Dave,
It ain’t over yet and there are/is at least one Black Flags/Flags among you just trolling the water.
Be patient.
Maybe I should call Ergun Caner a legalist and James White an antinomian, just to stir things up.
Dave Miller:
Thanks for this timely post and I appreciate your willingness to address such a controversial topic.
Dave,
There is a place we must remain and I believe you have stated it correctly. From the subtlety of meat offered to idles to the abortion issue, Satan will always cause us to focus on “issues” in order to distract us from our main purpose. Satan tried it with Jesus, too. It is what he does and the church will always be attacked in the areas of “issues”.
I kind of like what Curley said in the movie, City Slickers, “It’s just about one thing”. That simplifies all that we do if we keep our eyes on the right things.
Bruce, I agree with you about keeping the main thing the main thing. I’m not sure what you are saying about abortion? I assume that you are saying we should focus on sharing the gospel, not fighting social ills. I agree in principle with that, though I find abortion a heinous things.
Just to clarify, you are not saying that abortion is a disputable matter, are you?
Christians may disagree on how much time and effort we should put into political/moral issues versus the gospel, but I think we would generally unite in sayings that abortion is a moral evil.
I’m just trying to clarify what you are saying.
Before the gathering storm clouds on the horizon finally arrive, I’ll join hands with everyone for a quick round of Kumbaya. In other words, Dave, I agree with what you say here, also. But then again, is that any surprise?
Now, for a quick word from the sbcIMPACT! archives department.
If certain people would have bothered to click on the links in the following comment, we could have perhaps turned the clock forward about 2 years…
http://www.sbcimpact.net/2007/12/27/to-tithe-or-not-to-tithe/comment-page-1/#comment-3122
Dave,
I know Ergun Caner well enough to say he is not a legalist. I do not know James White well enough to say he is an Antinomian.
But, if you want to stir a little in the pot, here is a new potato and a ham-bone.
I do believe James White is obsessed with all things Ergun Caner. He is still harping about a debate that did not occur all the way back in 2006. It is also my opinion that he has taken his obsession to the level of vendetta again Ergun Caner.
The pot is stirred. Enjoy the meal.
Wow, CB, who would have ever thought you’d try to stir the pot?
David, you illustrate a biblical principle. Ecclesiastes tells us there is nothing new under the sun. Certainly, this is true with blogging. There is nothing new under the blogging sun.
Now that I see my Ole War Buddy, David Rogers here, I have a better song to sing than Kumbaya.
I will sing “HAPPY, HAPPY, JOY, JOY”
Dave,
I see Satan taking issues and throwing them at the church no matter how small or large they are to get our focus off of the main thing. In the balance, my life must glorify God first and foremost before taking issue with something as immoral as abortion or even homosexuality. I see churches have more people turn out for abortion rallies than I see at visitation and discipleship classes. You can put anything in place of the word “abortion” if you want, but, until those same people are out telling those who were not aborted about the Savior now, they are not going to tell the newly born un-aborted babies about the Savior in the future, either. I just have an “issue” with “issues”. I mean this in a nice way, if that is possible.
I sympathize with what you are saying, Bruce. I think there is definitely a danger in getting sidetracked by “issues.” Its a balance we must continue to seek.
Ultimately, the solution to abortion is to bring souls to Christ where their minds are renewed in him. However, if there is an issue about which we ought to stand, it seems like this is one.
So, I will have to think about this one a little more.
CB,
I think I know why you’re singing that song. If the Gators would have won back a couple of months ago, would you be singing a different tune today?
Well then, here’s another link for you to meditate on:
http://insider.espn.go.com/ncf/recruiting/classrankings?&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fncf%2frecruiting%2fclassrankings
CB:
You say:”But, if you want to stir a little in the pot, here is a new potato and a ham-bone.
I do believe James White is obsessed with all things Ergun Caner. He is still harping about a debate that did not occur all the way back in 2006. It is also my opinion that he has taken his obsession to the level of vendetta again Ergun Caner.
The pot is stirred. Enjoy the meal.
”
I disagree with you.
You will not let this one go will you?
By mentioning it you are the one keeping this debate alive.
Bruce,
I would say “some” churches “have more people turn out for abortion rallies than I see at visitation and discipleship classes.”
I know churches who have more people involved in evangelism and discipleship than they do fighting abortion or gambling or spouse abuse or white slavery.
Maybe balance is needed. it is true that the Great Commission should be the primary for all who name the name of Christ in their private and corporate life. It is also true that our culture needs the voices of those who follow Christ to speak to issues that destroy people and make their chances of hearing the gospel less hopeful.
Dave,
I think it depends on the local church. If the people rally for an “issue” more than they rally for our purpose, and I used the Great Commission here as the measure, we are imbalanced and require an adjustment. This should be a clear signal of the heart of the church. We need to check our vitals before chasing other real concerns.
Bruce, as to comment #36, I am in full agreement.
In both Cedar Rapids and Sioux City, I have known of evangelical churches that get so involved in politic/social issues that the church’s ministry suffers. It is a genuine problem.
But I don’t know if it is prevalent or predominant.
I think it is a problem in some churches. Once again, it is an issue of balance.
cb scott,
I agree. I think every church needs to take the inventory necessary so the ship does not take the wrong turn. It is very difficult to bring the ship back on course once it is heading in the wrong direction. People begin to think “effort” is required in every other aspect of the church operation and we leave faith afloat as we seemingly row forward.
Weird. I made comment #38 before #37, and before Bruce’s comment #36. the order makes everything look backwards. Oh, well.
#37 was directed in response to CB’s comment.
David,
I saw that last week. I will be honest with you. How in the world could that happen? We marched through the GATOR NATION like the SEAL TEAM would through a bunch of Saudi goat herders and Urban still gets the best recruits.
Yet, are we Sabanites without hope? NO!! St. NIck will make the “lesser the greater” as always.
That is rather biblical, ain’t it.
“Lesser the Greater” WOW-Genius, just plain genius.
CB:
Maybe all this debate about Ergun Caner would end if he would just go ahead and have the much talked about debate that did not take place in 2006.
Just sayin.
Tom Parker,
I think you need to go back and read comment #23 before you start throwing rocks at me today. Frankly, if you are going to play in this particular game of blogger you need to read “all” the comments before you place finger to key.
I was simply responding to Dave. He baked that cake. I just iced it down with a thick lemon-lime frosting.
Tom, I’m starting to regret my smart-aleck remark about Caner and White. It was meant as a joke.
However, I’m not sure Calvinism qualifies as an issue of personal conscience like some of the issues I raised in the article, but the principle may apply some.
Ergun Caner and James White have both, in my opinion, tended to engage in inflated rhetoric and demonization of their opponents. I think the kingdom would benefit if BOTH of them turned down their rhetoric a little.
There went another can o’worms.
Tom, CB is right on this one. We were engaging in a little banter about “stirring the pot.”
To clarify, CB is sometimes right, but only when he is NOT talking about football or the SEC.
Tom Parker,
The truth is, I don’t know if a debate would end the issue. It seems there are some very systemic issues at play in that little set-to. But maybe you are right. Who knows?
I do see the traits of an antagonistic personality in some of the things James White has done. Yet, maybe he is not an antagonist. I said earlier I do not know him well enough to call him such beyond question.
Dave Miller:
I’m very sorry you and I did not stay in agreement for more than an hour. I do not believe James White has a personal vendetta against Ergun Caner.
CB, said:”I do believe James White is obsessed with all things Ergun Caner. He is still harping about a debate that did not occur all the way back in 2006. It is also my opinion that he has taken his obsession to the level of vendetta again Ergun Caner.”
CB said the following:”I know Ergun Caner well enough to say he is not a legalist. I do not know James White well enough to say he is an Antinomian.”
Notice at least nothing derogatory against Ergun Caner but nothing nice about James White.
Ok, Dave you agree with CB, so now I disagree with you and CB.
A personal vendetta is a mighty serious charge. Can either of you prove this charge?
CB:
How will we ever know if they do not have the debate?
Today, I find myself in agreement with Bruce Harp and Dave Miller at the same time.
