Tuesday, August 16, 2005

More Hyperventilations From Steve Camp

Steve Camp has posted the "12 dangers of ECB". Unfortunately, Camp needs a 12-step program of his own, to wean him from his dangerous addiction to posting outrageously inaccurate and slanderous pieces about his brethren.

Let's see:

On Camp's view, you can be 'salt and light' if you live out your faith, but by definition participating in the political process of the country in which you live cannot be a living out of your faith! No, that would be 'secular'. I see ;-)

"There is no such thing in Scripture as a 'moral human imperative' that applies to all peoples absent of the gospel."

Here Camp just announces to the world that he is an antinomian, and doesn't believe the law of God applies to all men whatsoever. That is, he undermines what should be the very presupposition of the gospel.

"There can be no meaningful social change or impact apart from the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ."

That's right! Civil rights came about in this country because all the judges and congressmen believed the gospel! Or, maybe, Camp just thinks that civil rights wasn't a "meaningful social change". I can't tell which proposition is worse.

"Resumes, press releases, and well-nurtured political alliances do not change the world"

Sorry to disappoint, but "well-nurtured political alliances" got us Bush II, and I daresay he's changed the world. Nay, "well-nurtured political alliances" got us victory in WWII, and I think that changed the world. Now, ECB is not identical to the Churchill/Roosevelt relationship in a time of crisis, but surely Camp needs to scale back the nonsensical rhetoric a bit. His generalizations are showing.

"It is against the command of Scripture to partner with an unbelieving world in any kind of spiritual ministry or enterprise. This is what the apostle Paul called “being unequally yoked” (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1)."

And Camp's argument that ECB is a "spiritual ministry" is... what?

It's as if Camp hasn't bothered to think through the consistency of his position. He keeps pounding away at how utterly secular and earthly is the whole enterprise of ECB, but then he turns around and tells us it is a form of "spiritual ministry"! If Camp wishes to hold on to logic, at least one of these fundamental criticisms has got to go.

BTW, Camp still hasn't bothered to define what constitutes "yoking". Perhaps he should watch some oxen in the fields some day :-) Last I checked, Bill Donohue wasn't constraining or coercing Al Mohler from walking away any time he likes.

"Evangelical Cobelligerents fault and accuse nonbelievers in society for living like nonbelievers."

I'm aghast to discover that some gospel preachers do this too, as does God in his Word ;-)

"Let me ask the ECBs a question: if you didn't know Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, what would you be living like? And then, would you want someone to picket you, boycott you, petition against you, vilify you, strong arm you, coerce you, legislate against you – or would you rather someone had come to you with the gospel of grace and walked with you as your neighbor and explained how to have eternal life by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone?"

But why would I want eternal life if I'm happy in my sins? Maybe Camp thinks you can preach the gospel without informing people of their sins, or offending them in any way. That would fit with his antinomianism quite well :-)

"Co-belligerents really distrust the Sovereignty of God in His working through the governments and the leadership of those governments that He by His own choosing, purposes and will has raised up in power to accomplish whatever He has predetermined them to accomplish."

More slander from Camp against his fellow Christians. Apparently, if you 'trust' God, you must believe that he works quite apart from any means whatsoever, and therefore you must never expend any effort in means that God could use. I guess when Camp fixes his food each day, he 'distrusts' God ;-)

Hey, let's take the "Sovereignty of God" a bit further: we distrust God when we preach the gospel, because God can predestine people to heaven quite apart from our help, thank you very much ;-)

"There is an amazing verse of Scripture on this theme found in 1 Peter 4:15. He says, "Make sure that none of you suffers as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a troublesome meddler." That phrase troublesome meddler literally means a "political agitator.""

Unfortunately, Camp can't manage to find a single reputable commentator who gives any scholarly support for why that hapax legomenon must be translated as "political agitator". No English translation of 1Pe 4:15 translates the word as "political agitator". Is this a marvelous coincidence, or, perhaps, a conspiracy to deny what is obvious to Camp? :-)

Here's what Thomas Schreiner says in his recent (2003) commentary on this verse: "The fourth word represents one of the most difficult interpretative problems in the New Testament. This word, translated 'meddler' by the NIV, occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, nowhere in the Septuagint, and nowhere in other Greek literature before 1 Peter... though certainty is impossible, a reference to being a busybody seems most probable. Peter wanted believers to refrain from acting tactlessly and without social graces" (The New American Commentary, vol. 37, pp. 224-225).

