The Logic of Postmodernism
December 13th, 2006
(By John MacArthur)
The following is adapted from John’s upcoming book, The Truth War (Nelson, Spring 2007).
Postmodernists are generally suspicious of rational and logical forms. They especially do not like to discuss truth in plain propositional terms.
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. A proposition is the simplest form of any truth claim, and postmodernism’s fundamental starting point is its contempt for all truth claims. The “fuzzy logic” of ideas told in “story” form sounds so much more elastic—even though it really is not. Propositions are necessary building blocks for every means of conveying truth—including stories.
But the attack on propositional expressions of truth is the natural and necessary outworking of postmodernism’s general distrust of logic, distaste for certainty, and dislike for clarity. 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.
Truth simply cannot survive if stripped of propositional content. While it is quite true that believing the truth entails more than the assent of the human intellect to certain propositions, it is equally true that authentic faith never involves anything less. To reject the propositional content of the gospel is to forfeit saving faith, period.
I’m no avid watcher of the emergent church and the like, but this doesn’t ring entirely true with the objections I’ve heard to “propositional truth”. The kind of thing I’ve come across is not a rejection of propositional truth, but a rejection of over-reduction to only simple propositions. That is, some people don’t want truth that is less than propositionally true, but they want expressions of truth that are more than just that, too. I guess any attempt to write about something like emergent/emerging church/christianity is necessarily generalised, though.
Once upon a time there was a king, and there was nothing more important to the king than for his subjects to love one another.
Frequently the king seemed to have a hard time explaining himself. When he wanted something done, he could be vague and indirect. The noblemen and the king’s advisors, afraid to displease the king, would neither ask for clarification nor act upon the king’s vague and indirect comments.
Now the king had two daughters. The younger daughter could always tell what he wanted, even though he seemed vague and indirect, and she would do it.
The older daughter could also tell what he wanted, but did not want to do it. She told herself, “My father wasn’t clear about what he wanted, so I’ll just ignore him. If it was really important to him, he wouldn’t be so vague and indirect. He’s just going to have to learn to be more direct, and not leave it up to me to figure out what he wants. I’m not a mind-reader.”
Years went by and the old king died. Since the old king did not have a male heir, one of his daughters had to ascend to the throne. The king’s advisors asked each of the daughters to explain why she should be the next Queen.
The younger daughter said, “I knew my father’s heart and carried out his wishes whenever he spoke.”
The older daughter said, “As the eldest, it is my right to be Queen. Furthermore, my father the King was vague and indirect. It was impossible to know what he wanted. This caused his obedient subjects great confusion and frustration. If you select me as your Queen, I will always be clear about what I expect of you. You will never be in doubt about whether or not you have pleased me.”
The advisors met and selected the older daughter to be their new Monarch. At last there was order and clarity in the land.
Has not God (”The Truth”) said, “Pro 4:23 Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it [are] the issues of life.” and “Pro 15:28 The heart of the righteous studieth to answer: but the mouth of the wicked poureth out evil things.” The heart of man (or we can put it this way, ‘who we are truly in our inner man’) is reflected outwardly. Much of what I keep reading in many of the posts concerning ECM and it musings are dealing with what is on the outside rather than dealing with the heart of the issue. Its like going to the doctor with a broken leg and being sent away with ointment that only deals with the swelling that is occuring on the surface but never dealing with what is causing the swelling; the broken leg itself. Dr. MacArthur continues to push the issue back to the real problem that is reflected through the outward symptom (IE: Unbilical living in and outside of the “New” church). If truth cannot be found or is doubted, then God has failed to reveal Himself to us, and we should all doubt whether salvation can be “truly” received. (This of course is an absurd reality) God is and has revealed Himself because He is “absolutly true and knowable”. This is propositional, knowable, truth and must be the starting point from which our practical life (and this debate)must flow. To deny this through practical living shows that the real problem isn’t that truth might be uncertain but a heart that doesn’t truly embrace the Living and True God. You just cannot have it both ways. Pure and santified living (as God has defined it in His absolutly True Word) always flows from embracing the Certain God who gave it to us. My whole point is this: if the outside is swollen, the problem cannot be dealt with through a topical remedy, it must be dealt with at the cause. The cause for ECM’ers is not methodology, that’s the symptom; but the cause is deeper. They are just living out (from the heart) “their definition” of god rather than embracing “God’s definition of Himself as True and Certain”. We live out what we believe in our heart, and if our reflection is not like Christ, it is not because God is “uncertain” it is because we know not God as He revealed Himself. The Apostle John records for us these words of God Himself (Jesus Christ) in John 17:3 “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” THIS IS WERE IT ALL BEGINS AND OUR OUTWARD LIVES ‘DO’ OR ‘DO NOT’ REFLECT OUR EMBRACING OF THIS REALITY!! And by the way, even a little leven, levens the whole lump. To tolerate hearesy at any level is still a deadly practice. People need truth and nothing but the truth or they will not be saved, PERIOD! ECM is just new packaging for an age old problem. The heart is desperatly sick. Jerimiah before that said this, Jer. 17:5 “Thus saith the LORD; Cursed [be] the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.” verse 7 says, “Blessed [is] the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is.” Can we disregard these things and God’s methods because from our limited perspective, propositional truth seems not to work with the world? I think we dare not!!!! Any comments or do I just not get it?
Terry
A Pretend Parable
Once upon a time there was a Land filled with many Brilliant Minds. They devoted themselves to a huge Book, written over thousands of years, which contained the history of God’s dealings with the people of the Land.
