My Interaction in the Emergent Conversation Part 2

I thought I would update all of you concerning my endeavors in the emergent conversation. This is a bit of a long post, but I promise it will be worth the read to get to the punchline. I have been in conversation with a seemingly nice fellow named Joe (his blog may be found HERE) on Jonathan Brinks website, and finally the root of the issue has surfaced. Allow me to share this conversation, but for those who have not read the first installment of this series, please come HERE and read the first installment. Then you will be all caught up and enjoy!

Joe:

Hi Ryan,
Thanks for the thoughtful discussion. I hope to be as gracious to you as you have been to me. Perhaps I should explain... Gen 1:31 is gospel.... Gen 3:15 is the gospel.... much of the prophets is gospel. The gospel is not just confined to the New Testament however, in the New Testament, as the article I wrote shows with a preponderance of evidence, Jesus and his followers (the New Testament authors) redefined the word of God to be the gospel and Jesus. This makes the scripture redemption focused. You must remember that during the period of the New Testament writings, the temple was still standing and many Jews were believers... they were still in transition between covenants Many of them including Paul were still doing temple sacrifices. It was a very different time than now. That is the first point.

Secondly, the strongest argument for the redemptive only position comes from this passage: 2Ti 3:15-17 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, *which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. * (16) All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (17) that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.... Paul states a redemptive purpose in verse 15 and most that quote the passage do not include it and, therefore do not include the relevant context which shows that in Paul's mind it is solely redemptive.

Let's face it, the scripture did not correct the unbelieving scribes and Pharisees. It did not prived them sound doctrine... it did not furnish then for every good work. They were worthless. Just like Ex 21:7-9 is worthless today. None would sell their daughter as a sex slave and claim the bible said they could.

Finally, for me.... the clearest declaration of the gospel is Isaiah 53. The redemptive decrees are more profoundly stated in the Old Testament than they are in the New because there was not a confusion about transitions and Jew/Gentile distinctions.

Ryan:
Thank you for calling me gracious, that is something I would have never thought to hear someone call me (I see myself as a bull in a china shop most of the time) Allow me to attempt gracious discourse once again. I would have to disagree with you. It seemed pretty common that Jesus scolded the Pharisees and the scribes because they should have known the things he was teaching. It was a dark room, the Old Testament, but it was a room fully furnished. Jesus was shocked that they didn’t know these things. Paul went into the synagogues and preached from the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. He didn’t have a new testament with him; only a little bit of it was written. He had Luke because he quoted Luke, but he preached from the Hebrew cannon and showed that Jesus was the Christ. That says that it was all there to begin with. So the scriptures were to conform them to sound doctrine, but they missed it, 2 Tim 3:15-17 still stands on its own beautifully.

Also since it was brought up, no Christian picks and chooses which law to follow. I love every single one of the Hebrew commands. Every single one, because although I am not ethnic Israel living under the civil government of the nation of Israel, every one of those laws show me the nature of God and foreshadow Christ. Every one of those laws, yes, every single one, show me the nature of the father, his attributes, his loves, his hates, his judgments, his mercy, it shows me all these things. They also foreshadow Christ! This is of course harder to see if you deny Penal Substitutionary Atonement, (I’m not saying if you do or not, I don’t know you, but I’m positive that many who read this blog do not) but if you realize the truth of Christ giving his life for sins, all the law is opened up beautifully to show Christ.

Joe:

We do see things differently indeed. I am not an advocate for the penal substitution theory at all.... have not been for a long time and, that is one of the reasons that I am drawn to this blog and like the book Discovering the God Imagination.

Certainly, we do not have to agree but... it seems that you are ignoring the fact that Jesus and his followers completely redefined the term word of God. The emphasis was on gospel... of course Jesus was/is the living gospel. My point is that there are several valid ways to view the biblical narrative and, the one you have chosen does not deal well with much of the New Testament writings. They show eschatological imminence. They show a new way of obedience.... the obedience of faith "hupokoen pisteos." They show a transition of covenants to be finished at the destruction of the temple.... they show an imminent end of the age. Christ is not being shown by a regulation that allows men to sell their daughters as concubines (sex slaves.) The gospel is everywhere in both the old and new testaments but, all of the old and new testaments are not gospel and Jesus and his followers did the redefining not me and a theology that will not deal with that is off the mark.

Me:

How would you deal with the fact that Jesus said he did not come to do away with the law but to fulfill it?

Joe:

Here is a blog article that explains it or, at the very least makes an interesting point about the passage you are speaking of . (Please read the blog by clicking here, to see his point.)

Me:

I did read your blog, and you did neglect much of the teaching of scripture on this. One has always been whether Jew or Gentile admitted into covenant with God by Faith (Romans 4) Faith has always been the way even before circumcision, and it still was faith that united us to God (Through Christ) even in the Mosaic Covenant. What Circumcision was, was a sign of entrance into that covenant. That is all, a sign of entrance. And we do have circumcision today (I will now unveil my reformed roots) We have it in the New birth, where God circumcises our hearts (The New Birth) which is a fulfillment to the promise given in the law in Deut 30:6, "The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live." and also in Jer 31:31-34, "31 “The days are coming,” declares the LORD,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to[d] them,”
declares the LORD.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the LORD,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the LORD.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”

What the sign of entrance into the covenant with God in the church today is Baptism. Baptism is not mans statement to God, but God's statement to man. It is a sign of the covenant given in the new covenant, as we have in Col 2:8-15, "8See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him."

The Scriptures are unified in their teachings. All the laws point to Christ and all the law is fulfilled in Christ. How do you deal with the sacrificial law? What was God teaching them through the sacrifices if it was not that blood had to be shed for the forgiveness of sin as it says in Hebrews 9:22, "Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." And in the Law in Lev 17:11, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life." Jesus fulfilled all of this through his life and death, and the whole purpose of the Law was to show the holiness of God, how far short men fall, and that they must be forgiven, and only by the shedding of blood can they be forgiven, and that there was a perfect sacrifice coming that would once and for all forgive their sins. (Gal 3-4, Heb 8-10)

Joe:

This is going to get too narrow to read.... I have copied your response to a word document and I intend to answer it. In short, you seem to be the one that does not want to deal with what the scripture says... In the passage in Matthew 5, Jesus says, until heaven and earth pass away and all is fulfilled not one jot or tittle will be removed from the law/Torah. Was Jesus just using hyperbole? I don't think so.... a paradigm shift is needed that does not have to construct a covenant between the Father and Son before time... an idea that I might add is questionably biblical but oh so necessary to create the sense of continuity. Anyway, I need to try to figure a way to answer these without using the tree as we will soon be down to one word wide. :)

And finally, we get to the heart of the issue. Did notice that statement? Said Joe, “In the passage in Matthew 5, Jesus says, until heaven and earth pass away and all is fulfilled not one jot or tittle will be removed from the law/Torah. Was Jesus just using hyperbole? I don't think so.... a paradigm shift is needed that does not have to construct a covenant between the Father and Son before time... an idea that I might add is questionably biblical but oh so necessary to create the sense of continuity.” Post modern arguments are not scriptural and they know it. They know that there is no bible to support the changes they propose. What is the warrant for such changes if it is not in the scripture? It must be in their own minds and heart. This is by definition making a god in your own image and likeness, and that would be blasphemy and Idolatry. Postmodern theology is sin and teaching others to sin.