Maybe I am in a time warp. Is this a leap year? No. Could it be that they are both seeing the light after all this time. Yes, that is it. My labors have not been in vain. Except of course, to convert them to the SEC. There I am a failure.
For some reason I think that a debate would not satisfy James White, nor the other Founders type Calvinists, nor Tom Parker.
David
Tom Parker,
Notice again the way I constructed the statement relating to Dave’s question about Caner being a legalist and White being an Antinomian:
“I know Ergun Caner well enough to say he is not a legalist. I do not know James White well enough to say he is an Antinomian.”
Tom Parker, how is that statement derogatory or nice for that matter? It is merely an answer to Dave’s question.
Here’s my problem. Look at Tom Parker’s comments. They focus on how the problem is caused by Ergun Caner. Look at Vol’s comment. It focuses on how James White is the problem.
This is the kind of myopic thinking that causes us to separate into camps and fight. I would guess that if we could understand the full truth, Ergun Caner has made some comments and displayed some attitudes that perhaps he should not have. And James White has made some comments and displayed some attitudes that perhaps he should not have.
It is the attempt to make one side wear white hats and the other to wear black hats that gets us into trouble.
To clarify, I get the impression that James White does, in fact, have a “thing” about Ergun Caner. But I also think that Dr. Caner has made comments that are inflammatory and unnecessary.
I don’t disagree with you, as such. I just think that there are two sides to this thing and that both sides have a point and both sides have made some mistakes.
We’re not singing Kumbaya now, are we?
You almost had me singing Kumbaya until you mentioned the hats. Which side get’s the black ones? I’m going with them!
Hmm, the comments have swung all the way from antinomianism to the disreputable qualities of “Founders type Calvinists”. Who could have predicted it?
I wonder how long before NCTers become the new SBC bogeymen? I can already see the campaign beginning.
I would like to see anyone willing to throw out a charge of antinomianism to please list which of the over 600 OT laws we are required to keep. It will never happen.
Dave: You are on a streak. If you continue to show such good sense and wisdom, it won’t be long before you become a Red Sox fan. Thou art not far from the Kingdom of Fenway.
I’m trying to clarify what I’m saying here. Both sides in this ugly debate seem to view the other side as the enemy. There are blogs on which anyone who disagrees with the author is viewed as the enemy and is treated as such. That is unfortunate.
I do not believe that James White is an enemy of the gospel. I don’t think Ergun Caner is an enemy of the gospel. Frankly, I’m not sure I’d want to golf with either of them. They seem to be two very intense and ideological men.
Caner views Calvinists very harshly – there is very little grace in his statements about Calvinists. White is pretty harsh about Caner and people like him as well.
A debate between them might be a ratings-grabber. But a conversation, some grace and a time of fellowship might be more valuable to the Kingdom.
Dave,
Bart has it exactly right when he writes:
“Or, just perhaps, Les believes firmly in tithing, launched a conversation about tithing, and in the midst of it, discovered to his horror that some people arguing against tithing were doing so as antinomians, which he considered a matter far more grave.”
The overarching issue in my debate is the place of the OT in the life of the Christian. The debate began with tithing but, to me, it has ended up as a debate about the place of the entirety of scripture in the life of the believer. I have had experience with the Churches of Christ in Texas who maintain that the OT is no longer valid as scripture and only the NT is truly the Bible. I have seen those dear people reject the use of musical instruments in worship because there is no mention of using musical instruments in the NT. Their erroneous view of the Bible has led to many other such practices which results in a sort of NT legalism instead of a balance between grace and truth as Jesus was described.
One commentor said he was “shocked” that I would maintain OT tithing was still binding on the Christian. I can honestly say that I was equally shocked when I began to hear believers disregard the biblical teaching of tithing, which includes the OT.
From my conversations with people on tithing and the greater concern which I see of the apparent removal of the OT as valid scripture, I am deeply concerned about the future of the SBC. One of the tenets of proper biblical hermeneutics is that we should examine “the entirety of scripture,” not just cherry pick verses to form doctrine. The entirety of the Bible must include the OT. The OT was the Bible of Christ. The OT was the Bible of 2 Tim. 3:16-17. The OT was the Bible of Heb. 4:12.
And for those who say that the charge of “antinomianism” is false, perhaps you do not understand the definition of the word. It means those who believe that OT law is no longer valid on the NT believer. And as I perceive it, that is exactly the position that the author of this post as well as others who have attempted to explain away biblical tithing, are taking.
I appreciate the author of this post and respect his right to disagree with me or anyone else. However, I feel it is my duty to inform you of the “slippery slope” on which you have entered. It would not be loving for me not to do so. For those who accuse me of judgment, perhaps they need to undertake a biblical study of judgment. My outspoken concern is not judgment; it is love.
Regards to all,
Les Puryear
Dave,
I understand what you are saying about “camps.” At the same time, I believe there will always be various camps and I do not think it is always due to shortsighted (myopic) thinking.
I often agree with you. I actually and often agree with David Rogers. (I just refuse to admit it) But almost always I agree with Vol. Why? part of it is a regional-cultural thing. Part of it is we were both part of the CR and simply know things as they happened and as they were and are. We also know the players in the game which is always important in matters of discernment. We are also products of a specific group of educators who were very strong about teaching the various disciplines of theology such as biblical, practical, systematic, etc. They were also experienced churchmen who spent more time than most teaching us a biblical ecclesiology.
Then there are two other reasons Vol and I will usually always find ourselves in agreement even if we find ourselves the only two in the room (or comment thread) that think like we do:
1. We are both of the SEC.
2. We are both brilliant to the point of genius and beyond.
Les, do you eat ham? Do you wear blended fabrics? I’m guessing you do not boil a calf in its mother’s milk.
By your definition we are all antinomian to some degree. I’m not sure your definition of antinomian would be considered as authoritative by everyone.
By your definition, I think that Paul the apostle was antinomian.
But I think that those who would enforce Jewish law as binding on New Testament christians have a flawed view of the Lordship of Christ and the inner workings of the Spirit. Those who have the Spirit indwelling have a “law” in their hearts.
I don’t need someone enforcing the Law from the outside because I have the Spirit working inside.
One blogger ridiculed those who would pray and ask God what they should give. But that is EXACTLY what the Bible says we should do.
My dad used to quote 2 Corinthians 9:7 every Sunday before the offering. It says, “Each of you should give what he has decided in his own heart to give, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” We have to make a decision under the Lordship of Christ, not in grudging obedience to an Old Testament law.
Bill,
Antinomianism really is not the keeping of the law versus living in grace.
Antinomianism is about taking license relating to both law and grace and the lack of understanding or rebellion to both.
Andrew, maybe all of us IMPACT contributors ought to show up to Orlando in June wearing black hats.
Les, CB and all,
I would say a couple of things.
1) I think that defining “antinomianism” is about as easy as defining “hyper-Calvinist.” There is a general accepted connotation, but the specifics of this are difficult.
2) As I said to CB above somewhere, we Baptists need to do a lot of work on the relationship between the OT and the NT.
There are some who seem stuck in the OT with its laws. (I’m not saying that about you, Les). There are others who seem to jettison the OT almost completely. We need to study, discuss and define the way that we relate to the OT law.
I guess that is a little bit of a pipe-dream.
I find it hard to believe that anyone could read carefully what Dr. Köstenberger has written (and observe his life and example as a humble and godly scholar and teacher) and come to the conclusion that he does not, in his research and writing, diligently seek to understand, exegete conscientiously, and submit completely to the revelation of God’s will for us as Christians through Scripture.
I have read bits and pieces here and there. But, I am not sure if anyone is still calling Dr. Köstenberger an antinomian. Also, I am aware there are different shades of meaning, and nuances, attached to the term “antinomian.” But, I think we must be careful, whenever we throw around terms like that, describing someone else, that we don’t misrepresent them.
Dave Miller,
Thank you for your original post and your comment to Les in #60. As one who definitely leans toward New Covenant Theology, I am distressed by the consistent misrepresentation of the NCT position regarding the OT. I have attempted to demonstrate to Les and others what I believe, but to little avail. My desire isn’t that they agree with me, simply that they accurately understand and present what I believe.