Each of the Brilliant Minds of the Land developed a Truth System to explain the Book to the people of the Land. Some Brilliant Minds had a Truth System based on 6 Essential Verses in the huge Book. Other Brilliant Minds had Truth Systems based on 13 Essential Verses in the huge Book. One Brilliant Mind had a Truth System based on 112 Essential Verses.
When the Brilliant Minds competed among themselves, there were Four Key Tests for Internal, Logical Consistency. First, Truth Systems that included more Essential Verses were better than Truth Systems with fewer.
Second, Truth Systems which didn’t contain internal contradictions were better than those which did.
Third, Truth Systems which could explain away Essential Verses which called their Systems into question were better than those which could not.
Fourth, Truth Systems which logically explained the faults in other Truth Systems and defended themselves against the criticisms of the other Truth Systems were better than those which did not.
The major problem the Brilliant Minds had was that each Truth System contradicted the other Truth Systems. Each Truth System was brilliantly assembled by Brilliant Minds, was based on many Essential Verses, was free from Internal Contradictions, could explain away Key Verses which threatened it’s logical consistency, and could stand its own against the Truth Systems of other Brilliant Minds.
Over the years, a few Minds saw a problem. “We have 50 Truth Systems developed by Brilliant Minds, and each Truth System meets the Four Key Tests for Internal, Logical Consistency, but each Truth System comes to contradictory conclusions.”
“Logically,” the Minds concluded, “we see that the Internal, Logical Consistency of a Truth System proves nothing except the prowess of the Brilliant Minds which developed it.
“Second, we see that understanding the history of God’s dealings with the people of the Land is not necessarily enhanced nor effectively effectively communicated by the Truth Systems.
“Third, we must be wary of placing too much emphasis on the Truth Systems developed by the Great Minds. We must individually decide how much valuable time and energy we will devote to understanding the Truth Systems, and we must decide to what degree we will allow the Truth Systems to divide us from other people in the Land.”
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. A person cannot be boiled down to a string of words with the appropriate subjects, verbs, nouns and Scripture citations. To know a person, this particular Person, is to know the truth.
As intellectuals we love to play with words and ideas. God the Messiah, our King and our Brother, is more than an idea to play with. “Messiah,” “King,” and “Brother” are certainly all words and concepts, but Jesus the person is not.
Jesus said, “Come, follow me.” He did not say, “Come, follow me, but first understand that I am the Messiah who will provide vicarious, substitutionary atonement for your sins,” etc.
No. Relationship and obedience come before propositional truths.
Whyte Stonne, nit-picky, I know, but how can God ‘redefine’ something that He just is, and always has been?
Jesus said, “Come, follow me.” He did not say, “Come, follow me, but first understand that I am the Messiah who will provide vicarious, substitutionary atonement for your sins,” etc.
No. Relationship and obedience come before propositional truths.
So, Jesus Christ warning us about false Christs means what, exactly? Without those pesky propositions, how are we to know that it’s actually Jesus Christ we’re following?
Excellent questions Libbie, not nit-picky at all. First, you’re right. God isn’t redefining truth for himself, He’s redefining it for us.
Writers and thinkers have always dominated the life of God’s people, even in the writing of the Scripture.
If written texts had been adequate, then the written record of the Hebrew prophets, psalmists and all should have been adequate. Scripture says, however, “But in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son.” Jesus is the perfect communication and communicator from God.
John I says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”
In anthropomorphic terms I’d put it this way. God saw the inadequacy of mere words to communicate his desires for us, and in order to really communicate what he wants us to be like, he came and set the example of self-sacrificing obedience, speaking truth to authority (religious leadership) when he had no “power base” to back him up. It got him killed.
You asked, “How are we to know that it’s actually Jesus Christ we’re following?”
I think Jesus provides the answer about the best way to learn who he really is.
“And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”
I believe that when we read the Scripture, the Holy Spirit will illuminate its meaning to us. We can learn much from “flesh and blood” in the pulpit and in Sunday School classes, but according to Jesus we are especially blessed when God himself communicates truth like this to us.
Put yourself in the shoes of someone actually listening to Jesus preach back in A.D. 31 or 32. How would you have really known whether this Jesus was the genuine article, whether he was really the Messiah you were supposed to follow?
It would have been a real gamble. All of your trusted religious leaders indicated he was a false messiah, a dangerous fraud who needed to be put to death. They were more learned than you, they had more authority than you: there were lots of reasons for you to heed the Scribes and Pharisees who were obviously against this Jesus fella.
But you are among God’s elect, and the truth of what he says resonates for you. “My sheep know my voice.” Deep inside you know that you don’t dare ignore the man. So you follow him, despite the risk, despite what other people are saying. As well you should.
There is always risk involved in following God. You could be wrong. You could get killed. They might not invite you to give any more devotionals.
Libby, you use the word “following” in your question. I know my posts run a little long, but let me go on a little longer here.
Jesus said, “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other.”
I know Jesus’ application of this concept was to God and money, but I’m confident that as a general concept, the second master doesn’t have to be restricted to money, or Mammon.
Basically, all Christians, especially pastors, are faced with serving two masters: God and the church. All honest pastors will tell you that the demands the churches places on them frequently compete with the leading of the Holy Spirit in their lives, doing the ministry they are called to do.
There is a huge difference between following the real Christ, and learning to conform to the expectations of your local congregation. All the things you see in Scripture which your fellowship completely ignores or grossly disobeys — well, it’s up to you to decide what you’re going to do.
No one can have two masters. You cannot serve both Jesus and church traditions.