Somehow, I think Camp wants his criticism of ECBers from 1Pe 4:15 to run a bit deeper than this ;-)

It would be interesting to see how ECBers are 'busybodies' but Camp's blog is not, seeing as they both seek to hold public figures to the standards of Scripture (whether doctrinally [in the case of Camp's blog] or morally [in the case of ECBers]). Notice in particular that whatever Camp wants to make of 1Pe 4:15, Peter does not make a distinction between expressing political concerns and expressing theological concerns. All activities are to be done without being "troublesome meddlers" (NASB). I submit to Camp that whatever standard he uses here to make 1Pe 4:15 rule out the ECBers, it would also rule out most of the theological contention that Camp promotes on his blog against other Christians. Is it consistent for Camp to promote theological agitation again and again, and then turn around and use 1Pe 4:15 against ECBers?

Perhaps Camp is really saying that the Peter teaches we can't hold elected public officials accountable through lawful means ;-)

"We are not to be seen in the culture as ones who would disrupt the political process and its leadership to forward our own moral or spiritual agenda."

That's right! Christians lawfully participating in the political process would be to "disrupt the political process". Yeah, that makes sense ;-)

"Even in exile under Babylonian captivity the Lord instructs His people how to live. Notice, He doesn’t call them to organize and overthrow their captors."

That's right! ECBers are calling Christians to "overthrow their captors"! What an accurate assessment of their message! No, no, not slanderous at all! ;-)

"Evangelical Cobelligerents say they exist to protect our religious rights. This is spiritual smoke and mirrors. First, we don’t have any religious rights to violate"

Quick, someone send Camp a copy of the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps Camp will next instruct black Christians that they have no civil rights. Makes about as much sense...

"I realize that this is a difficult way of thinking in our times, but as Christians we only have one right—to have no rights."

And, as we all know, Paul never appealed to his rights as a Roman citizen (Ac 16:37; 22:25), because -- remember, class -- we have no rights ;-) Perhaps Camp got Thomas Jefferson to cut those offending passages out of his Bible ;-)

"One of the most tragic fallouts of ECB philosophy is reducing the body of Christ to nothing more than a political force."

That's right! Due to ECB, the body of Christ has been reduced to nothing more than a political force. I don't quite understand it, seeing as how I thought the "Sovereignty of God" and the sure promises of God would preclude such a disaster from happening, but apparently, according to Camp, that is all the church is today! ;-)

22 comments:

  1. ECB is Camp's coinage for Evangelical cobelligerence, by which he singles out the political activism of Land, Mohler, Dobson, and Colson.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Camp writes,

    WARNING: People who champion co-belligerence do so outside the authority of Scripture and therefore cannot affirm Sola Scriptura in its practice.

    Can we do without such rhetoric? Does it always have to be agree with me or you deny the faith?

    Concerning Sola Scriptura:
    (1) Campi, I am curious as to how you would define Sola Scriptura.
    (2) Campi, I would venture to guess that your conception of Sola Scriptura is foreign to the reformers themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  3. glad to see a better layout (e.g. block quotes) to the blog.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What's wrong with being an "antinomian"? The Mosaic Law is a conditional pre-advental "school-master" pointing to Christ. It was temporary as to its referent, finding fulfillment and consequently becoming obselete when Christ came in the "fullness of time". Paul makes clear that the law and gospel are not synonymous realities (cf. Jn 1:16; Col. 2; Eph. 2; II Cor.3; Gal.3; Heb, etc.)

    There appears to be a "shift" in salvation history as the "shadows" of the Mosaic cov. find fulfillment (and completion)in the New cov.

    I have no idea what Steve Camp holds to, but I do know that many throw around the term antinomian as a pejorative label that ostracizes a person as "heretic" out of hand. Maybe there should be more qualification given before using such terminology hap-hazardly.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here's a textbook example, in his very own words, of Camp's antinomianism:

    ***QUOTE***

    Where ECB comes in (a term I coined) is that they are trying to fight spiritual battles with carnal weaponry (2 Cor. 10:1-4). Abortion, Gay marriage, etc. are not political problems, but are issues of the heart and are spiritual ones. They need the gospel; not legislation.

    We don't have the right biblically to go around holding unsaved people to that same standard (1 Cor. 5; Rom. 6:20) as they do in many of their writings and radio broadcasts (Being constantly critical of non-believers for living like non-believers.)

