Posted on 08/10/2006 12:22:56 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
Not you, BE. You and site know Christian Doctrine.
Even laying aside your own personal knowledge of the man, from what I have been told of Gerstner... he's not nearly so warm and tender-hearted as that.
i did have some dealings with one of his best disciples, who is an apologist in my Presbytery, and an author in his own right. Took a long time for the bruises to heal.
Oh well, at least i survived to plot a rematch...i will make him work for it this time.
Because it impedes our own spiritual progress and walk with God. It serves as an impediment to those with whom God intends us to be in full fellowship in Christ.
Then for that reason alone, i would be right to call OP down. But that's not what Sha'ul says about why he "became all things to all people," but rather that it was "that I might by all means save some" (1 Cor. 9:22).
Boy, what an Arminian.
Wouldn't surprise me one bit. What's your point? That we can make your job harder?
My point is that one can blaspheme God's Name to a people by careless words and actions . . . and yes, that creates a barrier to the Gospel--and if not so, then why did Sha'ul think that his becoming all things to all people might save some?
Third, when Paul speaks in 21 of being "to the [ones] without law as without law", he is clearly indicating he did not keep Jewish laws and customs among the Gentiles. Again, he was the Christian evangelist, not a Jew among Jews or a Pharisee of Pharisees.
Pardon me if this seems like cherry picking, but this is the errant point in your argument, and directly impinges on your understanding of point #2.
Unfortunately, this is one of those areas in which most translations are errant, in that they have softened the meaning of the word anomos to "without law," implying that this simply meant Gentiles who had simply not been instructed in the Torah. However, in every other verse where this term is used, it means "transgressor" (Mark 15:28, Luke 22:37), "wicked" (Acts 2:23, 2 Th. 2:8), "lawless" (1 Ti. 1:9), or "unlawful" (2 Pt. 2:8). Therefore, this verse should be translated as follows:
To the wicked, [I became] as one of the wicked, (being not wicked to God, but under the Torah to Messiah,) that I might gain them that are wicked.Puts quite a different spin on it, doesn't it? Are we to assume that being under Grace, Sha'ul felt free to join in the sins of the Gentiles--idolatry, sexual immorality, theft, etc.--so as to win them? "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid! How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (Rom. 6:1-2).
So what then is he saying? He is saying that he entered into their experience, spoke in their language and idiom, and otherwise identified with them without falling into their sins (i.e., he remained "under the Torah to the Messiah"). I know of a young man who does the same thing to minister to goths--he dresses as a goth, goes to their clubs, and identifies with them in every way he can without actually sinning (for example, he avoids practicing the occult, even in the unserious way so many goths do) so that he can share Christ with them.
In the same way, Sha'ul entered into the Greek and Roman experience--but it would be slander against him to say that he flagrantly disregarded Torah in order to do so. In fact, he took a Nazrite vow with other Jewish believers and went to sacrifice in the Temple to disprove such a charge (Acts 21:20ff).
How then do we understand him? Simply this: To his own people, he spoke as a Jew, in Jewish terminology, using rabbinical arguments and idioms. He even continued to live as a Pharisee (Acts 23:6--note the tense), not only keeping the Torah itself, but keeping their more stringent traditions. To say that he only lived according to this narrow path when he was among Jews a) makes Sha'ul into a hypocrite and a liar, and therefore not worthy of canonization, and b) ignores the fact that he was rarely not among the Jews. He preached in synagogues whenever possible, and even when he was kicked out, many Jews believed in Yeshua and followed him to form a new, Gentile-inclusive synaogue.
An important and oft-misunderstood theological phrase is Sha'ul's term "under the law" and "by the works of the law." To Sha'ul, being under the law didn't simply mean keeping Torah--it meant depending on one's own ability to keep Torah and "be Jewish" to be saved, instead of trusting in the grace provided in the Messiah Yeshua. It was being "under the law" which had spawned ever stricter fences around God's commandment. Now, a fence is good in an area where one is weak. An alcoholic who abstains from all forms of alcohol is good to do so. But when a fence becomes treated as if it were sacred writ and a measure of one's relationship with the Lord--the tea-totaler condemns those who drink--it itself becomes a sin and a yoke and a loss of freedom.