Your question: “how are we to know that it’s actually Jesus Christ we’re following?” I would rephrase the question. How do you determine whether your faith community is actually following Jesus Christ, or is following the traditions and structures they inherited from their forefathers?
I Peter says that through the blood of Christ “you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers” (I Peter 1:18).
Any time you sense that your church experience is an “empty way of life” which you inherited from generations long past, then you need to consider whether this is a place where you should remain. It could likely be something you’ve been redeemed from. It is sin.
“Is my community following Christ, or following man-made traditions superficially based on proof-texts?”
Whyte,
I think you just inavertedly illustrated the above article with your parables. Just an observation. (Yes I am being a bit sarcastic but there is no ill will in this sarcasm, just trying to make you laugh a little
Hayden
Libbie,
“How do we know it’s Jesus Christ”
I have a shorter answer than Whyte’s.
“Because the Bible tells me so”.
As far as postmodernism and the belief that there is no real evil, evil depends on each person’s thoughts and environment they are in. I heard Ravi Zacharias once say that he asked an atheist once about this and said, “sir, if I were to take your little girl and bring her up here on stage and hack her to death with a knife in front of everybody, is that evil?”
If you can’t answer “yes” to that you might want to check yourself into a clinic.
White Stonne said:
God redefined the nature of truth when he declared, “I am the truth” (John 14:6).
White, did he define it back three chapters later with his simple declaration “Thy Word is truth”?
IF God ever defines truth for us in words, Whyte, He (even He) has used propositional truth.
Sorry. All your arguments fall apart when God opens His mouth and speaks.
Hayden, I knew there was a “danger” in using the parabolic style. Nevertheless, parables and stories allow something to occur: they’re easy for people to blow off if they are so inclined, like the King’s older sister.
Jesus explained why he spoke in parables, which undermines some people’s demand for propositional truth. If you aren’t inclined to obey God, you can blow off a parable. If you are led by the Spirit of God to accept the truth, then the logic of the message will not come between you and the Speaker.
I use as one point of departure Matt. 13:10ff. The reason Peter was blessed was because it was God who revealed the truth of Jesus I.D. as Messiah. Peter wasn’t persuaded by anyone’s propositional statements, but by the Spirit of God himself.
I don’t doubt at all that my stories affirm what Rev. MacArthur suggests are the fuzzy weaknesses of the parabolic style of teaching. My main question is, “If story-telling and parables are such an inferior method of imparting truth, then why did our Example of Ministry use them so liberally?”
BTW, I specialize in self-depracating humor, so don’t worry about a bit of sarcasm.
Don, yes, I know. My posts run a “little” long. But your answer may be a little simplistic. My basic reply to Libbie was, “How do you know your congregation is following Jesus Christ or merely traditions and structures inherited from your forefathers?”
Most of us here are in no danger of becoming Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons. We are in danger, however, of fitting in comfortably with our “faith tradition,” unable or unwilling to either see the disparity between the New Testament and the churches or sense through the Spirit the incurable failings of Christendom.
Turk, I haven’t denied the existence or value of propositional truths. I simply concluded that entry with, “Relationship and obedience come before propositional truths.”
While we’re on propositional truths, look at Matthew 25, the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. Jesus doesn’t ask anyone, “Why should I allow you into heaven?” In fact, in the Messiah’s own version of who gets into heaven, there is no mention of anything the sheep ever said or believed. This is the “final exam” Jesus describes.
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’”
Jesus’ Great Commission says we are to be “teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” Matthew 28:19-20. There won’t be any qustions about a Pre-millenial or Post-millenial rapture on the final. There will, however, be a behavioral exam.
Turk, please make more use of Scripture in your refutations. I rely heavily on the Scriptures for my beliefs. The Scripture are the primary place to begin. Then we can reason together on their meaning.
You know, I’ve looked in my concordance, and I haven’t found the phrase “propositional truth” anywhere.
What do you think is meant when Jesus says, “I am the truth”? Where did my reasoning fall short?
Bones, I haven’t denied that the Scriptures are true. I am reasoning from the Bible, specifically from a particular statement of the Messiah. “God opened his mouth [to paraphrase Turk] and said, ‘I am the truth.’” Please explain to me what the following two propositional statements mean:
1) A person is the truth.
2) The truth is a person.
I wrote, “God expanded the concept of truth as a merely verbal thing.” I also wrote, “Truth is not merely a logical construct. Truth is now a person. A human being is the truth. A man is the truth. A person cannot be boiled down to a string of words with the appropriate subjects, verbs, nouns and Scripture citations. To know a person, this particular Person, is to know the truth.”
Why is this discussion of the fact that a person is the truth so disconcerting?
Whyte, you’re demanding much more from John 14:6 than that passage seems willing to give you. When Christ said “I am the way, the truth, and the life” He is *not* redefining the nature of truth any more than when He said “I am the door” is He intending to redefine the nature of doors.
It is not “disconcerting” to me that Christ is the truth. To my knowledge, nobody here has claimed that knowing the truth requires *only* accepting propositional truth. But what I find to be terribly disconcerting is that you seem to be using Christ’s statement as a loophole in truth itself to free you from having to deal with the “strings of words” and their “subjects, verbs, nouns” given in the Scripture to plainly reveal truth to us. Christ is God’s greatest revelation to us, but words and their meanings remain of vital importance. As Christ Himself said, “The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life” (John 6:63)
Bones, is that your real name or are you just a fan of Doctor McCoy?
Albert: actually, it’s just a nickname.
I never really watched Star Trek. Honestly, I’m more of a fan of Dr. Henry McCoy than I am of Dr. Leonard McCoy.