    ***END-QUOTE***

    Where's the shift in salvation history? The ceremonial law? Yes. The civil law? Debatable.
    The moral law? No.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jonathan Moorehead,

    I doubt Camp reads this blog. In addition (unlike Phil Johnson), he disallows links to other blog posts to be posted as comments at his own blog. So, you might have better prospects for an answer if you post over there :-)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bobby Grow (aka 'bag') said:

    What's wrong with being an "antinomian"?

    "Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law" (Ro 3:31).

    Steve Camp claims to be a "Protestant, Reformed Christian". You can't do that and deny the applicability of God's moral standards to all of mankind. As the citations provided by me and Steve Hays attest, Camp makes precisely this denial.

    I have no idea what Steve Camp holds to

    If you have no idea what he holds to, why are you criticizing the application of a particular label to him? That makes no sense, Bobby.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I made a brief comment here:

    http://centuri0n.blogspot.com/2005/08/evangelical-co-belligerants-who-is-who.html

    Believe it or not, I think that the answer to the question there is the basis for me agreeing with both JD and the Haysmeister about this whole affair.

    However, I might be wrong. :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. BTW, the quote Steve Hays provided above is from Camp's own blog. Here's the response I posted to it, back on July 21, 2005:

    You don't believe the law of God applies to unbelievers (1Ti 1:9)? You've offered a total misreading of Ro 6:20; check out any standard Reformed commentary here. Paul was _not_ "free in regard to righteousness" _in the sense that_ he was not under any obligation to obey God's law before he was a Christian. Why would anyone need the gospel unless they were _guilty_? And why would they be guilty unless they had disobeyed a law _which they were obligated to keep_? _Of course_ God's law applies to unbelievers. The standard Reformed confession chapters on the law of God are _very_ clear here. I really don't want to come across as condescending, but I am really amazed you are taking this position! By preaching the gospel, we _are_ "holding unsaved people to that same standard" (of God's law). Christ came to save sinners, people who have disobeyed a law they _ought_ to have obeyed. No universal applicability of the law, then no universal applicability of the gospel!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Centuri0n,

    I'm not sure I understand what's at your posted link. That's because, based on the citation you provide, I don't see what *is* wrong with 'Faith Voices'.

    In any event, I wish you would stop calling me a theonomist. Not only am I agnostic about the distinctive thesis of theonomy, but I have *repeatedly* said on this blog that none of my arguments require theonomy. If you think that position is inconsistent, well, be my guest in arguing how.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jus' response to me:

    "Bobby Grow (aka 'bag') said:

    What's wrong with being an "antinomian"?

    "Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law" (Ro 3:31).

    Steve Camp claims to be a "Protestant, Reformed Christian". You can't do that and deny the applicability of God's moral standards to all of mankind. As the citations provided by me and Steve Hays attest, Camp makes precisely this denial."

    I should have been more clear, I'm not trying to defend Camp, rather anti-nomianism (and not the kind forwarded, necessarily, by Greenham; Cotton; and others; i.e. the antinomian controversy).

    Your quote of Rom. 3:31 doesn't reflect the nuanced understanding of "nomos" that the scriptures do. E.g. Rom 2:21 says (same context as your quote):

    "But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets,"

    Which "law" has been established, the Mosaic law or the "law of the Spirit of life (New Cov.). I argue for discontinuity between the old and new covenant, as II Cor. 3 does.

    BTW, Gen. 15:6 (Abrahamic cov) chronologically precedes, the conditional temporary inter-advental nature of the cov. established with Moses (Deut.28-32; Lev. 26). This is the referent point of the gospel (see Rom 4:3ff), not the mosaic cov (which Paul makes clear in Rom 7).

    Indeed the Mosaic cov served to condemn us, insofar as it reflects the holy nature of Yahweh (Gal. 3:15-29)--but this in no way serves as the "presupposition" of the gospel. In other words your view appears to assume a negative understanding of salvation, i.e. humanities condemnation; rather than the positive understanding of God's holiness and justice displayed at the cross.

    Your position appears rather anthro pocentric when you equate the mosaic law with the gospel (see Jesus' chastisement of the Pharisees for this very thing Mt. 23)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dear Mr. BAG,

    I hope that I have more time after lunch (PST) to respond to your antinomian comments.

    But for now I must say that you have really missed it with Mattiyahu 23. Missed what, you say? Why, the whole point of the monologue, that's what. Yeshua was not criticizing the Torah as being inadequate or soon to be replaced due to its shadowy stature, but rather, He was criticizing what they (the P'rushim and others) had added to Torah, thus rendering those eternal instructions useless in the lives of the children of Israel!

