I have an equation in front of me and after puzzling a bit, I remind myself, “Ah, the commutative property,” or “An, the associative property.”

I have a specific little problem, and I bring a larger principle to bear upon it.

In this light, the challenges to Paul’s apostleship are the small problem.

The fact that Christ is the living Word, that a Person is the Truth, that the New Testament is written on our hearts and minds, and that Christians are living epistles, these comprise the larger principle.

The dingy little letters of formal introduction the false teachers have are nothing compared to the bright glory of being a living epistle of Christ.

“Biblical Epistemology,” “Biblical World-View,” and the phrase “Classical Christianity” all serve similar functions. They all sound impressive, and they all sound like there is but ONE, agreed-upon thing called Biblical Epistemology, or Biblical World-View, or Classical Christianity, when in fact there is no such thing. These are all legitimately debatable concepts.

These phrases function as rhetorical bull dozers. They function as a smoke screen for a paucity of troops on the ground. They are a bluff.

That’s why they are so impressive when you hear them used. They really do sound learned.

I’m still not convinced that you are dealing with 2 Cor. 3 in context. The thrust of Paul’s argument in vs. 1-6 is clearly on his own competency versus that of the false apostles. When we jump ahead to chapter 4, the thrust of the argument still falls on Paul’s competency and authenticity as a true apostle. So what are we to make of verses 7-18?

First of all, I should clarify one of my points earlier. Having re-studied Paul’s use of vocabulary, he uses the word “gramma” a number of times. Usually it is translated “letter” and is used in a negative context and in reference to the Jewish people. There is only one time that he uses it in a positive context. In 2 Timothy 3:15, he commends Timothy for his study of the sacred Scriptures (the Old Testament) which were able to make him “wise for salvation.” Paul had a very high view of the Old Testament and never denigrates it. What he attacks are those who base their righteousness on keeping the commands written in there.

When we return to 2 Cor. 3, we have to bear this larger context in mind as well as the immediate context. Paul is really making an analogy–the false apostles and their letters of commendation:Moses and the tablets::Paul and no letters:the arrival of the Spirit.

There are great truths to be mined here in this passage, but any supposed truths here that undermine the authority of the written Word of God are fools gold. To be a minister of the Spirit and the new covenant is to be a minister of the written Word of God. Like Jesus said to Peter, “Feed my sheep,” and Paul said to Timothy, “Preach the Word.”

I just looked through your blog site. You have some good insights to share about pastoring the small-size church, and the dynamics of small to mid-size congregations.

I agree with you, I think starting a new work with new believers has much more potential for growth than an older, established church, for a lot of reasons.

That’s how Mike MacIntosh of Harvest Christian Fellowship (Calvary Chapel) started, and how Robert Schuller of the Crystal Cathedral (Reformed) started. I’m not a big fan of either man, for different reasons. But who am I to judge another man’s servant?

Charles

I haven’t read the entire series, I’m only interacting with this particular excerpt. (Are you really sure you want this? I’m known for being a *little* long in some of my posts!)

Your reply was, “Well written. What exactly is your source of contention with Dr. Macarthur’s writings in this series?”

MacArthur: “Postmodernists are generally suspicious of rational and logical forms.”

I disagree. Most articulate postmodernists are quite capable of rational thought and logical argument. (It sort of comes with the territory.)

For myself, my issues regard systematic or dogmatic theology, which–in a Christian context–are what MacArthur is referring to above. MacArthur did NOT write “Christian postmodernists are generally suspicious of doctrine and systematic theology.”

Many Christians are skeptical of the emphasis placed on doctrine and systematic theology, not just people polluted by this strange, alien thing called “postmodernism.”

Distrust of the claims made for, and the faith placed in, doctrine and theology existed among Christians centuries before postmodernism. Postmodernism is not the “culprit” in this suspicion regarding the absolute necessity for systematic theology, and MacArthur knows this.

He would have us think that Emergent Church leaders are much less influenced by the Bible than they really are, and that ECM people are primarily importing this alien thing called “postmodernism” into the church.

MacArthur: They especially do not like to discuss truth in plain propositional terms.

Steven, you alluded to one of the major problems with discussing “truth in plain propositional terms.” In the Body of Christ, this frequently leads to “quarrel[s] over words and definitions.”

Paul says such quarrels are destructive and fruitless. He told Titus to “Avoid fruitless controversies and genealogies and arguments about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.”

I hope that the discussion we’re having here has not descended to the point of a destructive quarrel. We certainly are not going to split a congregation here in cyberspace.

I have certainly demonstrated my willingness and ability to “discuss truth in plain propositional terms,” reasoning with logic from Scripture.

MacArthur: Postmodernists are uncomfortable with propositions for an obvious reason: they don’t like the clarity and inflexibility required to deal with truth in propositional form

This is a mere, unsubstantiated allegation and simple caricature. Let me morph his statement to one that accurately represents–not all “postmodern Christians”–just me.

Whyte Stonne rejects the faith placed in, and the exalted place given to, systematic theology and dogmatic formulas for an obvious reason: adherence to inflexible theological systems guarantees three things: 1) that one “says” one “believes” all the right stuff, 2) that there will be sufficient stuff to argue about in order to justify perpetuating the divisions of the past, and 3) that there will be adequate “objective” grounds for excluding people from our fellowship and from leadership.

MacArthur: To maintain the ambiguity and pliability of “truth” necessary for the postmodern perspective, clear and definitive propositions must be discounted as a means of expressing truth. Propositions force us to face facts and either affirm or deny them, and that kind of clarity simply does not play well in a postmodern culture.

I have no reason to dispute this, as he supposedly limits his statements to “postmodern culture.” Assuming this is true, then postmodernists would have listened with great interest to the God’s many parables and stories, would not have been “turned off” by the Messiah’s statements which were confusing and lacked clarity, and would have been impressed with how Jesus demanded justice, and spoke the truth to power–which lead to his eventual death.

I think that Jesus “spoke the language” of postmodernists, and that a rejection of the formulas and traditions of fundamentalism and evangelicalism does not constitute a rejection of the Son of God.

I am in favor of a more BIBLICAL concept of truth and ministry.

You have asked me what my point is. Allow me to summarize by repeating some of the highlights, most of which are simply passages from Scripture.

* * * * * * * *

God redefined the nature of truth when he declared, “I am the truth” (John 14:6). In that simple declarative statement, God *expanded* the concept of truth as a merely verbal thing.

Jesus could have said, “I know the truth,” or “I speak the truth,” or “Listen to the truth.” But he didn’t. He said, “I am the truth.” Truth is not merely a logical construct.

Truth is now a person. A human being is the truth. A man is the truth.

“Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”

If story-telling and parables are such an inferior method of imparting truth, then why did our Example of Ministry use them so liberally?

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”

Under the New Covenant God will put the “law in their minds and write it on their hearts.”

The New Covenant will not be like the old covenant.

“The written covenant, chiseled in stone, brings condemnation [death], but the covenant of the Spirit brings life.”

The New Covenant will not be like the old covenant.
“The written covenant, chiseled in stone, brings condemnation [death], but the covenant of the Spirit brings life.”

Here’s a major way devotion to the letter kills: “You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the same Scriptures that testify about me but you refuse to come to me to have life.”

Since the task of Christian ministry is so important, why is it that there is so little [written] on what this “covenant of the Spirit” even is? If you want to be a “competent” minister, it is absolutely essential for you to know what it is.

* * * * * * * *

Please don’t think that I have patched together some incidental theme in Scripture from a handful of verses taken out of context. These are only the Scriptures which came up in this short discussion.

I don’t have a PhD either!