While I do not believe that the Mosaic Code is the binding rule of life for NT believers, that does not mean that I am lawless. I do not preach license. I believe in biblical morality and standards. I believe in right and wrong. And I came to the conclusions I have, not by ignoring Scripture, but by diligently studying it. I am not antinomian (which literally means “against law”). I believe the OT law is beautiful and perfect and a valid representation of the holiness and righteousness of God. I believe it reveals sin and drives us to Christ. I preach it as such. I simply believe that, as a rule of life, it has been superceded by something better.
Let me also say that I appreciate CB’s definition of antinomianism. By this definition, I am nowhere near antinomian. Unfortunately, Les has a different definition. He actually posted several different definitions of antinomianism, only one of which partially applied to my position. And yet,according to his most recent definition, I am an antinomian. As long as we are working with different definitions, I don’t know that we’re going to make much progress.
I don’t know the policy for posting links here, but I think it would benefit everyone to see a fair, accuarate summary of the NCT view of law. This is provided by John Piper (who Les Puryear interestingly used a quote from in his defense of tithing), who admits that, while not completely in the NCT camp, he certainly leans toward an NCT view of OT law in the life of believers.
Hope this helps us:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/2006/1439_What_does_John_Piper_believe_about_dispensationalism_covenant_theology_and_new_covenant_theology/
That is one of my chief complaints, David. Disagree with Croteau and Kostenberger? Fine. But to call their paper antinomian or in some way outside the boundaries of faithful Baptist doctrine? I find that untenable.
Well said.
David Woodbury,
Thank you. I think your link works. Frankly, I have to admit that I am not very clear in my understanding of New Covenant Theology. I know that it is the new “whipping boy” term for some of the guys who are promoting storehouse tithing. I need to read up on it and try to understand the position better.
Dave Woodbury,
Interesting read. If that is an accurate definition of New Covenant Theology, I am probably not far from NCT. I certainly do not think it is the devastating insult that some bloggers have turned it into.
One more thing. We’d love to have you be a regular commenter here, but we have reached our quota of Daves. I’m Dave here. David is Mr. Rogers (in this neighborhood). Vol is what we can commenter David Worley. So, if you comment here, you will probably have to be “Woody” or something like that.
Dave Miller:
Les Puryear now says the following about his website:”An Antinomian-free zone!”
Is that not silly or what?
Bill, comments about the Red Sox are not appropriate on a Christian blog.
My given name is actually Daviss (yes, 2 s’s…it’s a family name), so I’d be glad to be Daviss from now on.
Also, I found this nugget: according to Webster “antinomian” is defined as follows – “a believer in the Christian doctrine that faith alone, not obedience to the moral law, is necessary for salvation.” By that definition, I would hope we’re all antinomians.
Guys, I’ve got to go to a concert. Play nice.
Dave Miller:
You said the following:”Les, do you eat ham? Do you wear blended fabrics? I’m guessing you do not boil a calf in its mother’s milk.
By your definition we are all antinomian to some degree. I’m not sure your definition of antinomian would be considered as authoritative by everyone.
By your definition, I think that Paul the apostle was antinomian.
But I think that those who would enforce Jewish law as binding on New Testament christians have a flawed view of the Lordship of Christ and the inner workings of the Spirit. Those who have the Spirit indwelling have a “law” in their hearts.
I don’t need someone enforcing the Law from the outside because I have the Spirit working inside.
One blogger ridiculed those who would pray and ask God what they should give. But that is EXACTLY what the Bible says we should do.
My dad used to quote 2 Corinthians 9:7 every Sunday before the offering. It says, “Each of you should give what he has decided in his own heart to give, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” We have to make a decision under the Lordship of Christ, not in grudging obedience to an Old Testament law.
”
Dave, I would love to hear Les’ response to you but I do not think he takes kindly to anyone who holds a different position than his on “storehouse giving” and I seriously doubt he will respond to this Blog, and I always thought the concern in the SBC was over Liberals. Go figure.
David Rogers,
I would like to say something relating to your comment #64.
My life intersected with that of Andreas Kostenberger from time-to-time over a period close to ten years.
I found him to be a quite man given to teaching NT and Greek to students of various programs from B.A. to Ph.D. He is diligent in his research of Scripture and theological truth. He is given to very little foolishness and goofing off. I doubt he even knows the rules of American football. He would probably turn down tickets to the SEC playoffs in favor of going to the ETS meeting. I realize that is strange, and warped, but not all people grasp the important things of life as do those of us in the SEC. He knows very little about lawn mowers.
I can assure you he is a theological conservative and cannot be accurately called an antinomian. In reality, he has far more in common theologically and philosophically with the one who challenged him than he does with the one who claimed to be defending him. I guess life is just funny that way sometime.
Dr. Kostenberger is not an antinomian. (And yes, I know what one is.)
He is doing a good job at SEBTS. He deserves the title: Baptist Educator. He is one.
Tom Parker,
I would like to ask you two questions hoping you will answer them.
1. Was your father a Baptist pastor?
2. Are you under forty years old?
Tom, I disagree with Les on this issue. But I do not have to consider him evil, shady, ungodly or anything else to disagree with him. Its one of my main points. Les has done nothing except advocate an idea I think is wrong. That doesn’t make him a bad person.
Why do you have to denigrate Les to disagree? Why do some of the storehouse tithing advocates have to question the Baptist bona fides of those who teach something different?
Why can’t we have these discussions with grace? Why can’t you just say, “I disagree with Les.”
Dave,
Once again, you have hit the nail on the head. Many thanks for your clarity. Disdain and condemnation have no part in the lives of those who claim Jesus Christ as Lord no matter the issue. Paul speaks of maturity and grace which comes from diligent study and application of God’s Word.
I see too much of “following the tradtions of men…” among Southern Baptists.
Thanks, Andrea. See you in Pella?
Dave Miller:
I disagree with Les and I disagree with you that Les’ position on “storehouse tithing.” has no serious implications for the SBC. His name calling is uncalled for. Do you support him in that, Dave?
CB: Maybe you and I could just agree to disagree on everything, I will not answer your questions.
Dave, see how agreeably disagreeable I can be.
BTW where did I call Les”evil, shady, ungodly or anything else to disagree with him.”
Good evening. Even when I agree with you, you find something to be critical of me for, Dave. Go figure. I think I know why?
CB,
Though I have not known him as long as you have, I did have the privilege last year of sitting under Dr. Kostenberger for a couple of PhD seminars, as well as spending an evening in his home, with the rest of the cohort students, as a recipient of the gracious hospitality of him and his wife. From what I have been able to observe, I can affirm everything you say in your comment #74.
I do not know Dr. Croteau. But, I would be very suprised if one could not make the same general observations related to him (i.e. in regard to his character, and conservative theological credentials).
Yes, I will be at Pella!
I’m actually just discussing, Tom. It seems to me that you tend to look for the worst in conservatives. Just my opinion. If I misjudged you, you have my apologies.
As I understand it, much of the research for this came from Croteau. My son had him in class at Liberty and thinks the world of him.
When you say, Dave, that “Les has done nothing except advocate an idea I think is wrong” you omit mentioning that he did do something in addition to advocating an idea. Pastors have wrongheaded ideas every day. A few may feel like theirs should be enforced in our common work.
We can certainly have these discussions with grace, while at the same time saying “I disagree with Les and with his effort to call into question the job of one who disagrees with him.” His own words cannot be ignored here.
William, I understand there are a lot of feelings about that whole incident, but I’d just as soon leave that mess to other blogs that like to pick the bones of issues like this.
I think Les is wrong on the issue of tithing. Therefore, I think he was wrong to make an issue of this. On the other hand, the genius of a connectional polity is that each of us has the right to advocate our views.
I’d rather we discuss the issues themselves.
We’ve already opened many cans of worms, William. Assuming you read my post, you will, I think, realize that I am in full agreement with your statement.
My basic position is what David Rogers stated above – Croteau and Kostenberger should be prized for the quality of their biblical scholarship, not threatened for it.
On the other hand, if Les really believes they are wrong, he has the right to challenge them.