    Do you really believe that Messiah, the Son of the Elohim of Israel, would make, or have, as part of His purpose here on this earth, the undoing of His Father's instructions in righteousness, that had been given to Israel as a marital covenant?

    Since you mention the verse in Romans that declares the witness the Torah and the Prophets have regarding the righteouness that comes through faith, perhaps a more careful examination of that witness would be in order.

    Until then,

    Shalom

    ReplyDelete
  13. Bobby Grow (aka 'bag') said:

    Your quote of Rom. 3:31 doesn't reflect the nuanced understanding of "nomos" that the scriptures do. E.g. Rom 2:21 says (same context as your quote):

    "But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets,"

    Which "law" has been established, the Mosaic law or the "law of the Spirit of life (New Cov.).


    Nothing like a little false dilemma to spice up my day ;-)

    Gosh, Bobby, seeing as "the law of the Spirit of life" isn't so much as *mentioned* in Ro 2 or 3 (we have to go all the way to Ro *8* for that), one wonders why you think it's even an *option* in Ro 3:31. Do you actually have an *argument* here, or do you just get to make stuff up?

    I argue for discontinuity between the old and new covenant, as II Cor. 3 does.

    Correction: you *state* that you argue thusly. You actually *haven't* argued it, have you? :-)

    I think everyone agrees that there is *some* discontinuity between the covenants. The question is *how much*. Seeing as how the apostles expressly cite at least 9 of the 10 commandments in the NT as binding on Christians today, you're going to have a hard slog convincing anyone that there isn't fundamental cross-covenantal continuity with respect to moral law.

    But perhaps you missed the bit where Paul said that the law is written even on the hearts of *unbelieving pagans* (Ro 2:15).

    BTW, Gen. 15:6 (Abrahamic cov) chronologically precedes, the conditional temporary inter-advental nature of the cov. established with Moses (Deut.28-32; Lev. 26). This is the referent point of the gospel (see Rom 4:3ff), not the mosaic cov (which Paul makes clear in Rom 7).

    How does this *at all* tend to support the view that God's moral law is not binding upon all human beings today?

    What, when you preach the gospel, and ask people to repent of their sins, don't you think it's a little hard to hold that people are sinners if you don't think *there is a law they ought to obey*? This is real simple stuff, Bobby.

    (BTW, you're wrong about the Mosaic covenant not having the gospel. Hebrews says that it was the *gospel* which was preached to them in the wilderness, under Moses; Heb 4:2.)

    Indeed the Mosaic cov served to condemn us, insofar as it reflects the holy nature of Yahweh (Gal. 3:15-29)--but this in no way serves as the "presupposition" of the gospel.

    I didn't say that. I said "the law of God," which I understand as God's moral law. The Mosaic covenant contained this, but much else besides, which I regard as obsolete.

    In other words your view appears to assume a negative understanding of salvation, i.e. humanities condemnation; rather than the positive understanding of God's holiness and justice displayed at the cross.

    Eh? What's this, a false antithesis between divine 'justice' and human condemnation?

    Your position appears rather anthro pocentric when you equate the mosaic law with the gospel (see Jesus' chastisement of the Pharisees for this very thing Mt. 23)

    Yes, you heard it here first: merely daring to affirm *God's* demands on our lives is 'anthropocentric'! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  14. BAG said:

    Which "law" has been established, the Mosaic law or the "law of the Spirit of life (New Cov.). I argue for discontinuity between the old and new covenant, as II Cor. 3 does.

    IICor 3 does not argue for discontinuity between the covenants. It is an explanation of the reasons for the difference between the glory of the one over the other. The glory attached (or assigned if you prefer) to each of the covenants is from the providential hand of YHVH, not man. The Mosaic covenant received the lesser, temporary glory due to weakness of man, not weakness of Torah. Everything about it pointed to the need for a Messiah (deliverer). The Torah of YHVH actually provides the perfect compliment to the grace revealed in His son. They are not discontinuous, but rather, they are seamless. That which was temporary within the Mosaic covenant did not carry over, as JD (his friends call him JD), indicated. And to help with the transition, YHVH put a stop to those practices, again providentially so as to leave no doubt about His intentions or His methods.

    Look at Jeremiah 31:31-37. Does it sound to you like YHVH was intending to do away with either Israel or His covenants with them? Was it not the plan and purpose of the Messiah to enact those very promises to Israel and all those who would also be gathered later? Read Ephesians chapter 2. We were made nigh to what? The covenants of promise. And what would those promises be founded on? The finished work of the Messiah? Yes! And whose will did He come to fulfill? YHVH's! His Father's will. Do you really think you can separate the two?

