Gordon Fee's "Spirit vs. Torah?"

Status
Not open for further replies.

msortwell

Puritan Board Freshman
So . . . I have been struggling my way through “God’s Empowering Presence” by Gordon Fee. Two questions I have not been able to resolve for myself. And it seems necessary to understand these two things to make any sense out of his intended message.

1. Does Mr. Fee forward a veiled (or not so veiled)form of Antinomianism? He expressly states in this book that “. . . The Spirit has replaced Torah as God’s means of ‘fulfilling’ Torah.”

2. This likely necessitates answering a second question first. . . What does Mr. Fee mean when he consistently chooses to use the word “Torah” rather that being more specific?

Any insights would be appreciated. I told a friend that I would review Fee's treatment of Romans in the referenced work, but I keep stalling (having to go back to read some of the preceding text to try to understand where he's coming from). I genuinely don't want to read the whole book - not finding it to be a particularly edifying work. Still, that is what I may HAVE to do - read it all.

Can anyone help? :chained:
 
So . . . I have been struggling my way through “God’s Empowering Presence” by Gordon Fee. Two questions I have not been able to resolve for myself. And it seems necessary to understand these two things to make any sense out of his intended message.

1. Does Mr. Fee forward a veiled (or not so veiled)form of Antinomianism? He expressly states in this book that “. . . The Spirit has replaced Torah as God’s means of ‘fulfilling’ Torah.”

2. This likely necessitates answering a second question first. . . What does Mr. Fee mean when he consistently chooses to use the word “Torah” rather that being more specific?

Any insights would be appreciated. I told a friend that I would review Fee's treatment of Romans in the referenced work, but I keep stalling (having to go back to read some of the preceding text to try to understand where he's coming from). I genuinely don't want to read the whole book - not finding it to be a particularly edifying work. Still, that is what I may HAVE to do - read it all.

Can anyone help? :chained:

I read parts of this work. It is exhausting to read, but very well done. Fee, presents the power of the 3rd person of the triune God in the life of Paul. Fee shows how in Paul, the Spirit is who does it all through grace, not Law. This does not make him antinomian as much as Paul was considered antinomian. Instead of law sanctification, Fee represents Paul as living Spirit/Gospel/Grace sanctification
 
I read parts of this work. It is exhausting to read, but very well done. Fee, presents the power of the 3rd person of the triune God in the life of Paul. Fee shows how in Paul, the Spirit is who does it all through grace, not Law. This does not make him antinomian as much as Paul was considered antinomian. Instead of law sanctification, Fee represents Paul as living Spirit/Gospel/Grace sanctification

Your assessment is consistent with much of what Fee claims about his intent. Yet much of his explanation seems at least slightly disconnected from that assertion.

What do you believe he includes of OT Text when he references "Torah"? Why does he use "Torah" instead of simply "Law" as used in the Scripture that he is assessing? Is there a significance to his choice of terminology that I am missing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top