In order to reach those still "under the Law," Sha'ul continued to retain his "credentials," if you will, as a Pharisee--not because he himself were still under the curses the Torah pronounces on those who fail to keep it, but to show his people that a believer in Messiah did not become less righteous (as they would have understood it) as a result.
So then, how exactly did Sha'ul become as one wicked to the wicked? Like to his own people, he spoke to the pagans in their own terms. He spoke in philosophical arguments to those in Athens, while speaking in the simplest terms with demonstrations of the Spirit's power to those in jaded Corinth. He quotes pagan philosopers with the casualness of one intimately familiar with them, and treats even the pagans with great respect and love. His epistles combine Greek and Jewish cultural idioms to provide a bridge to the former to understanding Jewish Scriptures and a Jewish Messiah.
Therefore, I submit to you that it is you, not I, who is taking Sha'ul with wooden literalness and out of context, and in so doing have made him out to be either disingenuous or schizophrenic.
Inasmuch as any missionary does, Paul adapted himself to the customs of those to whom he evangelized and exhorted and preached. He did not in any way compromise the fullness of Christian doctrine or neglect it, regardless of his audience.
I agree. I just think you misunderstand what "the fullness of Christian doctrine" was to him or the other apostles. To wit: Can you find anywhere in the NT where it is stated or even assumed that a Jewish believer should not keep the full Torah, even being under Grace and not under the law?
Now, if Yeshua kept the whole Torah, and His Apostles kept the whole Torah, why do we assume that we should not?
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Mat. 28:19-20)What did Yeshua command His disciples concerning the Torah?
Think not that I am come to destroy the Torah, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Torah, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Mat. 5:17-19)And how did His disciples understand and apply this command to themselves?
Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the Torah. (Acts 21:20)Of course, that begs the question of whether Jewish and Gentile believers were actually given substantially different sets of commands by God. That's also a whole separate discussion--for my part, I think the requirements set forth in Acts 15 were always meant as the entry point, the minimum required for fellowship, and were specifically targeted at separating the Gentile believers from their former pagan practices. I believe that the Apostles, having seen the Spirit being received by faith among the Gentiles were trusting God to finish what He had started--but we see in their epistles that they plainly expected the Gentiles to grow beyond just the four things given in Acts 15.
For example, you'll notice that gossip and backbiting are not on the list, but you sure see Sha'ul spending a lot of ink preaching against them, don't you? Nor does one see baptism or the Lord's Supper there. Interesting, that.
I know this personally to be a libelous and insupportable accusation . . .
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
Now, let's be clear about what I'm saying. I am not saying that OP is "of his father, the Devil," or not a Christian. However, insofar as his words can only have the effect of driving Jews away from the Cross, and directly contradict Sha'ul's on Apostolic teaching that the Jews are indeed zealous for God, though they lack a certain knowledge (Rom. 10:2), who then should I attribute them to? Are you going to defend them as being written in "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, [and] temperance" (Gal. 5:22f)?
If OP is going to draw a line in the sand, repeatedly calling God's damnation on all theologies that he doesn't happen to disagree with, then one can hardly object to my far more mild statement that his present words--projecting only pride and hate (and for which he has been called down by several who don't have a dog in this fight, including the Mod), and containing none of the respect and empathy that Sha'ul had for even the pagans of Athens, let alone for his own people--are of the Adversary.
It is disobedience to scripture to suggest or teach that Jews or Gentiles are to have different doctrine.
I agree completely. (Well, there are some minor quibbles, but since those are the exceptions rather than the rules, let's go with this.) But since the Apostles, even Sha'ul, kept the Torah zealously, and Yeshua commanded that not the least command be broken, are we to assume that the Jews are supposed to become more Gentilized and anti-Torah? Or are we to assume that the Gentiles were meant to grow in their own obedience to this same Torah that their Jewish brethren already knew and followed?
Based on you own words, the only way that you can argue that Gentiles should not keep the whole Torah is to show that the Apostles and other early Jewish believers did not. Can you?