    So far your statements have not done so.
    Look at Mattiyahu 19:17. How would you interpret Yeshua's answer. Was it an honest and complete response, or was it evasive, disingenuous, misleading? Can you see the connection?
    For Moshe had prophesied about the coming Messiah, saying that He would bring the words of life to His people. And here we have the promised Messiah being asked a question about how to obtain that life. According to your beliefs (at least the ones you've expressed here on this blog)Yeshua should have said something like, "just hold on bro, after my work is done, you won't need to do anything. You can just sit back and relax in the arms of grace."

    We do rest in His grace. But it is grace in the context of what? Sha'ul says clearly that where there is no commandment, there is no sin. Is there sin? The question answers itself.

    Got to go. I hope this conversation continues, it so very important.

    Shalom

    ReplyDelete
  15. Wow, I hit the hot button! Efrayim said:

    ***quote***
    But for now I must say that you have really missed it with Mattiyahu 23. Missed what, you say? Why, the whole point of the monologue, that's what. Yeshua was not criticizing the Torah as being inadequate or soon to be replaced due to its shadowy stature, but rather, He was criticizing what they (the P'rushim and others) had added to Torah, thus rendering those eternal instructions useless in the lives of the children of Israel!
    ***endquote***

    Mt. 23:1-3 says:

    ***quote***
    Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2. saying: The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.
    ***endquote***

    Efrayim, how does this jive with what you assert here, "He was criticizing what they (the P'rushim and others) had added to Torah,. . ."? Where, in this passage/context, is Jesus criticizing the Phar. for adding to the Torah? I don't see it. In fact just the opposite of what you assert is happening here, Jesus is chastizing the self-righteous attitude that motivated the Phar. as a result of "keeping" the external "points" of the law thus appearing righteous to men.

    My concern is this, that following some sort of deuteronomic code leads people to self-righteouss religion.

    I wish I had more time to comment, I will be back to address your comments on II Cor 3, and Jus' array of "challenges" to my assertions--but my baby boy is crying ;). I'll be back . . .

    ReplyDelete
  16. Well, how 'bout this:


    Mat 23:4 "They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with {so much as} a finger.

    It's the next verse. What burdens were they tying up and laying on men's shoulders? Torah commands? In light of the entirety of Psalm 119 (which I will not cut and paste here) I would have to say that the Spirit of YHVH does not consider His righteous instructions to be "heavy burdens".

    Or this:

    Mat 23:16 "Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the temple, {that} is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated.'
    Mat 23:17 "You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold?

    They had added a tradition of oaths that were not based in Torah, but in their own sense of importance. Where did the gold come from? A man. Who put it in the temple? A man. Who then would receive the glory for the gold in the temple? A man. They had displaced YHVH with their own self-importance.

    I'm off work now. But I do hope to return to this tomorrow. There is much to learn from that chapter.

    Shalom

    ReplyDelete
  17. BAG said:

    My concern is this, that following some sort of deuteronomic code leads people to self-righteouss religion.

    This is a good argument? Seriously? Why is it at all relevant to the truth or falsity of antinomianism? Is the idea supposed to be: "Don't accept the authority of God's law in your life, because if you do, it could lead to self-righteous religion?"

    If that argument were sound, then the OT Jews would have had a good reason to rebel, and reject the Deuteronomic code that God himself gave them. But that's absurd, right?

    It seems to me that we've *first* got to settle the issue of *whether or not* God's law (in some form) is binding on us today, and *then* we can consider how to avoid self-righteousness. The danger of the latter is present *whether or not* we think God's law is binding on us today.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dear Mr. BAG,

    Well, perhaps we should return to the original passage you mentioned in Mat 23. Although it certainly does not stand alone from the rest of the exhortation, for the sake of evaluating your position on that verse, I will treat it as such for as long as I can.

    Here it is in the NASB:

    Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples,
    Mat 23:2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;
    Mat 23:3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say {things} and do not do {them.}

    If you take this apart and compare it to the rest of what was recorded to have been said by the Messiah at this particular teaching, the first question would be, "was Yeshua confused?"