Tom Parker,
If a one-eyed, randy goat read this comment thread and knew nothing of either one of us and he had an honest heart; He would have to have to say I have made every effort to be cordial with you here today. On the other hand, and in my singular opinion, you seem to be more cantankerous today than a gut-shot bear–Not only toward me, but to everyone you have interacted with all day long here. Why that is I don’t know.
Did someone kill your pet skunk or did they feed your Toy-Poodle to a Pit bull?
Well, be assured it was not me. I have shot most everything that walks or crawls, but I have more sense than to shoot a skunk in the house and I would never feed a Toy-Poodle to a good Pit-Bull. It might make him a pansy and a pansy Pit-Bull is worthless.
I did not ask you when you stopped beating your wife or did you get convicted the last time you were were arrested for selling drugs at the elementary school in your neighborhood.
I asked you two simple questions. You do not have to answer, but there is no reason here today for you go postal on everyone.
A one-eyed randy goat?
What about the hats?!?
Andrew, did you see comment 62?
I read every comment and I just have to compliment you boys (and Andrea) on all the big words you know. I have no idea what any of you are talking about, but I sure felt bad when the Tomster left in a little snit.
KidSister,
Thank you for the fine compliment. I don’t know about all the other fellows, but the reason I had to learn big words is because I live in the number one FOOTBALL CONFERENCE which hosts the greatest of all FOOTBALL NATIONS. Naturally I am talking about the SEC. Citizens of the SEC have to learn big words so we can brag on our personal FOOTBALL NATIONS and not be redundant using the same words over and over to glorify them as much as they deserve. I especially have to learn more and more big words because I am of the SABANATION and you know what that means , I am sure. We are the greatest FOOTBALL NATION on earth and just saying that all the time gets boring. Therefore, the big words.
Antinomianism is really not that difficult to define.
The vast majority of Christians look at the Old Testament recognizing that none of it is salvific, that portions of it are not normative for Christians, and that portions of it are normative for Christians.
For a Christian man to lie with a man as he lies with a woman is wrong. His salvation does not rise or fall on this action, but we nonetheless can say with full authority that it is wrong for him to do so. For a Christian man to fail to honor his mother and his father is wrong.
On the other hand, Christians generally do not regard it as wrong to eat ham or to wear blended fabrics or to neglect the sacrifice of animals. It is not just that our salvation does not rise or fall on these things; more than that, it is that it is not wrong at all to enjoy a pulled pork sandwich. Not wrong at all. In other words, we’re saying that the indwelling Spirit does not have it as His goal to lead Christian believers not to eat pulled pork sandwiches.
The theological understanding for this differentiation between portions of the Old Testament taken one way and portions of the Old Testament taken the other way is the fact that some things in the Old Testament were placeholders for New Testament things. There are things in the Old Testament that were “completed” or “fulfilled” in Christ. We normally refer to these things as the “ceremonial law” and declare all in that category non-normative for Christians. Other things, however, do not fit into that category. It remains wrong for me to murder anyone. Christ’s death on the cross, although it was indeed a murder, did not complete the moral absolute that we ought not to murder. The Holy Spirit will always lead Christians not to murder. Christians may disregard and disobey the Holy Spirit in this matter, but they may never legitimately claim that the Holy Spirit was ambivalent about whether they ought to commit murder or that the Holy Spirit led them to commit murder. We know that the Holy Spirit leads nobody to worship because of what we read in the (still normative) Ten Commandments.
There have been in the past and are today some Christians who reject all of the Old Testament law as non-normative for Christians. They might possible regard murder as a bad thing for some other reason, but to them the Old Testament says absolutely nothing about right and wrong that a Christian is obligated to learn. The fact that the Old Testament teaches such-and-such is entirely worthless as a premise in the argument that a Christian ought to do or ought not to do something.
That is what antinomianism is.
Of course, KIdSister,
I have no earthly knowledge as to why Dave Miller or Bart Barber would have to learn big words, because it would certainly have nothing to do with the FOOTBALL NATION they cheer for. There are just a few ways one can say: LOSER.
Bart, did you happen to look at the link that Dave Woodbury (“Woody” or Daviss) provided in comment #65? It linked to an article by Piper. In it, there is a differentiation between Civil law (for Israel’s government), ceremonial law and moral law. I thought that made some sense.
I am wondering about New Covenant Theology. Don’t know a lot about it except that it is used as an accusation by some bloggers. As it was described in that article, I think it comes pretty close to my position. Is there something sinister about New Covenant theology that I am not seeing?
This whole “law of Christ” thing is hard for me to grasp; the OT/NT thing.
As for the definition of antinomian, I do not quarrel with you. I would guess that like many other terms, that antinomianism is in the eye of the beholder. Les’ definition and mine and yours may have some similarities, but we probably apply the terms a little differently.
What I was trying to say above is that there might be a fairly uniform and standard definition in academic circles, but in more common usage, I think that each of us may tend to use the term a little differently.
Dave,
If it “is in the eye of the beholder” it IS antinomianism.
CB, not to be argumentative, but I will remind you that my Yankees are World Champions, and my Hawkeyes are #1 in the nation. (Okay, its College Wrestling, but still…)
CB, its the definition of antinomianism that I said is in the eye of the beholder.
Bart,
This thing about Christians neglecting to sacrifice animals does not hold true in all cases. Some will still sacrifice an animal even out to five hundred yards and farther back in our prime.
100. I win. Long live the SEC and thge glorious SABANATION.
100. I win. Long live the SEC and the glorious SABANATION.
Three times
Am I going to have to block your IP address? (which I actually have no idea how to do)
NCT has some distinctives that will raise alarms (already happening) in the SBC. They are Calvinistic. They generally hold to plural eldership. They do not believe the Sabbath laws are binding upon Christians, and evidently don’t hold to storehouse tithing. They may, horror of horrors, be moderationists.
RE: The Mosaic Law. Can someone please tell me what category (moral, dietary, or ceremonial) making a rapist marry his victim falls under?
Dave: You are wrong about the Red Sox. Until very recently, being a Red Sox fan was an annual lesson in perseverance in the face of adversity and humility. I fear being a Yankees fan engenders no Christian morals.
Ask Tim Rogers. He can tell you how. He has don it five or six times in the last four years.
I’m blocking Bill, too, CB. That is two Red Sox references today.
Bill, I guess I’m clueless, but what was the reference to making a rapist marry his victim about?
Bill,
There are issues of ecclesiology that are different among NCT folk also.
Thanks for helping me understand some of the lingo of your people. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of Citizens Of The Sac, but it sounds really fun. Is it more of a social society or service organization?
I’m not familiar with Sabanation, but I don’t judge people for their lifestyle choices. I had a friend who also belonged to a fringe group in Wyoming or maybe it was Idaho and they did all their own farming and laundry and for the most part they were self-sustaining and rarely left their compound. But were they happy? You bet they were.
I also have a friend who attends Trekkie conventions and buys expensive costumes on eBay.
Diversity is what makes this world such an interesting place! Awesome.
Hey there KId Sister,
Ahh, it is not Sac. It is SEC. You know; SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE. It’s not Sabanation. It’s SABANATION. And we hate Wyoming and we hate Idaho. (we don’t even eat their potatoes)
We don’t live in a compound. We have conquered the whole world of FOOTBALL NATIONS and left them in shambles. And NO Sabanite would be caught dead at a Trekkie convention unless the Trekkies wanted to commit suicide by football.
Lastly, we are not diverse. We are singular in purpose and devotion: Conquer all other FOOTBALL NATIONS, Leave them desolate, Win the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP.
KIdSister, I don’t mean to be offensive, but are you from France or one of the other sissy countries? It would explain a lot if you are.
KidSister,
There is really no need to be familiar with Sabanation
Blessings,
Chris
Dave: Under the Law, a rapist was forced to marry his victim. Deut. 22:28,29
Chris,
I was off today and this was much fun. Got to get back to work tomorrow. Have papers coming due, folks to see and sermons to ready.
And I need to get this old man some sleep. Lastly, it may be possible that KidSister has placed more upon this old Sabanite’s shoulder far more than he can bear.
Chris, can you imagine for one minute the SABANATION living in a “compound” like a bunch of 60′s Hippies? We would rather be vegetarians and play Hockey and Soccer. Perish the thought.