Hank McCoy, yeah! Sorry, X-cited outburst.
I’ve gotta say, that first, bold-print paragraph truly describes the feeling I’ve come away with after literally every conversation I’ve had with Emergent pastors in this area, and online. It’s generally unpleasant to have a discussion when every response is “maybe” and if”. Though I know those terms have their place, it isn’t in answer to every question.
Bones, I certainly agree that “Christ is God’s greatest revelation to us, but words and their meanings remain of vital importance.”
I am not liberty “from having to deal with the “strings of words” and their “subjects, verbs, nouns” given in the Scripture to plainly reveal truth to us.” I do, however, dispute the belief that truth is plainly revealed in Scripture. Sometimes the truth is plain, often it is not.
I do, however, believe in the attempt to “declare the whole counsel of God.” The emphasis on “propositional truth,” “objective truth” and the like is frequently at the expense of knowing God. “And this is eternal life, to know God, and Jesus Christ whom he has sent.” Not “knowing about” God, but “knowing God.”
For example, I was disappointed by J.I. Packer’s book “Knowing God,” because as a systematic theology, it was a theological discussion about God, as though knowing about God were the same as knowing God.
I don’t believe that the Scripture reveal truth as plainly as most Christians believe. Your citation, for example, comes from the clarity-challenged John chapter 6.
There is nothing clear about Jesus’ statement, “My flesh is real food and my blood is real drink” (Jn 6:55). What happens to “literal truth” when Jesus says, “I tell you the truth [there’s that word “truth”], unless you eat the flesh of the blood of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (Jn 6:53).
There are more difficult issues in John 6, but this alone is sufficient to demonstrate that while Jesus did say, “The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life” (John 6:63), His words frequently do NOT “plainly reveal truth to us.” The Scriptures themselves attest to this difficulty; you need only look at the disciples’ question, “Why do you speak in parables?”
Whyte, what was Christ’s response to that question, “Why do you speak in parables?” He did not speak in parables to de-emphasize propositional truth, or to show them how they could come to know Him apart from propositional truth. Instead, Christ spoke in parables so that He would proclaim the mysteries of the kingdom only to those to whom it was “given”. (Matt 13)
Rather than equivocating about the truth, we should be proclaiming it, and loudly so. And “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”
Whyte,
Whyte said: “I do, however, dispute the belief that truth is plainly revealed in Scripture. Sometimes the truth is plain, often it is not.”
I’ve been reading your comments and I was wondering what you believed about this. Thanks for making your views regarding the clarity of Scripture “plain.” Let me make a few points.
First, I’ve been preaching and teaching the Bible for 25 years. I admit there are certainly some things difficult to understand! I’m certain it’s my lack of understanding, not God’s lack of clarity. But most of what the Scriptures say, including the parables are quite clear even to me.
Second, there is at the very least a sufficient amount of clarity on major doctrines and moral commands to make it easy for us to know the mind of God on such issues.
Third, and most importantly, we would not know anything of saving value about God, His nature, Christ or redemption apart from Scripture. If this were not true, God would not have divinely directed that His revelation be written down (2 Tim. 3:16-17). The Holy Spirit works through His Word (1 Cor 2). If, as you claim, truth is not plainly revealed in Scripture, at least enough truth to lead us to the Savior and redemption in Him, then we are hopelessly lost.
Thus, any preacher or teacher who stands in a pulpit and tells his congregation that he is not certain about the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith ought to find himself another line of work where his uncertainty will not have such eternally devastating consequences!
For His Glory,
Steve Lamm
My study of church history, Bible and theology gave me several insights. First I learned that what has passed for “Christianity” has varied widely from century to century, from continent to continent, from denomination to denomination. And I knew that God was not going to send a peasant to hell simply because he was born in Catholic France, Orthodox Russia, or Anglican England. A simple peasant would not be condemned to hell because of the dominant theology of the land of his birth.
From my study of American church history, I learned that God blesses ministries which have contradictory belief systems. God blessed the evangelism of both Joseph Whitefield and Charles Finney. Thus, ministry is not totally dependent on one’s doctrinal position, but rather the energizing Spirit of God.
I absolutely do NOT say that it doesn’t matter what you believe. Of course what you believe makes a difference. And in that spirit I steadfastly affirm that the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats is the Messiah’s primary description of the basis for our entry into the kingdom of God.
When a person feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, visits the sick and imprisoned, that person has done so to Christ. That person has “proven” their love for God by serving the least significant people in society.
It is significant that the sheep are totally surprised at their selection by Christ to enter the kingdom. They had absolutely no idea that they were candidates for an eternity with God. They didn’t know why God would choose them. They apparently only doing what seemed natural and right to them.
And–they are not quizzed on Luther’s Small Catechism, TULIP, the Westminster Confession, the Nicene Creed, or even the names of the four Gospels.
Whyte Stonne: Those were the best stories I have read for a long time!
Thank you!
Why thank you, Steffen.
See everybody? Good things can even come out of Denmark!
You polyglots kill me!
Whyte Stonne, who are the “brothers” that Jesus was referring to in Matthew 25?
Whyte,
You are an engaging communicator and have been gracious in so many of your responses. However, it seems to me that you are capitalizing on some of the sensational parts of the Gospels without keeping context in view. When Jesus said, “Come. Follow me,” that was after the fisherman had been exposed to his teaching. As puzzling as John 6 may seem, John declared that the purpose of his Gospel (which was written) is so that people might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. I’ve never heard any solid evangelical say that this only means believing propositions. It is about a person.