It is a libel upon the Gospel to suggest that the true faith of Christianity was lost over 1500 years ago because of Gentilization of the faith.
Not the central truth, no. Salvation is indeed by trusting Yeshua the Messiah rather than by "the works of the law," because He was our perfect sacrifice on the Cross, who rose after three days and was raised to the right hand of the Father, Almighty to judge the quick and the dead.
But how can you object that more peripheral issues could not have been "lost" for 1500 years? Do you not believe that the doctrine of salvation by grace received in faith was all but lost until a young monk named Martin Luther challenged 1400 years of Church doctrine on the basis of the Scripture? Indeed, don't you believe that the truth that salvation was by faith in God's promises rather than the "works of the law" was all but lost for however many centuries in Judea before the Messiah came?
How then can you object to my thesis that the far less salvation-critical issue of the proper relationship of the Church to the Torah and Israel has been all but lost for several centuries?
It is a blasphemy against the omnipotence of God to suggest that He cannot bring to repentance those He has chosen, both Jew and Gentile, from the foundations of the world to be His children in all eternity.
As I've said before, I don't believe that the Jews who rejected a false caracature of Jesus Christ are necessarily guilty of rejecting the true Messiah of Israel, and that God is fully in His rights to justify some by faith that He will provide forgiveness and a Messiah, even if they don't know His Name (just as Abraham was). Ergo, God is still sovereign.
But again, if such is blasphemy, then Sha'ul was blasphemous for suggesting that by his actions, some might be saved.
. . . we Calvinists . . .
I notice that every time one of you guys says, "we Calvinists," it immediately preceeds or follows boasting in your flesh.
BTW, let me know when the only Jews whose Right Of Return is not refused are criminals and Messianic Jews.
Huh? I think you've got a typo in here, because I can't make any sense of what you're trying to say.
First, you can demonstrate that the modern geopolitical Israel is the same entity as ancient Israel.
Nope, I asked first. It's pointless to try to demonstrate that to you while you are still conditioned to read the Church into every promise made to Israel. (Well, every blessing. Replacement Theology has always been fine with letting "Israel" mean Israel in the cases of God's curses.) Let us establish the meaning of Israel in Rom. 9-11 first, since this forms the centerpiece of Sha'ul's teaching on the subject, and then we can discuss the promises of the prophets from there.
So again, show how the Church is partially blind until the fulness of the Gentiles is come in, and that it is an enemy of the Gospel because of the Gentiles, or concede that "Israel" in Rom. 9-11 really does mean the Jewish people who are currently in disbelief. Until you do one or the other, the discussion cannot continue.
From post #193:
Are you really the arbiter of such matters in the spiritual lives of others?
No, the Bible is. And if one is to believe Sha'ul, one who comes to the Messiah while circumcised--that is, as a Jew--should stay circumcised, distinctly Jewish (1 Co. 7:18). A Jew who fails to keep the Torah and his cultural heritage when he comes to faith in a Jewish Messiah is not obeying even Sha'ul's letters, let alone the rest of Scripture. A church which encourages Jewish members to assimilate and become "uncircumcised" is likewise in violation of God's commands.
The Elk shamelessly trolls for compliments. Thank you!
Here's one: Love the tag line and the imagery involved.
Act 21:20 So having heard, they began glorifying the Lord, having said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are of Jews having believed, and all are zealots for the Law.Leaving aside your other scriptures for the time, it's clear enough that Paul had indeed been teaching Jews that the circumcision and the Law were abolished in Christ. That he did frequent the temple while proselytizing, that he did bring Gentiles into a common Christian faith with Jewish converts.
Act 21:21 "But they are informed about you, that you are teaching apostasy from Moses to all Jews among the Gentiles, saying [for] them not to be circumcising their children nor to be walking [fig., conducting themselves] [according to] the customs.
Act 21:22 "What then is [to be done]? It is certainly necessary [for] the congregation to come together, for they will hear that you have come.