I need some pork B-B-Q, Coke, and a bag of GOLDEN-FLAKE ‘TATER CHIPS and a good nights sleep now and hopefully no nightmares about compounds and diversity.
Bill, I think there is some question about whether rape in in view in that passage, or seduction. In the similar passage in Exodus, it is more clear that seduction, not rape is in view.
Bill, that should have read Exodus 22:16-17
CB, get some beauty rest. Lots of it. Maybe 12=14 hours.
KidSister, I think I pity your brother.
CB, I’m not trying to be the PC police, but I don’t think you’re supposed to refer to people from the country of France as people “from France”. It’s viewed as offensive. I think French people prefer the term “Freedom Fries”.
May I say something? Thanks. I just want to tell you that the bond I feel with our little group here is so strong that I think of you all as family. Do I need to comprehend the conversations that take place here? Of course not. What’s important is that I’m here to help in any way I can.
You’re welcome.
David, I’m going to have to ask you to avoid the snippy comments, k hon? Not what we’re about. Nobody likes a weisenheimer.
Maybe now we can get back to a serious discussion. I think I need to read some stuff on New Covenant Theology and try to wrap my head around it.
Manana!
cb,
My doctor keeps me away from “goldenflakes”, but I can almost smell the sweet aroma just thinking about it. I hope you got a good nights sleep. It looks like there is much work to be done here.
I’m looking forward to hearing about this new “New Covenant Theology” angle.
I was always taught the “Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good”…..
The Law being holy doesn’t stop the Saint from being holy, righteous, and good, by any means.
Blessings,
Chris
If you want to know more about NCT, read a guy named John Reisinger.
I think Greg Welty of SWBTS has written positionally against NCT.
I think NCT holds a basic tenant that the “Law of Christ” is in opposition to Mosaic Law. In other words; the Law of Christ completely abolishes any validity of the OT laws, including the moral law.
Good hunting, see you in a couple of weeks.
cb
Just to clarify, and for those who did not see or did not take the time to click the link I posted above, this is an honest (I believe) and fair representation of NCT by Joh Piper (who admits that he does not fall firmly in the NC camp, but leans toward their understanding of the OT law as it relates to believers):
New Covenant Theology
New covenant theology typically does not hold to a covenant of works or one overarching covenant of grace (although they would still argue for only one way of salvation). The essential difference between New Covenant Theology (hereafter NCT) and Covenant Theology (CT), however, concerns the Mosaic Law. CT holds that the Mosaic Law can be divided into three groups of laws–those regulating the government of Israel (civil laws), ceremonial laws, and moral laws. The ceremonial law and civil law are no longer in force because the former was fulfilled in Christ and the latter only applied to Israel’s theocracy, which is now defunct. But the moral law continues.
NCT argues that one cannot divide the law up in that way, as though part of the Mosaic Law can be abrogated while the rest remains in force. The Mosaic Law is a unity, they say, and so if part of it is canceled, all of it must be canceled. On top of this, they say that the New Testament clearly teaches that the Mosaic Law as a whole is superseded in Christ. It is, in other words, no longer our direct and immediate source of guidance. The Mosaic Law, as a law, is no longer binding on the believer.
Does this mean that believers are not bound by any divine law? No, because the Mosaic Law has been replaced by the law of Christ. NCT makes a distinction between the eternal moral law of God and the code in which God expresses that law to us. The Mosaic Law is an expression of God’s eternal moral law as a particular code which also contains positive regulations pertinent to the code’s particular temporal purpose, and therefore the cancellation of the Mosaic Law does not mean that the eternal moral law is itself canceled. Rather, upon canceling the Mosaic Law, God gave us a different expression of his eternal moral law–namely, the Law of Christ, consisting in the moral instructions of Christ’s teaching and the New Testament. The key issue that NCT seeks to raise is: Where do we look to see the expression of God’s eternal moral law today–do we look to Moses, or to Christ? NCT says we look to Christ.
There are many similarities between the Law of Christ and Mosaic Law, but that does not change the fact that the Mosaic Law has been canceled and that, therefore, we are not to look to it for direct guidance but rather to the New Testament. For example, England and the US have many similar laws (for example, murder is illegal in both countries). Nonetheless, the English are not under the laws of America, but of England. If an English citizen murders in England, he is held accountable for breaking England’s law against murder, not America’s law against murder.
The benefit of NCT, its advocates argue, is that it solves the difficulty of trying to figure out which of the Mosaic laws apply to us today. On their understanding, since the Mosaic Law is no longer a direct and immediate source of guidance, we look to the Law of Christ for our direct guidance. Although the Mosaic Law is no longer a binding law code in the NT era, it still has the authority, not of law, but of prophetic witness. As such, it fills out and explains certain concepts in both the old and new covenant law.
Daviss explanation of NCT is part of the point I was trying to make. It is very convenient to break up the Mosaic Law, something never done in scripture, and put the things we like in one category (moral) and the things we don’t like (or don’t intend to keep) in another (ceremonial). However I think an honest reading of the entirety of the Mosaic Law is going to reveal a lot of uncomfortable laws we can’t easily drop into the “ceremonial” category.
Dave: I don’t agree that seduction is in view here, but even if it was, are we expected to force marriage upon them? (after the father is paid off, that is). How does anyone jam this square peg into a ceremonial round hole? And how does tithing in support of the Jewish Temple and priests NOT fall into the ceremonial category?
If we now partake of the Law (after Christ has finished His work) we misunderstand why the Law was given in the first place. Storehouse Tithing is a wonderful example. If Storehouse Tithing is the goal, then one misunderstands Acts 2. Storehouse Tithing was in its time bound up in the Law and is holy,…it no longer points us to Christ…but with great value, in Christ, the principle is alive and well. So the Spirit causes us to give all that we have…
Acts 2:44-46 And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; (45) and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. (46) Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart,
We now partake of Christ, not the Law. To partake of Christ is the opposite of Antinomianism. To live as thought the schoolmaster is Christ,… is sin….because faith has come. And whatever is done without faith is sin.
That is Paul’s point….
Galatians 3:23-27 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. (24) Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. (25) But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. (26) For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. (27) For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
Now that is living under Christ’s Lordship and not Baptist rules.
Blessings,
Chris
RE: NCT
1) This part makes a lot of sense in Daviss’ link to the Piper paper above.
“No, because the Mosaic Law has been replaced by the law of Christ. NCT makes a distinction between the eternal moral law of God and the code in which God expresses that law to us. The Mosaic Law is an expression of God’s eternal moral law as a particular code which also contains positive regulations pertinent to the code’s particular temporal purpose, and therefore the cancellation of the Mosaic Law does not mean that the eternal moral law is itself canceled. Rather, upon canceling the Mosaic Law, God gave us a different expression of his eternal moral law–namely, the Law of Christ, consisting in the moral instructions of Christ’s teaching and the New Testament.”
There is an eternal moral law for which the Mosaic law was an expression unique to the Jewish nation and their covenant.
The Mosaic law was abrogated by Christ, but the eternal law is still in effect, but now expressed in the law of Christ, written on our hearts by the Holy Spirit.
I think that expresses my views pretty well, and explains why the fulfillment of the Jewish law by Christ releases us from the Law, but not from the moral imperitives of the Eternal law.
2) I also think there is a lot of wisdom in questioning the neat and clean division of the Jewish Law into categories of “civil, ceremonial and moral”.
3) On the other hand, as I have been reading other NCT sources, I’ve seen some things I question – like their treatment of the nation Israel (sorry, my futurist/Pre-Trib views coming through) and a few other things.
I think NCT has some very attractive insights, but I’m not ready to declare myself an adherent.
Isn’t Benji Ramsaur NCT? Where has he been?
Bill, no, I think we are in agreement that Jewish laws should not be applied in that way. No quarrels here.
Chris said, “To partake of Christ is the opposite of Antinomianism.” I think that is the thing that confuses the most about Les’ position, and that of those I have known through the years who argued similarly. The idea seems to be that if we do not have the Jewish Law to guide us, we will run free.
I think what we need most today is perhaps a “Lordship of Christ” resurgence, and a “power of the Spirit” resurgence. If we walked in obedience to Christ in the fullness of the Spirit, antinomianism would be irrelevant and the need for the GCR would be gone.