As much as we believe that it is the Holy Spirit that illumines the truth to the individual, the church is a body in which there are teachers. It is these teachers who help us see that the parable of the Sheep and the Goats comes after Jesus’ instruction to pay attention to the events that will signal his coming.
I appreciate your heart in wanting to see believers get beyond the facts of catechisms and creeds to living out a vital relationship with Jesus. Let’s just not forsake the one in favor of the other.
Interesting that those who try to shake loose from propositional truth must use it to explain themselves and assert their own propositional truths.
steffen - great to be with you in denmark a few wekks ago. lets not share with everyone here about using propositions in our emerging churches because these people are having too much fun chasing their tails.
George, the brothers mentioned in Matthew 25 would be the elect of God.
Whyte,
I’m wanting to clarify something here when you said: “From my study of American church history, I learned that God blesses ministries which have contradictory belief systems. God blessed the evangelism of both Joseph Whitefield and Charles Finney.” Are you referring to George Whitefield from study of history?
And did you know that Finney’s humanistic approach did much harm to evangelicalism with his semo-pelagianism? Even Finney realized before his death that most of the people who he “sturred up” to “make a decision” for Christ would later simply fall away?
Yhen you say: “Thus, ministry is not totally dependent on one’s doctrinal position, but rather the energizing Spirit of God.” I don’t mean to offend but you defined your proposition as a straw man. No one says ministry is “totally dependent on one’s doctrinal position.” Buut what a person believes about Jesus Christ is vital in deciding where they spend eternity.
Jesus said so Himself - “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” (John 8:24) And in verse 28 the Master clearly expected the Word He preached (His doctrinal position) needed to be believed - “So Jesus said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me.”
So you see, one must “believe” (doctrinal position) in order not to die in their sins and one “will know” (propositional truth) that Jesus preached what God gave Him to preach. So as a Christian minister (His ambassador) I teach people what they must “believe” and I preach from the Bible so that God will convince them so that they “may know.” I pray this helps.
Scott, here is some propositional truth for you.
As Christians we are under the New Covenant, prophesied and described by the Hebrew prophets. Just as we look to prophecy to understand the Messiah, we also need to look to prophecy to understand the New Covenant. Just as we measure the truth of any Messiah (true or false) by the Scripture, so too we should measure the truth of any covenant by the Scripture.
The description of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:
God is going to “make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,”
The New Covenant will not be like the old covenant,
Under the New Covenant God will put the “law in their minds and write it on their hearts,”
Placing the law in people’s minds and writing it on their hearts will create a relationship between God and his people,
“No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, “Know the Lord,” because they all will know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord,”
This knowledge of God is the result of God’s absolute forgiveness: “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sons no more.”
The words “covenant” and “testament” are interchangeable in this context. Therefore, the New Covenant is the same as the New Testament. But what Jeremiah describes as the New Testament and what we call the New Testament are quite different. The prophetic Scriptures say that the New Covenant (Testament) will be written directly in our minds and hearts without human intermediary. Human beings labeled the Greek Scripture “The New Testament,” not God.
There is no inspired Greek manuscript with the words “The New Testament” anywhere in existence. What is the practical application of all this? Wel, the page in my Bible which says, “The New Testament”? I ripped it out. I encourage all of you to rip that page our of your Bibles, too. Jeremiah 31 says the claim on that page is a lie. The New Covenant is written directly on my heart.
Oops! There is two “Scott”s posting here. I’m the one who posted about the context surrounding the call of the disciples and the parable of the sheep and the goats.
Whyte,
Please finish your thought. It seems that one might conclude that you are denying the “New Testament” canon. I don’t think this is what you meant, but I need clarification. Specifically, what is the value of Romans to Jude?
The obvious answer regarding the value of Romans to Jude is in II Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is inspired by God,” useful for a variety of things, “so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
As you sense, anyone who could interpret Jeremiah 31 the way I do must have some ideas about the canon as well. But the implications of Jeremiah 31 lead me in more personal directions.
Why do we place a distinct priority on written texts instead of the living God himself? I compare the books of the Bible to love letters sent to a young woman from her sweetheart far away. She reads the letters over and over, but when her beloved comes to her, she can’t get her nose out of the letters. “He’s saying,’I'm here, I’m right here in front of you!’” But she continues in reading the letters as though he’s not even there.
Forgive me, but the Bible itself undermines it’s own centrality. I know my application of the passages I will cite will be refuted by many of those here. I nevertheless stand by the Bible’s refusal to take the place of God in our lives.
Regarding the New Covenant and written words Paul writes: “He has made us competent ministers of a new covenant–not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.”
There is no single reason given for why the letter kills, but don’t fool yourself by giving a one-answer explanation about how the letter kills. We will inevitably choose the reason that lets us off the hook for the other ways the letter kills.
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.” John 5:39-40
The letter kills when we use it as a weapon in arguments: “If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destoyed by eah other.” (Galatians 5:15)
I don’t have a “proof-text” for my final point. You will have to judge for yourself if my point is valid. I believe Christendom has taken the Greek Scriptures and turned them into a new Torah, the Christian Torah, to which we are obedient, by which we measure ourselves and–more destructively–we measure others. Instead of walking moment-by-moment in the Spirit, we attempt to conform in all things to the Christian Torah.
For many of us, we have substituted correct doctrine for various behavioral rules. Instead of conforming to the Law by keeping a kosher kitchen, tithing mint and cummin, and not eating shellfish, we conform to Sound Doctrine regarding election, the rapture, transubstantiation and the like.