Act 21:23 "Therefore, do this which we say to you: [there] are four men with us having a vow on themselves;
Act 21:24 these having taken, be purified with them and pay their expenses for them, so that they shall shave the head, and all may know that [the things] of which they have been informed about you are nothing, _but_ you are keeping in line with [fig., living in conformity with] and you yourself are keeping the Law.
Act 21:25 "But concerning the ones having believed of [the] Gentiles, _we_ wrote, having judged [that they need] to be observing no such [thing], except to be keeping themselves both [from] the [meat] sacrificed to idols and [from] blood and [from anything] strangled and [from] sexual sin." Act 21:26 Then Paul, having taken the men on the following day, having been purified with them, had gone into the temple announcing the completion of the days of the purification, until which [time] the offering was offered on behalf of each one of them.
Act 21:27 Now when the seven days were about to be coming to an end, the Jews from Asia having seen him in the temple began stirring up all the crowd, and they laid their hands on him,
Act 21:28 crying out, "Men, Israelites, help! This is the man, the one teaching all [people] everywhere against the people and the Law and this place! And further, he also brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place!"
Lol. And what's your good news for the Jews? Come join us and you too can be an anti-semite? Puke.
That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love." -- Ephesians 4:13-16"Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
The Good News for the Jews is the same as the Good News for the Serbs and the Scottish and the Indians and the Peruvians and the Egyptians and the Italians and the French and the Lithuanians and the Russians and the Chinese and the Moroccans and the Somalians and the Japanese and the Koreans and the Greeks and the Portuguese andthe Germans and the Australians and the Indonesians and the Aboriginals...
Christ has risen! It's all true.
And for all those who believe this, no matter their heritage, their sins have been paid for by the shed blood of Christ, the only blood of distinction.
Invincbly already knows that. He's just Gentile-baiting.
Christ has risen! It's all true.
Very nice, Dr. E.
P.S. Thanks for remembering the Italians :)
Awwww, shucks (shuffles hooves and blushes), thank you!
Same reason whenever I read one of your posts I smell something funny and my first inclination is to call the public service company.
There you go again, making it Personal.
For myself, as I have said before, I have never desired to make our theological disagreements Personal, Buggman.
I do not initiate Personal attacks against you, accusing you of ad hominems without warrant or accusing you of "not knowing how to debate" (even though I think I have enough experience to know the difference... a few years back, I coached my former Public School Debate Team for a few weeks. They won the next State Tournament in a clean sweep, and begged me to come back full-time. Some days, I'm tempted to do so; but I would really like to mentor Calvinists, so that my Good Works will benefit the One True Faith).
I like you, Bugg, and I haven't made our disagreements Personal between us; why must you?
If OP is going to draw a line in the sand, repeatedly calling God's damnation on all theologies that he doesn't happen to disagree with,
I have done no such thing. I have said only that Christ-Rejecting Religions (such as modern Judaism) are Hateful to Our Father in Heaven and are, therefore, Damned by God.
And that's what the Bible teaches! Why do you demand my "apologies" for preaching what the Bible teaches?!
then one can hardly object to my far more mild statement that his present words--projecting only pride and hate (and for which he has been called down by several who don't have a dog in this fight, including the Mod),
You are totally misrepresenting the Facts of the Case -- not to say, "Lying", or anything.
The Mod advised me that some Christians might find my occasional use of harsh verbiage in my argumentation (like "damn" and "hell" and other such Biblical words) offensive, and told me to cool it off a bit. I disagreed in Principle, since I do not accept the Pagan notion that certain syllables or constructions of sounds are inherently evil (booga-booga! abracadabra!), but I agreed to respect his Authority on the matter.
The Mod NEVER said that my statements "project only pride and hate"... he never said anything of the sort. You just made that up to buttress your own argument.
I will not, however, accuse you of Lying. I will NOT make this Personal between us, Buggman. I still like you. So do your worst.
and containing none of the respect and empathy that Sha'ul had for even the pagans of Athens, let alone for his own people--are of the Adversary.
Okay, so now you are basically saying (correct me if I am wrong; I do not wish to misrepresent) that "OP has Satan's words in his mouth".
Lemme check that, just to be sure:
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what you're saying -- I am speaking the Words of Satan.
Gimme a break.