Bill said: “It is very convenient to break up the Mosaic Law, something never done in scripture, and put the things we like in one category (moral) and the things we don’t like (or don’t intend to keep) in another (ceremonial). However I think an honest reading of the entirety of the Mosaic Law is going to reveal a lot of uncomfortable laws we can’t easily drop into the ‘ceremonial’ category.”
Yes, I concur that there is always a danger when sinful people attempt to take divine commands and classify them into human schema. I think that we are vulnerable to that danger whether we’re talking about taking the Old Testament and classifying it into ceremonial, moral, and civil laws; or whether we’re talking about taking the New Testament and classifying it into primary, secondary, and tertiary doctrines.
Good one, Bart! But I separate New Testament doctrines on a scriptural warrant, I believe. 1 Corinthians 15:3 defines doctrines related to the gospel as “of first importance.” Doesn’t that imply a variation of doctrinal importance?
Paul also, in Romans 14, defines some issues as “opinions” thereby separating them from fundamental doctrine.
So, there is some warrant for differentiation of doctrine, isn’t there?
And we all do that by necessity.
If you and I disagree on the Triune nature of God, we have a problem.
If you believe that the church will go through the tribulation, we can sit and argue but we would treat that difference differently.
So, 1) There is biblical warrant for differentiation of doctrine.
2) There is practical necessity for it.
We all do it. The only question is assigning the doctrines.
Bart,
Precisely because of the New Covenant principles of submitting to the Lordship of Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, willful disobedience to any command of Christ—whether “primary,” “secondary,” or “tertiary”—is not an option for us as Christians.
It does not follow, however, that all of the instructions of the NT are equally clear, nor that they have equal consequences in their overall relationship to the core of the gospel, and the factors we must take into consideration, when thinking about how we might best show forth the unity of the Spirit with those who have confessed faith in Christ, just as we have, but who, for whatever reason, interpret certain particularities of the NT differently than we do.
If anyone else is interested in New Covenant Theology, the Master’s Seminary devoted an entire journal issue to NCT. Many of the articles are available as PDFs.
http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj18j.pdf
http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj18f.pdf
http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj18h.pdf
http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj18k.pdf
I’m no genius, but I’m guessing if you put different letters after the tmsj18, you might get other articles.
David: Good point. Some other things to consider when looking at the various doctrines and whether a diversity of viewpoints is acceptable for continued cooperation.
1. Can the diverse views come from a reasonable exegesis of scripture? Opposing views can certainly not both be right, but can they be come by honestly?
2. Secondly, is being in error on the particular issue a hindrance to the Gospel?
If the answers are yes, and no respectively, then a diversity of viewpoints is acceptable and within the bounds of cooperation.
In my own opinion, eschatology, alcohol, comp/egal, the Law, open/close/closed communion, baptismal administrator, cessationism, the age of the earth, and how bad the Yankees stink, all fall within this rubric.
Dave, for example, is mostly right about Calvinism, alcohol, tithing, and deaconesses. He is wrong about dispensationalism and the Yankees. I could work with him.
You are walking a tight rope, there, bubba. I can disagree on many things, but to me, there is nothing secondary or tertiary about the greatest sports franchise in history (27 WS championships!)
On other issues, I agree with you.
Wow, I just got one of my comments sent into moderation. As the author of the post, and a contributor here, that is kind of a blow!
I’m going to go in and try to sort it out.
Got it! I guess the links on #132 tripped some sensors or something. Maybe it was linking to John MacArthur. Its those anti-Calvinists at work again!!
“I just got one of my comments sent into moderation.”
That’s because you’re starting to sound too much like a moderate.
Ouch, that stings a little.
I’m going to Olive Garden to eat moderately. Anyone want me to bring them something back?
There is no doubt that some portions of the Old Testament are ceremonial. There is no doubt that some portions of the Old Testament are civic. There is no doubt that some portions of the Old Testament are timelessly moral.
There is no doubt that some portions of the New Testament are “of first importance.” There is no doubt that some portions of the New Testament are more clear or more specific than are others.
On these statements, taking them no further than just what they necessarily state, all reasonable people must agree, I think, even if we will differ as to the significance (if any) of those classifications as well as to the proper classification of specific pericopes within those classifications.
My comment served merely to note:
1. The inconsistency of suggesting that the Old Testament must be taken all-or-none while insisting that the New Testament must be “triaged.”
2. But even more than that first point, to highlight the fact that both processes, even if they are necessary, are fraught with peril when we sinful people actually embark upon them.
Bart,
Okay. We both agree that the process can, at times, be messy, and that it is “fraught with peril.”
But, I keep hearing from folks on the BI side of things (if that is a fair enough way to say it) that you have reservations about using the “triage” model. Given we are in agreement on paragraph 1 of my comment #131—
“Precisely because of the New Covenant principles of submitting to the Lordship of Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, willful disobedience to any command of Christ—whether ‘primary,’ ‘secondary,’ or ‘tertiary’—is not an option for us as Christians”
—I don’t really get what the hesitancy is with following the “triage” model. Could someone please explain that to me?
I would strongly agree with your second point, Bart (not that I really disagreed with any of it). But when we do theological triage or try to categorize the Old Testament laws, we need to be careful.
I would suppose that the key to that would be to avoid elevating my personal “pet doctrine” to a level of importance higher than it deserves, or to justify my actions by saying that a certain biblical principle is civil or ceremonial just because I don’t want to deal with it.
We have to be careful.
I would maintain, David, that everyone does theological triage. I think the reluctance of some to accept the triage model is because they do not like the doctrines that have been assigned to secondary or tertiary categories.
I have read enough about NCT now to make a couple of observations.
1) I do not understand why some have used this term as an insult or accusation. I’m not ready to buy into NCT completely but it seems thoroughly orthodox and makes some good points.
2) The whole relationship of the OT and NT is an area of study I need to do a lot of further study and research on.
Dave, thank you for bringing us all back on point. Yesterday the the conversation was veering off course a little and I would have tried to steer everyone back in the right direction myself but I wasn’t sure if it was my place or not.
I don’t blame any one person, I just think some in our group have lost sight of the reason we’re here in the first place which is to have fun and enjoy eachother’s company.
I have been reading through the GCR report and I am encouraged by some of it.
One part of it bothered me deeply, though. There is a section on page 26, which seems to be the words of Ted Traylor, which says, “Even though we are envisioning the stewardship assignment going to state conventions, it is the responsibility of local churches to challenge their people to walk in obedience to God by honoring Him weekly with at least the first-tenth of all income as well as additional offerings to our local churches. Christians need to repent of the sin of not honoring God with at least the first-tenth of their income.”
I wonder two things:
1) Is this an attempt to codify storehouse tithing or is it just Traylor’s opinion? I guess the final report will tell that story.
2) Why do they have to sideline the GCR by establishing as unquestioned revelation that which is a debatable, disputable issue? It’s just silly. Why do we continue to insist that everyone agree on issues like this?
Dave,
I agree,….making such a statement concerning percentages is extremely unwise and undervalues the work of the Spirit. Maybe he will rethink the statement a little.
Blessings,
Chris
In the introductory section, Ronnie Floyd makes the following comment.
I believe with all my heart that God is calling us to return to Him now in deep repentance of our sin, in brokenness over our sin, denying our pride and selfishness and returning to God with complete humility. The boasting, ego, and pride that goes on in our lives, our churches, and our denomination is unacceptable to God. The disunity in our churches and in our denomination is so wrong and sinful. We need to repent and return to God.
I am glad that he focused on the issues of sin and repentance. What the SBC needs is not just a new strategy, slogan, or restructuring, but a genuine experience of renewal.
On page 7, Floyd says the following:
“The result will be the greatest worldwide harvest in human history as God bestows in this final moment an unusual wave of grace upon the world in His final call to every person across the globe to declare Jesus as Lord.”
I have heard this often from preachers, preached as if it were an absolute fact. Can someone tell me where the Bible tells us that before the Second Coming of Christ there will be a massive revival.
I have charismatic friends who believe this, based on prophecies that leaders have given, but is there any biblical support for this?