The letter of the Scripture kills, but the Spirit gives life.
So why do we love the Letter of Scripture so? First, it’s comfortable to have a list of Key Beliefs we can believe and rest in the knowledge that we’re in with God. That’s easier than loving the really difficult people in our lives, easier than sitting on our ambitions and selfishness long enough for them to die.
But I believe that we love the Letter most because we can prove that our group is superior to other Christians who aren’t not as “faithful to God’s Word” as we are. The more Biblical your belief system is, the more righteous you are. This is at the center of the claim to be a “Bible-believing Church.”
In your pride and arrogance you really do believe that “fact” makes you better than others.
You need to become competent ministers of the covenant of the Spirit.
But that probably sounds too subjective, too mystical, too relativistic a goal.
BTW, I have not attained to this. I fear I never will. But I want to be clear, from (dare I say it?) the “letter of the Scripture,” what my goal should actually be.
Dear Rev. Silva,
Yes, was referring to George Whitefield. (Joseph Whitefield was an old friend from elementary school!)
By contrasting Whitefield and Finney, I was emphasizing that favorite “young Christian” debate between free will and election, Calvinism and Arminianism. And when I wrote that “ministry is not totally dependent on one’s doctrinal position,” I was describing my personal journey.
I grew up in a GARB Church, where doctrine was dogmatic, and it was either “God’s way or the highway.” And of course, Pastor Jimmy knew what God’s way was.
I am unclear about where you saw a straw man when you wrote, “I don’t mean to offend but you defined your proposition as a straw man. No one says ministry is “totally dependent on one’s doctrinal position.” Buut what a person believes about Jesus Christ is vital in deciding where they spend eternity.”
This is what I wrote after comparing Whitefield and Finney: “Ministry is not totally dependent on one’s doctrinal position, but rather the energizing Spirit of God.” I don’t understand what you find objectionable in that statement. I do, however, stand by it.
By the way, it is a fact that many pastors are raked over the coals by other clerics because of their “incorrect doctrine.” This is probably most common among clergy who believe that indoctrination is the most important task of a shepherd of the sheep.
Rev. Silva, three times you characterize vital statements of Jesus as “doctrinal positions” which must be “believed” as “propositional truth.”
Up above Bones commented that, “To my knowledge, nobody here has claimed that knowing the truth requires *only* accepting propositional truth.”
From your emphasis on the words of Jesus as “doctrinal positions” and “propositional truth” which must be “believed,” it sounds like Bones needs to read your post.
Let me put it like this. I say to my wife, “Diane, I love you,” or to my grandson, “Jack, if you do that again I’ll have to give you a time out,” or to sailors, “Abandon ship!” These are utterances spoken in relationships. It seems inappropriate to me to describe such statements as “propositional truths.”
But, obviously, you can if you want.
Whyte, you appear to be taking great efforts to refute the series on the postmodern “emergent” church.
I am just curious why? Do you believe somehow that this generation above any other or even yourself has finally figured this Christianity thing out? Sure, you claim you haven’t attained anything( Well, according to the letter you have said this) but your spirit indicates otherwise( why else would you seek to dominate this blog with your arguments?)
Surely if your beliefs are correct then you need not defend them. If you have attained to this knowledge that knowledge is useless in regards to certain propositional truths about Jesus then you must trust that others will on their own as well, right?
I will admit what confuses me. That someone who argues that truth is not so simple continues to argue against those he accuses of argueing. Confusing isn’t it?
As a Christian brother, I would urge you to be careful when making a statement like the following: “My study of church history, Bible and theology gave me several insights”
You see, you accidentally make an assertion that lifts you up instead of Christ Jesus. It suggests you have pride in your own ability to think and reason. I know you didn’t mean to sound prideful, since the law against that is written on our hearts, and when we are prideful it pricks our conscious.
By the way, peasants born in catholic France or orthodox Russia aren’t banned to hell because they didn’t belong to the right church, they are banned to hell because they were born radically depraved and corrupted with sin.
Judging simply from the orthodox Christians I encountered in Macedonia last year, that depravity and sin showed up when they threw coins on the various pictures of Mary, they lit candles to save thier loved ones, and they hearts and minds were darkened, so subsequently their lives displayed no saving faith and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ-so it was no stretch to worship buildings, icons, and love their own lives.
God knew that beforehand though..and gave them up to it.
Whyte
I like your analogy of the love letter and the lover. That is the very point that Jesus was trying to make to the religious establishment of his time. However, this did not stop him from expounding the text of Scripture as pointing to himself (a la the road to Emmaus). In this sense you are very correct. The Bible is never an end to itself. It should point us to Jesus and teach us how to live life in the Spirit. This was also the purpose of the OT. The Corinthian church also had this same Spirit, but that didn’t lessen Paul’s need to write two lengthy letters to them.
I know that you don’t deny that these are inspired by God, but they don’t seem to have any eternal authority in your life, so what does your affirmation accomplish?
You said:
I nevertheless stand by the Bible’s refusal to take the place of God in our lives.
Sadly, this statement verges on nonsense. I cannont say that I want a relationship with you but I am not going to let your words get in the way of that. Actually, apart from words, you and I would not know each other at all, and we BOTH have the Holy Spirit! We cannot know anyone and please them apart from the words they speak to us.
I still want to engage with your arguments. On the other hand, I wasn’t at all surprised that you confessed your GARB roots. I have heard several stories from emergent leaders whose story includes an extreme fundamentalist background. I applaud your efforts to distance yourself from a wrong tradition, but please don’t run past the truth to the other end of the spectrum of error. You are a great thinker and communicator. Use those gifts to study and expound the Word of God and help save others from the errors you have identified.
