Need some engaging long winter day reading?
At this time I cannot take the necessary time to offer any commentary, so I post this simply for your reading with one question. Are New Testament exhortations and warnings to be equated with the law? See Michael Bird's entry here, where he essentially poses the same issue.
____________________
It's time to put aside this abused "badge of honor."
Jason B. Hood
According to Paul, the charge of antinomianism is not an understandable misunderstanding, but an utterly undeserved, undesirable, and slanderous charge that is ironically accurate of Paul's loveless, lawless opponents (Rom 3:8; Gal 2:11-12, 5:9-10; Matt 23), and grossly inaccurate for Paul, Jesus, and the entire early Christian movement. The charge is thoroughly incorrect and unwelcome, on a par with the slanderous accusations the early church endured of atheism, cannibalism, incest, and evil-doing (cf. 1 Pet 2:12).
Adopting accusations as a badge of honor or litmus test represents a failure to understand the rhetorical function of the antinomian accusation in the literary context of Romans and in Paul's social context: It was neither a fair and honest assessment nor a reasonable response to Paul's preaching, but a weapon employed against Paul's honor in the court of public opinion. Taking the charge of antinomianism as a positive sign is as anachronistic as suggesting that the charge of drunkenness is a good test of our ministry in light of Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:34. Moreover, Paul uses similar rhetorical questions in Romans. Should we strive to speak about redemptive history in such a way that our listeners sometimes charge God with unfaithfulness and injustice in rejecting Israel outright (Rom 3:3, 9:14, 11:1)?
Read the whole article.
You may want to read some responses.
The Fear of Antinomianism by Michael Horton
The Radical Gospel, Defiant and Free by Dane Ortlund
Two Ways To Realize Radical Obedience: My Indirect Response To Jason Hood by Tullian Tchividjian
And a partial response: We Who Have the Spirit Have the Power to Change by Jason Hood
Open Letter to Michael Horton by Frank Turk
[Bonus] Open Letter to R. Scott Clark by Frank Turk
Open Letter to Michael Horton by Frank Turk
[Bonus] Open Letter to R. Scott Clark by Frank Turk
HT: MB
3 comments:
Related (and right):
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2011/01/open-letter-to-michael-horton.html
and
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2011/01/bonus-open-letter-to-r-scott-clark.html
And after Horton responded, Turk did too:
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2011/01/updated-mike-horton-responds.html
Money:
One of the unexpected items which has seasoned this discussion is the CT article which, frankly, I thought was laughable. It could get a whole open letter on its own from me (and may), but talk about too little, too late, too obtuse. Of all the things CT has promoted in the last 20 years, to say MLJ and WHI are somehow wrapped up in “heresy” is just the icing on the cake for their credibility – they should just now change their name to “The Religious Opinion Times” (the ROT, for short) and stop pretending they have anything distinctive from “O” magazine to offer the Christian culture.
Joe,
Thanks for the links. I inserted them into my original note.
Post a Comment