Posted on 08/14/2004 9:23:47 PM PDT by P-Marlowe
You point out how amazing is God's love for Moses and the forefathers.
Do you think He loves us as much?
But most of us react initially to this word as did the little girl who happened to see a mule looking over the fence at her. She had never seen a mule before, and she said to it, "I don't know what you are, but you must be a Christian -- you look just like Grandpa." Others associate it with strangeness, apartness, as though holy people are weird, peculiar individuals who live out in the desert somewhere, remote from the rest of us. They are "different." >
But the Bible itself suggests none of these ideas concerning holiness. If you want to get at the meaning of this word, you must go back to its original root. This word is derived from the same root from which a very attractive English word comes. This word is wholeness. So holiness means wholeness, being complete. And if you read wholeness in place of holiness everywhere you find it in the Bible, you will be much closer to what the writers meant. We all know what wholeness is. It is to have together all the parts which were intended to be there, and to have them functioning as they were intended to function.
The huge problem I have with this is that even though he is correct in that the ENGLISH word comes from wholeness, the Hebrew word for holy is 06944 qodesh {ko'-desh} which means apartness, holiness, sacredness, separateness and comes from the root word 06942 qadash {kaw-dash'} which means to consecrate, sanctify, prepare, dedicate, be hallowed, be holy, be sanctified, be separate.
Leviticus speaks on how the Israelites and all those who worship the True God are to be separate, sanctified, etc. Biblically speaking, it IS about living a holy life and not about being "whole" as the author talks about at length.
If you look up the word for whole, 08549 tamiym {taw-meem'} which means complete, whole, entire, sound and is even translated as without blemish. It comes from the root 08552 tamam {taw-mam'} which means to be complete, be finished, be at an end.
IF the author is correct, then why is qodesh found 77 times in Leviticus, compared to 21 times that tamiym where 18 of them are speaking of the sacrifice to be without blemish and the other 3 about the complete rump or the complete days until the Feast of Weeks or a complete year. None of which apply to the Israelites becoming complete.
Saying that Leviticus is about "making us whole" seems to be far different than what scripture seems to be saying and to me, it seems to get close to the seeker sensitive, new age type of thinking. It seems to be more about how we are to live a holy, separate live, although we live in this world. You know - to be in this world, but not of it.
However, traditional Reformed thought has tended to summarize all of these various functions under the heading of three main uses of the law. The Reformers recognized quite clearly that the law had not been abolished in the New Testament age, and yet they were keenly aware of the abuses of the law to which the medieval Roman Catholic Church was prone. Therefore, against antinomians they argued for the law’s validity, and in order to prevent falling into error in the use of the law they set down the law’s proper functions.Ping to GRPL!The “first use” of God’s law, they believed, is “the political use of the law.” They believed that the enforcement of God’s law by the civil magistrate is necessary for the proper and legitimate restraining of ungodly behavior by ungodly men.
The “second use” of the law which they identified was called “the pedagogic use of the law.” By providing conviction of sin and creating a sense of spiritual need in the sinner, the law was a tutor which brought him to Christ. In his well known Commentary on the Book of Galatians Luther wrote:
The right use and end, therefore, of the law is to accuse and condemn as guilty such as live in security, that they may see themselves to be in danger of sin, wrath, and death eternal. . . . The law with this office .helpeth by occasion to’ justification, in that it driveth a man to the promise of grace (at Gal. 2:17 and 3:19).Certainly no evangelical believer can gainsay that the law properly serves such an end.The “third use” of the law identified by the Reformers was its didactic use,” whereby the law supplies a rule for life to believers. Calvin wrote, “The law is the best instrument for ‘enabling believers daily to learn what that will of God is which they are to follow.”
Greg L. Bahnsen, BY THIS STANDARD: The Authority of God’s Law Today, pp. 201-202
No Missler subscribes to the view that the "end times" refers to the "end times." Jesus advised his followers to look for the signs of the end times (and he indicated which signs to look for) and when you see them, to look up. Missler, in that sense, is merely being obedient to scripture.