If giving less than 10% of your income to the church is a sin to be repented of, then we are back under the Law. Welcome to the SBC.
So much for the BFM.
I loved what he said on page 10:
“It is said, “Facts are our friends.” This is true, as long as we pay attention to the facts and do not act as though they are non-existent. If we deny the present reality of where we really are, we are jeopardizing our future and the generations who will follow us. We need to return to God and recommit ourselves to advancing the Gospel to all generations.”
So many tried to stick their heads in the sand and act as if there is no problem in the SBC, as if the statistical issues that have been raised do not really point to genuine problems. If we face the facts, we will be much better off – we can deal with what has gone wrong.
Dave – GREAT post.
One wonders what the SBC will look like in 5-10 years. Will storehouse tithing – both for individuals (to the local congregation) and congregations (to the CP) be mandatory? Will ’5-Point Calvinists’ be expelled from the IMB and NAMB? Will an article be added to the BFM regarding the prohibition of alcohol consumption?
You know what, I think the more extreme elements, while vocal and prominent in the blogging world, are a minority. I think the majority of Southern Baptists, and some of our more prominent leaders now, really want a conservative but not exclusivistic convention.
Maybe I’m just dreaming.
Dave,
I’ve thus far refrained from dropping relevant comments (#55, 89). Now that the comment stream is running its course, I’ll drop in.
I think that some of the banter about legalism is correct but still ignores a real problem. We are certainly commanded to love one another, yet I’ve heard people say things like, “I can love so-and-so, but I don’t have to like him.” This is the wrong attitude. The same goes with tithing/giving.
With tithing there is a terrible attitude that screams “Independence!” We as Americans like to do what we want when we want to, and we don’t like anybody critiquing or criticizing our personal choices, least of all our giving.
Whether you believe in storehouse tithing or not, there is a real problem that drives me up the wall, and it is related to this issue: I hear Christian people complain on the radio, on TV, and in books about how the Church does so little in regard to social ills and caring for the people who make up the Church. Poverty is the big one, but it can touch on most anything. I truly believe that part of the reason churches aren’t doing these things is because they just don’t have the funds for it.
I think studies say that the average person gives only 2% of their income to the church. Whether we are called to give 10% or not to the local church, we are certainly called to support it. And it is going to take more than 2% from each member to support what the churches are doing, and a whole lot more if we want the church to get involved in caring for widows, helping the homeless, etc. like it should be.
The storehouse tithe is a great principle to live by because it can help protect against holding back because the honest truth is that more people are giving less than 10% than are giving more. If we say we are free to give freely and not obligated by the law, why are we so stingy? I fear more people are using this argument to justify their lack of giving than are to fight against legalism in the church.
I wish you had made that comment, Andrew, when more people would have read it.
1) I agree totally about the state of American greed and materialism expressed in its giving. We are one of the wealthiest people on earth – and the stingiest.
I think this is a heart issue.
2) You are also right, if I hear you correctly, that many who say, “I don’t have to tithe” do so with the motivation that they want to keep more of their money and give less – that is dishonorable.
3) My point is that that we are not left with only two options: stinginess or storehouse tithing (imposed as a strict rule). When you examine the early church, there was such a passion for Christ that people gave everything they had and invested it in the kingdom. The NT rule for giving is found in 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, which is each person deciding in his heart what to give – joyfully and not under compulsion. But the only heart that can make a giving-choice which honors God is the one that is sold out to him and invested in the kingdom.
4) The Macedonians, who Paul holds up as an example in 2 Cor 8, gave “as much as they were able and even beyond their ability.” Out of severe poverty they developed a spirit of joy which produced a rich generosity. It was not the imposition of storehouse tithing did that but the Holy Spirit’s free reign within.
So, while I agree with your comment above in its spirit and intent, I would only point out that we are not limited to just the two options. In fact, I think the general stinginess of the American Christian is a sign of carnality, greed and materialism – a love of the world and the things of the world that has caused our love for God to wane.
The solution is not a rule that mandates we move a decimal point. The solution is re-ordered priorities and a renewed passion for Christ.
David,
When applied in a manner that (a) acknowledges that we are under obligation to obey all of Christ’s commandments, (b) is wary of the warning that I have presented herein, and (c) does not elide tier 2 into tier 3 as some are prone to do, I am not opposed to the concept of “theological triage.”
I am not opposed to AK-47s; just to what some people do with them.
By the way, that was why I was so glad to read Floyd’s comments, which I mentioned above in comment 147 about our need for repentance. Ultimately, this is a heart issue.
It will not be solved by the imposing rules but by the renewal of hearts.
I am afraid Bart may have just made it on someone’s watch list.
I am back. To my fellow contributors who thought I had fallen off the face of the earth, this may come as a shock to them that I would post anything.
Reading through this stream, it is amazing that many have “forgetfulness” as to previous postings on the same blog. I understand of course that we have lives to live and do not desire to put extraneous information in finite memory cells – and albeit of anybody to remember anything that I have written previously.
Case in point: Bill in #112 refers to Deuteronomy 22:28-29 as forcing a victim of rape in marrying her rapist as part of the Mosiac law. This is often a red-herring thrown in the mix to invalidate
any OT dictum to benefit NT believers. Not only is that position incorrect, the interpretation of that Scripture is totally erroneous according to every major authority that has ever looked impassively at the totality and context of that Scripture.
I said in response #17 on my posting on March 9, 2009 “The Missing Link: Logic and the Post-Modern Church” http://www.sbcimpact.net/2009/03/09/the-missing-link-logic-and-the-postmodern-church/ the following:
Every major authority disagrees with your understanding of this passage (of Deuteronomy 22:28,29). Deuteronomy 22:25 deals with forcible rape – the man is stoned and the girl is redeemed…Deuteronomy 22:28-29 deals with a chance meeting, liaison, which the Talmud (being the Jewish commentary and one authority of the Torah) suggests is a consensual act which is then “discovered” – she is not screaming “no” and otherwise enjoying the session. Then that couple are now betrothed and married (a shotgun marriage), the man paying dowry to the girls parents, and the price for the couple’s sin is never to be allowed a divorce – in some cases a fate worse than death
. This is an example of “A is not non-A” – the Scripture in 22:25 describes the rape and it’s penalty so that in no way could 28-29 be describing the same act with a different penalty.
Right?
Rob
Rob,
Welcome back! Long time, no see. Don’t make yourself so scarce, okay?
Rob, you need to get back in the rotation.
I’m constantly amazed at the ability of some folks to find stuff that has been previously said on blogs. I will have a vague recollection of something and someone will say, “On June 3, you said…” Wow. I wish I had the search talents that some of you guys have.
If is okay with everybody I plan to. I will contact Bowden, and may even put something in the que.
Rob
Rob, I don’t think you have to get permission. You have been here longer than most anyone else other than perhaps David (and Bowden?) I don’t know who came when. But you get “grandfathered” in.
I’m a grandpa now, so I consider that a compliment.
Rob: I concede the point. In fact, I conceded the possibility of that interpretation to Dave. My point remains. It isn’t a law that we enforce, nor do I believe we would wish to enforce it.
Dave,
If I have my facts straight, it was originally Geoff and Rob who jointly came up with the whole idea of sbcIMPACT. Bowden and I were among the initial contributors they invited to come on board.
Yeah, Bill, I agree with Rob about that passage, but I think your point is well-taken, too.
The OT law has a lot of anomalies, a lot of very difficult passages and many that seem strange to our modern sensibilities.
I’m not sure yet whether I’m with the New Covenant Theology approach to the Law – that the eternal moral law of God, which was expressed imperfectly in the OT Law is now perfectly expressed in Christ, or whether I would go with the standard moral/civil/ceremonial split. Still working through that one.
But I think it is clear that the application of the law is fraught with peril.
We must walk under the Lordship of Christ and in the freedom of Christ – figuring all that in specifics can be difficult.
I am drawn to NCT in some ways. I especially like their treatment of the Eternal Law – OT Law – Law of Christ. Seems to me to have a lot to offer.
But I am not a big fan of their treatment of Israel and the seeming denial of Israel’s place as the people of God. I think they would have a lot of problems with Romans 11 in that one.