    First, He says to observe and do what the P'rushim teach, and then qualifies that statement by adding,"the scribes and pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moshe."
    Then He warns not to practice what those same teachers practiced because they did not follow the teachings He just said were valid due to their origin, Elohim through Moshe.
    Now how will you see this?
    Is He saying to do "all that the P'rushim say" because they teach Torah accurately, and Torah is valid and binding upon humankind? Or is He simply lending His credibility to their place in Judaism, along with their practices, while at the same time criticizing their lack of obedience to the very things they taught? Didn't He just say to observe and do "all" that they say? Didn't the P'rushim also teach the traditions Yeshua was condemning? Or did they just read from the Torah scroll on Shabbat for their teaching? Without any commentary? And then during the week concoct traditions which would become "heavy burdens" upon the people? Seems unlikely to me.

    Would that make a good argument today?

    Let's bring it up to today. It could read like this:
    "the SBC and their affiliated local boards have seated themselves in the chair of Sola Scriptura. Therefore, all that they tell you, do and observe; but do not do according to their deeds, for they say (things) and do not (do them)."

    Was Sola Scriptura disqualified in that statement? No. Was the teaching of Sola Scriptura disqualified in that statement? No. Were unfaithful teachers disqualified in that statement? Yes.

    As a point of further clarification, let's look at this statement which you made ealier:

    "In fact just the opposite of what you assert is happening here, Jesus is chastizing the self-righteous attitude that motivated the Phar. as a result of "keeping" the external "points" of the law thus appearing righteous to men."

    Is that what Yeshua was being critical of? Observance of external commands? No.

    Yeshua said this:

    Mat 23:5 "But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels {of their garments.}"

    Notice what Yeshua didn't say. He did not condenm the use Tzit Tzit (tassels on their garments found in Num 15:38-39) or the use of phylacteries (found in Exd 13:9 & Deu 6:4-9 & 11:18). He would not condenm their use because He had told them to wear them in the first place! The problem here was the "lengthening" of the tassel and the "broadening" of the frontlets in an effort to appear more righteous than others of the same faith. Modern day examples of this type of problem should be flooding your mind right about now.
    But for the sake of being clear, here is an example;
    there is nothing wrong with building a structure for a congregation to keep the rain off their heads while they worship and fellowship together. But, turn that functional structure into a multi-million dollar family fun center that elevates man above his fallen condition through the expensive religious trappings he installs, and you have a problem. A problem that would receive the same type of criticizism now as those bad old pharisees did then.

    I will finish with this; Yeshua did not come to destroy the law and the prophets. There isn't any reason for Him to do such a thing. And He certainly said as much. Nor will you find any place in the Scriptures where YHVH declares that He will do so at such and such a time. So then finding out what our relationship is to be with the law and the prophets should be a priority for every believer. My opinion anyway.

    Awaiting your response Mr. BAG.

    Hopefully JD is gone now so I won't get toasted and have to try to answer to words I'm not sure I could pronounce properly :-). And since Mr. Hayes has already dismissed me as someone who makes "bare assertions", I might be in the clear this time.

    Shalom

    ReplyDelete
  19. I dismissed you before because you WERE making bare assertions. This time around you're making an exegetical case for your position. That's a great improvement--although, since it's not directed at me this time, I may sit on the sidelines while you and the BAG man duke it out. BTW, it's nice to have a Messianic Jewish perspective represented.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thank you Steve.
    I can't imagine why I might be a little gun shy around these here parts, but altogether, you seem like some nice folks. And well studied, which I do appreciate.

    The two-house Messianic Jewish perspective is interesting, but at times can prove to be a bit unsettling. It would be, for me anyway, most rewarding to see how well that teaching stands up to serious review by serious students of Scripture. Perhaps it could be a topic someday. I know you have addressed it before, but I'm hoping you have explored it further since that time.

    Mr.BAG, where'd you go?

    Shalom

    ReplyDelete
  21. Well, it seems that Mr. BAG has popped up over on Steve Camp's blog, and making similar points on the same subject there.

    Perhaps another time.

    But, should you happen to read this post again, I will leave this here for you:

    Eze 36:23 "I will sanctify my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in the midst of them; and the nations shall know that I am the LORD, says the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.
    Eze 36:24 For I will take you from among the nations, and gather you out of all the countries, and will bring you into your own land.
    Eze 36:25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
    Eze 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh.
    Eze 36:27 I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and you shall keep my ordinances, and do them.
    Eze 36:28 You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and you shall be my people, and I will be your God."

    It is a certainty that YHVH has renewed His covenant with His people. It is also certain that the regathering that will take place will have an effect on the entire planet and everybody living on it. And He will gather many who do not yet know that they should be gathered as well. Won't that be exciting?

    Shalom

    ReplyDelete