I agree that Missler is not into gloom and doom. I've listened to him very simply comment on what a passage says.
He is extremely cautious about saying what it means and uses more than ample amounts of "could be's" and "might be's."
There were articles in the paper last week about Jewish extremists who wish to blow up the Dome of the Rock.
From a futurist perspective, that's relevant when you consider the man of sin sitting in the temple of God.
You might not have a futurist perspective, but that doesn't mean a futurist has gone off the deep end when he says, "this should make us think about the necessity of the rebuilding of the temple."
If you misconstruded it to mean such forgive me. That was not my intentions. :O)
"God provided for the Israelites even when they weren't obedient and when they rebelled against his statutes."
God did NOT provide for the Israelites for His great love for them. There were a number of times God had "issues" with them and on more than one occassion came close to destroying them. God provided for the Israelites because 1) He promised Abraham et alt that He would bring them out of Egypt, 2) He promised the rebellious Israelites that He would bring their children into the promise land just because they said He couldn't do it, and 3) because Moses would intercede for them.
xzins-You point out how amazing is God's love for Moses and the forefathers. Do you think He loves us as much?
Do I think God loves me (or other Christians) as much as Moses, Abraham, Peter, or Paul? Yes-God shows no partiality.
Do I think God loves "us", as in people, in general? No. There is no evidence of that in the scriptures. Certainly not with the tribe of Israel and certainly not with the tribes God commanded to be destroyed.
Hardly.
The Bible does, however, describe in surprising detail the scenario of events that will be climaxed by the Second Coming of Christ. Most of these are directly linked to the seven-year period known as the "Seventieth Week of Daniel."(4) In fact, this unique period is the most documented period in the Bible. Many of us are convinced that it involves events that occur after the Rapture of the Church. It is because of the ostensible preparations for these events, which are appearing on our horizon, that we can recognize the approach of the end of the church age and the threshold of these post-rapture events.Missler clearly falls into the category of "date-suggester", leaving himself just enough wiggle room for deniable plausibility, but still offering enough zip to still sell books and tapes to the naive.We seem to be plunging into a period of time about which the Bible says more than any other period of time in history--including the time when Jesus walked the shores of the Sea of Galilee and climbed the mountains of Judea. Some of the major themes emerging before us include:
It is exciting, indeed, to see these things begin to take shape on our immediate horizon and to come to grips with the impending reality of Christ's return. But there is a difference between "being ready" and setting dates. One we are strongly and repeatedly admonished to do; the other is expressly prohibited. Further more, there is another danger. I call it "rapture-itis." There is a tragic fatalism that can immobilize the Christian body from truly "occupying" until He comes (Luke 19:13). -- Chuck Missler
Here's a five-point bonus question. Can someone explain Missler's logic when he says:
The Prince That Shall Come The Coming World Leader--commonly known as the Antichrist --has 33 titles in the Old Testament and 13 in the New Testament. One of these, The Prince That Shall Come, comes from Daniel 9:26-27 in which the people of the Prince that shall come would destroy the city and the sanctuary. The fulfillment occurred in history when the Roman legions under Titus Vespasian destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D.10How can "the people of the Prince that shall come" have existed thousands of years before "the Prince that shall come"?This reflexive reference to the Romans in Daniel 9:26 is one of several reasons why most Bible scholars view the future Prince that shall come as a Roman, or European.
A Monday morning GREG BAHNSEN Bump! Here's a short interview that details why Calvinists are the strongest upholders of God's word.