Still working through it all.
Dave: Fair enough. I think we have a tendency to overlay our modern cultural norms on scripture. To my mind, if a man wants a women in OT times, he takes her. She may or may not resist, but she doesn’t have the same standing or power that women today have. The example of Ammon and Tamar is instructive here. He wanted her, he took her. At that point all that was left (in Tamar’s mind) was to marry Ammon.
Re: Israel. Frankly this one has always puzzled me. Israel is God’s poeple, God’s people are Israel. It’s just a bigger tent than it used to be.
I probably can’t go there, Bill. I’m one of those old pre-trib (mildly) dispensational dinosaurs. So I still make a distinction between Israel and the Church within the people of God. The relationship of Israel and the church, and the relationship of OT to NT – these are thorny issues we will have to keep working on for a while.
Dave,
I want to give my raw, immediate response to this post.
I feel my heart uplifted and I am so glad for this post.
I wish you would read through the comments, (when you have about 3 hours) and then tell me if we are understanding the ins and outs of NCT correctly. I’m still working through that.
Dave,
I hope this response will help in maybe an indirect way. Allow me to use some quotes from John Owen [1616-1683] from his commentary on Hebrews to explain a portion of NCT. In using these quotes I am not saying that he was a full-orbed NCTer nor am I saying that these quotes do not need to be qualified by other statements of his. However, what he basically says in relation to my points, on the surface at least, is a part of NCT. All of the extended quotes are Owen’s:
1. The Old Covenant and the New Covenant are two distinct covenants.
“…we may consider that the Scripture doth plainly and expressly make mention of two testaments, or covenants, and distinguish between them in such a way, as what is spoken can hardly be accommodated unto a twofold administration of the same covenant…Wherefore we must grant two distinct covenants, rather than a twofold administration of the same covenant merely, to be intended.”
NCT does not believe that the New Covenant is a new administration of the covenant of grace. NCT also does not believe that there are two New Covenants–one for Israel and one for the church–but only one new covenant.
What unifies all NCTers, IMO, is this basic belief: The one New Covenant is a New Covenant.
II. The Old Covenant Law of Moses is a Unity.
“Besides, such was the contexture of the law, and such the sanction of it, (‘Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them,’) that if any thing be taken out of it, if its order be disturbed, if any alteration be made, or any transgression be dispensed withal, or exempted from the curse, the whole fabric must of necessity fall unto the ground.”
NCT believes that the entire Law of Moses is a unity according to Scripture [Gal. 3:10 for example]. Therefore, to introduce the disunity of dividing the law of Moses into Civil, Ceremonial, and Moral categories is without biblical warrant. In other words, NCT believes that the law of Moses is a “package deal” and not a “buffet bar”. There is no such thing, biblically speaking, as taking a portion of the law without taking the whole. It is all or nothing.
This is not to say that there are not Mosaic laws that might be civil in nature [for example]. This is also not to say that the Bible does not emphasize a portion of the law in different places. However, what NCT does say is that the Bible does not present the Mosaic law as containing different lists of laws [i.e., here are the moral laws, here are the civil laws...]. For example, notice how Leviticus 19:18-19 mixes laws together that many would consider to be in different categories.
III. The Entire Mosaic Law has been Disannulled
[Commenting on Hebrews 7:19] “I have proved before, that the commandment in this verse is of equal extent and signification with the law in the next. And the law there, doth evidently intend the whole law, in both the parts of it, moral and ceremonial, as it was given by Moses unto the church of Israel. And this whole law is here charged by our apostle with weakness and unprofitableness, both which make a law fit to be disanulled.”
[Commenting on Hebrews 8:12] “It was the whole law of commandments contained in ordinances, or the whole law of Moses, so far as it was the rule of worship and obedience unto the church. For that law it is» that followeth the fates of the priesthood…Wherefore the whole law of Moses, as given to the Jews, whether as used or abused by them, was repugnant to, and inconsistent with the gospel, and the mediation of Christ, especially his priestly office therein declared. Neither did God either design, appoint or direct that they should be co-existent.”
NCT believes that when the Old Covenant “vanishes” [Hebrews 8:13] the the entire Old Covenant vanishes. Thus the “unified” law of Moses is not directly binding on the Christian in the New Covenant.
IV. The Christian is bound to the New Lawgiver–Jesus Christ
1 Corinthians 9:20-21
NCT believes that there is absolute continuity between the Old and New Testaments. NCT also believes there is absolute discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants.
The Old Testament anticipates the Messiah [in His person, work, and teaching] and the New Testament reveals the Messiah [in His person, work, and teaching]. This is continuity IMO and I would think all NCTers would see this as continuity as well.
NCT also believes that the New Testament [2 Timothy 3:16-17] teaches that the Old Testament equips for good works. Both Testaments teach to be holy as God is holy. However, when holiness is looked at in the context of the Old Covenant, it involves distinguishing between clean and unclean animals [Lev. 20:25-26] whereas holiness in the context of the New Covenant involves not giving in to sinful lusts [1 Peter 1:14-17]. Thus the details as to what holiness means in both covenants are different when looked at in context.
The Old Covenant has vanished and the New Covenant has come. This is discontinuity.
There are plenty of Jesus flavored imperatives that are binding on the Christian via the apostolic writings:
ABIDE in Me. KEEP yourselves from idols. By love SERVE one another. Etc.
“A new commandment I give you” says Jesus.
NCT believes that He who made a propitiation for us also has command[s] for us to obey [1 John 2:2-4]. If someone wants to call an NCTer who desires to only obey the Lamb an “antinomian”, then I think the one they are ultimately insulting is not the NCTer, but the Lord Jesus Christ.
NCT believes that the Old Covenant Law was Holy, but it did not work. It had the effect of putting a “Do not eat” sign on a pizza box. Folks rebel and eat the pizza. Jesus, however, works [Romans 7:1-6].
In Christ,
Benji
P.S. There might be other NCTers who might nuance some things differently than I did, but I do think NCTers hold to the basic points that I made. Also, I think there is room for disagreement concerning the millennium and Romans 11:25-17.
Dave,
CB Scott is right concerning John Reisinger. His book “Abraham’s Four Seeds” is the #1 book that I would recommend someone reading who is interested in understanding NCT. In that book he deals with both Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism.
Dave,
Bart said “We know that the Holy Spirit leads nobody to worship because of what we read in the (still normative) Ten Commandments.”
I think there is one problem in saying this that is found within the Ten commandments themselves.
Part of the justification for believing that the Sabbath has moved from Saturday to Sunday is the idea that the 10 Commandments teach a “one day in seven” Sabbath observance rather than the Sabbath necessarily being on a particular seventh day.
However, in Exodus 2:10 both the Hebrew and the Septuagint puts the definite article before seventh. In other words, I think the Bible itself does not leave wiggle room for a “one day in seven” Sabbath day, but explicitly reveals “the seventh day is the sabbath”.
Now, if one divides the law of Moses up and says that the 10 commandments are the “unchanging” moral law of God, then I think this brings up a serious problem for them. The reason being that one cannot have it both ways.
Either the 10 commandments change or they do not. If they do not change and one says they are normative for today, then one would have to say that the seventh day Sabbath has not changed. However, if they do change, then one cannot make the argument that they are the “unchanging” moral law of God.
Dave,
That should be Exodus “20:10″ above.
I think another problem with saying that the 10 commandments are normative for today and also believing that the Sabbath has “changed” from Saturday to Sunday is this:
Hebrews 4:4 includes the imagery of the seventh day from the creation story to teach us about our eschatological Sabbath rest.
In other words, if the Sabbath day has changed, then we have gone from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week as we await our eschatological seventh day Sabbath rest IMO.
I think the pattern is clear in the Bible. It is always work, then rest. It is never rest, then work.
It’s this way in creation.
It’s this way in the 10 commandments.
It’s this way with Jesus saying to the “laborers” to come and find rest in Him.
It’s this way in the eschatological Sabbath rest.
Benji, thank you for all this. I have to admit that I find myself attracted to at least some of the NCT approach. Others I am struggling with. But it is something I want to explore and look through. The information you have given me will be a great help.