Dear Steven,
Actually, I haven’t mentioned postmodernism or Emergent Church at all. I’m new to his site, and I’ve only posted in this thread and the “Grunge Christianity” thread. People responded to the post in which I started to analyze what Jesus meant when he said, “I am the truth.” I wrote this:
“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.”
Then, in a sincere request, I asked, “Please explain to me what the following two propositional statements mean: 1) A person is the truth. 2) The truth is a person.
After that, all I’ve done is respond to people when they have responded to me.
You understand my posts as “taking great efforts to refute the series on the postmodern “emergent” church.” I don’t quite see it like that. The Scripture has confronted me with a “propositional truth” from the mouth of the Lord, and I have been wrestling with it for years.
Most of my posts in this thread have been in response to people’s criticisms of what I wrote about Jesus saying, “I am the truth.” In my posts I have interacted with people’s questions and criticisms. Frequently a brief salvo of attacks requires an answer which is more than sound bites. What I have written has been part of the conversation.
One thing I’ve “figured out”: Almost everybody thinks they know a lot more than they really do. “The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know.” What I think I know only puffs me up. “Knowing” with the absolute certainty some people have is, in my humble opinion (!), a vaporous illusion. In fact, Paul seems to believe that “knowing” is not our business, “knowing” is God’s business. Our business is to love.
“The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God.” God does the knowing, he knows us in response to our love for him.
What strikes me is that I get these generalized criticisms, but only one or two people have engaged the Scripture I use. I believe the only person to actually engage the Scripture I’ve used was Bones.
About my arguing and defending my position. First of all, my position is taken from Scripture, and understanding the Scripture is important to all of us. I knew that entering this thread was going to be challenging, that many of you would have strong disagreements with me. I almost didn’t enter. But you are people who care about doing what’s right. You are people who respect the Bible. You are people who love God. So I’m here, participating in a conversation.
I don’t place my reasoning and ability to think above Christ. The fact that I fall so short of Jesus’ example of humility, devotion and self-sacrifice often causes me grief. Having said that, I believe that God does expect me to use my head. He gave us brains to use them. When there are significant truths in the Bible which seem almost totally ignored to Bible-believing Christians, it is important to present those truths.
I try.
Dear Scott,
I appreciate your thoughtful, insightful reply. I have re-read it numerous times.
Let me start here, with an affirmation I cited above. “He has made us competent ministers of a new covenant–not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.”
I have wrestled with this. Fellowshipping in the GARB for even a few years as an adolescent left an indelible imprint on me. Decades later, I still don’t know how to be this sort of minister, a minister of that covenant of the Spirit. I am tied to the Bible in all my teaching. (No, I am not ordained. God forbid!)
Yet that is what Christian leaders are supposed to be. The following is a subjective judgment on my part, but I really do believe that the most conservative evangelical and fundamentalist clergy are ministers of a covenant of the Letter, for all of the reasons I listed in a post above. There is a virtual wall of resistance to the Holy Spirit and the centrality of Love in the Christian life.
Please know that these paragraphs are not offered in a spirit of debate, that I am trying to get to the heart of your response from my heart.
You wrote, “I know that you don’t deny that these are inspired by God, but they don’t seem to have any eternal authority in your life, so what does your affirmation accomplish?”
There are several things I need to respond to in this question. First, and easiest, is to turn it around. What does the belief that the Bible is the “eternal authority” accomplish? Dispensationalists say they “believe the Bible from cover to cover,” yet are able to explain away much of Acts and the Pauline epistles with their dispensational rationalizations. In general, Eternal Security people say they “believe the Bible from cover to cover,” yet have to explain away almost the whole book of Hebrews. Likewise, Wesleyans have plenty of Scripture they have to explain away.
Even the authority of Christ’s non-doctrinal commands are explained away, especially the more stringent ones. For example, tell a pastor that Jesus said, “Sell your possessions, and give to the poor.” What you’ll probably hear is, “Yes, but that was what Jesus said to a specific person, because he knew the man’s heart and knew that his wealth stood between him and God.” Easily explained away. Except Jesus said that to a group of followers in Luke 12:33: “Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions, and give to the poor.”
People who say they believe in the absolute authority of the Bible inevitably explain away what is inconvenient, either doctrinally, behaviorally, or morally. I much prefer to follow what Paul taught in I Corinthians 4:6,
Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, Do not go beyond what is written. Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.”
[When we go beyond what is written we start building theological systems which are the basis of taking “pride in one man over against another,” or one group over another. This command found in Paul is probably the central “proof-text” I have for rejecting systematic theology.]
(I’m sorry this reply is running so long!)
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Your question,“what does your affirmation accomplish?” is fuzzier, and more difficult to answer. Evangelical pastors and professors are often obsessed with systematic theology and orthodoxy, and those who are not are criticized as “soft fundamentalists” or some-such nonsense. This “affirmation” that we are dealing with “a new covenant–not of the letter but of the Spirit,” should alert people to the disobedience of ministering a covenant of the Letter, which kills. As much as I quote the Scripture, I do so knowing that the Letter of the Scripture kills.
Understand this (and this is for everyone), if you have no idea what a covenant of the Spirit is, or why a written covenant of the Letter kills, then you have some praying to do, some serious meditating on II Corinthians 3:6. And since the task of Christian ministry is so important, why is it that there is so little 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. I have some guesses as to what it might look like, but at this point it is beyond me to do.
This and other things in the Bible have made it impossible for me to ever seek ordination again. Or to want to.