Contra Mundum
No. 2 Winter 1992
Interview with Dr. Greg Bahnsen
Dr. Greg Bahnsen is this generation's foremost apologist, whose work has consistently underscored the abiding authority of the Word of God and the need to apply it to all of society. His seminal but controversial Theonomy in Christian Ethics is one of the foundations of the Christian Reconstruction movement. Dr. Bahnsen is an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, has taught at Reformed Theological Seminary and Ashland Theological Seminary, and is currently the Scholar-in-Residence at the Southern California Christian Study Center. Contra Mundum interviewed Dr. Bahnsen while he was on a tour of the eastern United States, which included a speaking engagement at the ACTRA conference in Johnson City, Tennessee.
CM: Your Theonomy in Christian Ethics first appeared in 1977. What is the main thesis of the book?
Bahnsen: I argue in Theonomy in Christian Ethics that the moral standards revealed in scripture have an absolute, unchanging character because they reveal God's character, which is unchanging. The book was directed against Dispensational ethics which sees different standards for different eras of time. My intention was to uphold the principle of Covenant Theology, which assumes continuity between the Old and New Testaments unless scripture teaches otherwise (e.g., infant baptism).
CM: Theonomy in Christian Ethics has gone through two editions and four printings. Are there any changes in the basic thesis?
Bahnsen: No; the basic thesis is the same. There are a couple of minor changes in outlook. I was persuaded, for example, that Dan Fuller had a better approach to Romans 10:4. But the substance of the book is unchanged.
CM: Theonomy was a controversial work. Why do you think there was such a strong reaction to your book, especially in conservative and Reformed circles otherwise committed to the authority of scripture?
Bahnsen: I never expected the kind of attention that Theonomy received, much less the negative reaction in Reformed circles. I would have expected critical reaction from Dispensationalists, of course. But without my intending it, Theonomy touched a nerve in Reformed circles. Allen Bloom's Closing of the American Mind documents how our culture has endorsed relativism and opposes all types of absolutes. This cultural mindset has apparently affected the Christian church as well. The idea of moral absolutes that cover all of life does not appeal to contemporary Christians. Christians, without self-consciously admitting it, say that the Bible speaks to their private, devotional, and religious lives, but has nothing to say in the public sphere of politics, economics, etc. Theonomy stresses that there are moral absolutes and that the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, applies to all areas of life. And that is what the Reformed faith has always proclaimed. It is not a novel thesis - it is an old thesis which is now in disrepute in modern culture. Let me add that the controversy has been fueled for years and years by misrepresentation. There is often greater scholarly integrity outside of Christian circles. If critics in secular circles has so misrepresented a book's thesis, they would lose their jobs and/or credibility. I have had the happy experience - but one twinged with pain - of talking to people who finally read Theonomy, after hearing all about it. They admit that as they read, they waited for the really bad stuff, but never found it. Theonomy is not a controversial thesis; it is a reasonable, Biblical development of a world and life view.
CM: You have had considerable experience in academia. If you were beginning a seminary education now, would you attend, and why?
Bahnsen: That is a sad question. All things being equal, I would not encourage anyone to attend seminary right now. Most seminaries are either very poor academically or theologically unhelpful. It would be a dreadful waste of three years and a lot of money - not to be taught the Reformed faith in an adequate way. In the smaller schools, there are problems with deficiencies in scholarship or theological prejudices, and that has not been characteristic of our Reformed fathers or Reformed education. Having said that, I realize and acknowledge that there are better and worse schools.
The Southern California Study Center was founded because of these concerns. We felt the need to offer, in a convenient way, a competent Reformed education. We offer an M.A. which covers everything treated in the traditional M.Div. degree except for practical pastoral courses (which should be done "practically" - in the church). It is convenient because students can stay in their home area and study at their own pace. Secondly, SCCSC offers a competent theological education, with instruction that is fully committed to Reformed confessional standards. My recommendation to anyone contemplating seminary or theological training is to study at the Center, or study with a local pastor. Such a method of learning is, I believe, the wave of the future.
CM: You have a Ph.D. in Philosophy from University of Southern California. How can a Christian with such strong commitments to the scriptures and the Christian faith survive in a modern university?