How's this for "The Words of the Adversary":
The fact is, Buggman, you don't really have a Personal problem with me.
What you have, unfortunately, is a Personal problem with the teachings of God, the Apostles, and the Fathers... because all that I'm saying, is repeating what they have said.
"Messianic Judaism", if divorced from the ancient landmarks of the Reformed Faith (Proverbs 23:10), is but another 19-Century and 20th-Century Religious Invention which attempts, to its own detriment, to deny the millennia-old heritage of Jesus Christ's Christian Church... like Mormonism and JW's and what have you. And the Apostles warned, throughout Acts and the Pauline Epistles, against the Heresy of Judaizing the Christian Faith.
Best, OP
"The ceremonies of the Jews are both baneful and deadly to Christians, and whoever keeps them is Damned to the abyss of the Devil."
Mea Maxima Culpa. Ping to my #296, with my apologies.
Sigh. This smelly stuff again?
1. Damascus is still lived in. Until it's obliterated and not ever lived in again, the END TIMES prophecies have not been totally fufilled. Damascus looks increasingly primed and cocked to be utterly destroyed as Biblically predicted.
2. Romans 11
3. God's promise to Abraham was a COMMITMENT TO A FRIEND over and above a long list of other priorities, considerations, factors, issues, facts . . . God's nature is to honor His commitments.
4. The "no respecter of persons" vs "God's Chosen People" paradox is throughout Scripture. Taking a meat axe to arbitrarily lop off one side of it to satisfy finite insecurities, arrogance and biases is not Biblical and takes no account of God's purposes, nature and priorities.
5. Denying God's priority of having a Chosen People parallel with; in spite of; in addition to other egalitarian priorities of God denies Him the right to be God AS HE SEES FIT.
6. The 4 & 20 elders in Heaven make abundantly clear that God persists in HIS priority to have Blood Israel in a special place of rank and authority throughout all eternity.
7. The 4 & 20 elders--12 Disciples & 12 Patriarchs make abundantly clear that God is keeping very good track of EACH OF THE 12 TRIBES OF BLOOD ISRAEL for at least a purpose or 3 and probably for abundant reasons known primarily, if only TO HIM. Pretending otherwise is foolish, and probably exceedingly extremely arrogant beyond that of the teachers of Christ's dusty pathed days.
8. The 24 elders makes clear that Blood Israel will exercise considerable lofty authority ALONGSIDE The Church--evidently integrated with, complementary to that of The Church contingent of leadership/authority.
Many prophetic voices have commented in our era on the absolutely awesome power that accrues when Blood Israel and anointed Church leadership work together. And, that satan fights it therefore. But that when it is operating in a geographic region in sacrificial, humble, earnest diligence--GOD TENDS TO DO STARTLINGLY GREAT THINGS in that area.
9. In addition to other aspects of Blood Israel and it's rank/authority/eternal priority to God Almighty--Blood Israel is uniquely established in part for a unique eternity long demonstration of God's Glory vs man's anything and everything else. They are persistently a rebellious, contrary, obtuse, stubborn, wayward etc. lot. Yet God persistently plays them like a piano FOR HIS GLORY. Often enough [not always] comparatively, in such matters, The Church is just part of the audience--or--'merely' a major partner in such displays.
10 God established the standard that the Blood Israel Priesthood would be unique amongst His delegated leadership. THEY would not own land or have any other benefactors per se--BUT GOD HIMSELF. He did not do this with the leaders of The Church.
I have no delusions about these facts influencing the TULIP brigade in the slightest but they may be of value to the lurkers.
Sounds delicious. I assume it's available on the net?
You reject the Biblical Law of Galatians 3:28 against ANY Racial Division of the Body of Christ, and instead choose to believe in a false, Un-Biblical, Racially-Divided Christianity.
But that's okay. Hey, this is America. You have a First Amendment Right to believe in any False, Satanic, Un-Biblical, Racially-Divisive Heresy you want.... Just like the 19th-Century Mormons, with their Heresy against Blacks.
You have a First Amendment Right to believe your hateful, Racialist Theology.
This is America, after all.
Best, OP
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.