Whyte,
I can relate to what you are saying about people not actually responding to the points of your argument. Being dismissed simply based on the box people think that you are in is frustrating. I did make an attempt to deal generally with many of the Scriptures that you quoted in one of your earlier posts by calling into question the issue of context. You may have felt that this was too cavalier, but unless you want a point by point response, I still stand by my evaluation as a whole.
It is apparent that being a minister of the covenant of the Spirit versus the letter is very foundational to your theology.
In 2 Cor. 3, Paul is defending his competence as an apostle. The false teachers have argued that Paul lacks the traditional letters of commendation and lacks the ability to be an apostle. (You may feel attacked in this way.) Paul’s responds by appealing to the Corinthians themselves as his letter of commendation and secondly to God as the one who has made him competent.
Paul then further develops the contrast between the letter and the Spirit. Words mean things. We trust this fact when you and I communicate back and forth. We assume a common vocabulary that is based on a common foundation. If you use a word that I don’t understand, it should be reasonable for me to go to a dictionary to find out what you meant. You can say that you don’t abide to the dictionary definition but this has to be within certain parameters otherwise our communication will break down. (I still laugh when I think of a former President’s defense being, “It all depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”) Forgive me if this sounds pendantic or patronizing to you, but my point is that Paul uses some words here that point to his intent.
In this section, Paul never uses the Greek word “graphe” or its verb form “grapho.” These are the words that he uses when he wants to talk about Scripture. This indicates to me that Paul is not making an argument based on the Spirit OR Scripture.
If we continue to follow the flow of his argument into chapter 4, we will see that he contrasts his ministry with those who use deception and “secret and shameful” methods. Instead, Paul affirms that he sets forth the truth plainly. Paul cannot have in mind a departure from Scripture as his foundation. He wrote to Timothy that all Scripture was God-breathed, which would have been the Old Testament, and that this Scripture was useful for training in righteousness. He also exhorted Timothy to “Preach the Word.” Paul had a very high view of Scripture. Peter backed Paul up on this. In 2 Peter 3:15-16, he appeals to Paul’s letters to back up what he is saying. Further more, he accuses some people of twisting Paul’s meaning based on some of the difficult things that he wrote.
In none of these examples do we see the covenant of the Spirit at odds with the Old Testament or the apostolic writings. To put this in terms of our modern context, we should be wary of those who base their authority on their ordination papers or the seminary they attended. We shouldn’t let some one off the hook just because they say they are of “X” theological pursuasion. This does not mean that these things are wrong. Rather, they are not the basis of legitmacy as a minister of Christ and the Gospel.
I think it’s your turn now.
Whyte,
The fact that you have engaged several people in a series of articles dealing with the Emergent Church and your basic questions regarding the concept of “propositional” truth would cause me to suspect that indeed you are in favor of more postmodern concepts of truth and ministry. I agree with you wholeheartedly that people think they know more than they ought, and indeed I have challenged you that you appear as well to be just as guilty as those you charge.
Forgive me if the tone seemed less than kind, or less than knowledgable. Also forgive me that I may not have dealt with your questions regarding Christ as truth.
Perhaps you could answer me a question. What exactly is your point in all the comments you have left? What is the main thrust of contention with all the articles you have read and the people you have engaged with in the comments?
Forgive me. I don’t carry a Ph.D. nor have I grown up in church,so you tend to lose me in the parables and the quarrel over words and definitions. What is your point?
Grace and Peace, Steven
Steve, if I am interpreting you correctly, you believe that the issue is the difference between a covenant of the Spirit and a covenant of the “letters” of reference possessed by other apostles. The “letter” in the phrase “the letter kills” is the letter of reference, which would represent, today, the merely human approval symbolized by an M Div or ordination.
You also specifically state that, “In none of these examples do we see the covenant of the Spirit at odds with the Old Testament or the apostolic writings.”
The *immediate* context of II Cor. 3:6 is II Cor. 3:7-9, which does not refer to letters of reference but specifically to the Jewish Torah.
“Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in *letters* on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!”
In the immediate context the covenant of the Spirit is specifically at odds with the Torah, that sizeable chunk of the Hebrew Scriptures. The glory of those “engraved letters” was fading then, and remains faded today.
The written covenant, chiseled in stone, brings condemnation (death), but the covenant of the Spirit brings life.
Sorry, that last post was for Scott.
Steven, I reject the characterization that I am “in favor of more postmodern concepts of truth and ministry.” ALL of my comments are based solidly on Scripture (to the best of my ability!).
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!
Well written. What exactly is your source of contention with Dr. Macarthur’s writings in this series?
Hi Steven. Hmm. “Well written.” Is that what’s called being “damned with faint praise?”
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.
Whyte Stonne
Have I missed your com. web site. Do you have e mail
Charles
Pastor Whisnant, it’s whytestonne@hotmail.com.
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?
Whyte,
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.”
[…] The Logic of Postmodernism […]
I didn’t know the bible presented a proper epistemology. Where does Jesus and the writers of the New Testament present, specifically, a biblical epistemology? I didn’t know there was any such thing as a ‘biblical’ epistemology. What book, chapter, and verse says, “this is the proper biblical epistemology?” Where is it? I haven’t seen it.
Good question, Postmodern Negro. Another question is very similar. Where in the Bible do we see the so-called “Biblical World-View”? I believe the O.T. includes a metal canopy which constitutes the heavens (I forget what alloy: copper? bronze?).
“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.
Scott, I think what’s going on in II Corinthians can be compared to what happens when a student is working on an algebra problem.
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.