Bahnsen: First, you need to be well-grounded in the scriptures and have a consistent, clear world-view. Second, it helps to be in a department with a Christian instructor, even if he does not share all your theological distinctives. And third, the modern university has its own problems. It is ideologically disintegrating. Though there is certainly political hostility to Christianity, the Christian can offer a distinctive point of view which challenges the inadequacy of humanistic thinking.
CM: Theonomy is a central aspect of the Christian Reconstruction movement, of which you are considered a founding father. Do you consider it a "movement", and what reflections do you have on "Christian Reconstruction"?
Bahnsen: I don't consider Christian Reconstruction a "movement", but rather a school of thought. Christian Reconstruction includes people from a number of denominations and traditions. It has no central authority, or chain of command, or any other sociological marks of a "movement". But it does have fundamental theological distinctives: the authority of scripture, with a presuppositional approach to apologetics, the idea of moral absolutes where all the Bible is ethically relevant, and an optimistic view of redemptive history. In short, while it is not a movement, Christian Reconstruction is a distinctive and challenging school of thought.
CM: Some Reconstructionists have been very interested in symbolical interpretations of the Bible - what has been called "hermeneutical maximalism". You once addressed this in a review of David Chilton's Days of Vengeance in Journey magazine. What do you think of this movement?
Bahnsen: I believe that what has been called "hermeneutical maximalism" is very dangerous. It is not sufficiently controlled by the text of scripture, but depends on the imagination and creativity of the interpreter. People can come to peculiar conclusions through this stream of consciousness approach. But even when they arrive at orthodox conclusions, their methodology is not governed sufficiently by the Word of God. We need faithful conclusions - arrived at faithfully.
CM: Some Reconstructionists have been very interested in liturgical renewal, seen particularly in the movement to Anglican communions and the use of vestments. Any comments?
Bahnsen: Reformed theology has insisted on the regulative principle of worship because the Bible requires it. The stress on liturgical forms and significance goes beyond the scripture's teaching. I endorse the regulative principle, and thus the simplicity of New Testament worship. The days of symbolism and ritual (Old Covenant) have given way to the appearance of the Son and emphasis on the Word (New Covenant).
CM: The Reconstuctionist moment today seems badly fragmented. Does it seem so to you? And if so, do you have any ideas as to why, and any suggestions for restoring unity?
Bahnsen: The fragmentation is hard to miss, and it is a very sad thing to see. The first generation of Reconstructionists - especially since it has had to struggle so hard against opposition - has produced leaders with very forceful personalities. And leaders with forceful personalities find it hard to get along. To restore unity, we should focus on the whole Word of God. That means going to Proverbs and learning about wisdom and humility. That means learning about the fruit of the Spirit - patience and gentleness - from Galatians 5. We need to be faithful - personally and interpersonally - to the whole Bible for the whole of life. And we need to be an example to the world of the consistent application of the Word to our own lives.
CM: Tell us about your work. Do you have any books in progress?
Bahnsen: No Other Standard, due out shortly from ICE, is my answer to the critics of theonomy, particularly the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary. [Ed.: Published 1991, xv, 345 pages, scripture and general indexes. Michael Kelley is preparing a review of this book for the Spring issue.] I am also working on a book on Van Til's apologetics, including readings from his works, interpretations, and answers to his critics.
CM: Tell us about the function of the Southern California Christian Study Center.
Bahnsen: We are celebrating our first anniversary. The center was begun by the church I pastored as an educational ministry of the church - it is not a "parachurch" ministry. The Center provides an opportunity to all believers to receive a convenient, competent, and challenging Christian education. We focus on Systematic Theology, Ethics, and Apologetics. There are three outlets for the center: 1) Writing and Publications; 2) My conference speaking and debating [Ed. : Dr. Bahnsen spent September lecturing and preaching on the East Coast; he was scheduled in October to debate with a Muslim leader]; and 3) Academic courses. Courses can be taken in residence (current and recent offerings include "The Incomprehensibility of God" and "Calvin's Institutes"), by correspondence (using tapes, guided readings, and telephone conferences), or thorough specialized tutoring.
CM: I understand that the center distributes a helpful tape of a debate between you and an atheist at the University of California-Irvine, as well as other material. How could people order that material and receive other information?
Bahnsen: People can receive our monthly newsletter, Penpoint, free of charge. A catalog of publications, tapes, and course listings is also available from the Center. [Ed.: For more information, write Southern California Center for Christian Studies, P.O. Box 18021, Irvine, CA 92713-9916. The debate with an atheist, Gordon Stein, is available for $10 from Covenant Tape Ministry, 24198 Ash Court, Auburn, CA, 95603.]
CM: Can you tell us about the progress of Christ College in Virginia? Are you still involved with the school?
Bahnsen: Yes I am on the Board and also teach there. This year we will have ten students at second semester. I realize that this is not very many students, but the school provides a very close, family atmosphere. It also offers a fine, thoroughly Reformed, undergraduate education and training in the liberal arts.
CM: You have had some serious health problems in the past. Can you tell us how you are doing now?
Bahnsen: I have had open-heart surgery twice in the last 13 years. And I have had emergency surgery for a bleeding ulcer in 1987. With proper rest and medication, and by God's grace, I am doing well now. And I give Him all the praise for it, and for the ministry of His Word to which He has called me.
There is no biblical necessity to rebuild the temple unless you have just plain ignored historical fulfillment of prophecy.
Sorry ! I was being facetious
He has taught me the whole council of G-d,
not some corporate view which came from and after
another previous corporate view of the L-rd.
He is also the first to teach me the Name of the L-rd :
Y'shua haMashiach
The name by which He was known,
not an English transliteration of a Greek transliteration.
a bondslave to the Christ
chuck
Please explain -- are you suggesting that the desecration of the temple will not be reprised by the man of sin, as Mat. 24 and 2 The. 2 seems to indicate?
Actually, that is a back-translation from the Greek New Testament which we have. There are no extant writings that refer to Christ as Y'shua. Don't sneer at the Greek name of Iesus.. It's the name that the New Testament used.
Or is it Y'hoshua or Yahushua or Yehoshua haMashiach?
You mean he taught you an English transliteration of a Hebrew (or Aramaic) name which is nowhere recorded in the Bible in that form?
Curious.
I guess Peter and Paul and the rest of the NT writers were wrong to write all that Greek stuff. What was God thinking to have Jesus born in the midst of Roman/Greek culture?
BTW, how come Paul didn't write the Greek version of "G-d" ("Th--s") or "L-rd" ("K-r--s") all over the place? Not superstitious?
What makes you think it hasn't already happened? The temple was desecrated and destroyed in AD70, just as Jesus predicted. Jerusalem was literally "surrounded by armies" (Luke 21:20). Jesus said, "these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22)
No need to push a bunch of stuff off into our future. Just read the text, and compare Scripture with Scripture.
It appears we have drifted off topic. The topic here is Deurteronomy. It is not Chuck Missler. If you wish to discuss what Chuck Missler said about Deuteronomy, then I suppose that's fair game, but this general discussion about Chuck Missler's view of eschatology is really off point.
ACtually, if it impeaches his credibility as a witness, it is quite relevant.
You brought up Missler's comments about Deuteronomy. I think they must be taken with a large grain of salt, esp. given his dispie perspective on the law.
All you've said is that you're not a biblical futurist. It's a largely unprofitable expenditure of time to debate basic positions. One or the other of us might have it revealed otherwise within our lifetimes, and then we could be on the same page.
I've gone round and round about whether something has been or has not been fulfilled.
When it all came down to it, it hinged on which passages either person was willing to "spiritualize."
I'm talking about Deuteronomy. Don't yell at me. ;O)
Thanks for posting. Deuteronomy is one of my favorite books of the Bible. It is full of God's love, and his Holy Standard of justice and righteousness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.