Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding. I will
not be silent on the conditions provided in Romans 4â With my schedule and
family responsibilities (Fulltime work, six children and a wife, 12 credit
hours of Seminary), please be patient with my seeming lack of response.
By the
way, I wrote Deuteronomy 16.15-19. I should have written Deuteronomy18.15-19.
-- slade
-----Original
Message-----
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004
4:11 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Baton Bob
Slade: your interest and defense of law is evident even in your style of
writing. I will work on a response while on my trip to the coast but a
few comments in the mean time. First, I wanted a reconciliation for
Romans 4:13-25. I mistakenly referred to the 5th chapter.
"...so what" is an endearing phrase asking the opponent for
application. I could have written " and as a consequence, how
does that apply to your point and my question." My phraseology is
profound in that it is much more to the point of my concern and succinctly
recorded.
You wrote that my opinion was one born of ignorance, implying that your opinion
was not. You defended your comment by admitting that you are ignorant of many
things -- but that was not your point in the response. You
were saying that you were right and I was wrong, but more than that --
your belief was right and mine was of ignorance. I do not use those
kinds of words to typify the opposition. "Ignorance"
carries with it the nuance of being devoid of knowledge or education. I
did not dwell on my criticism but it remains a criticism, nonetheless. I
can handle someone saying that my particular belief is ignorant -- hope
you can as well -- since it is apparently not an offensive term.
You imply that I said we preach two different gospels. Nowhere in my post
do I say that.
Reconcile this passage to
Romans 4:13 - 25. (I originally wrote 5:13-25) I believe that I have
previously asked this question. Silence. And I do get nothing but
silence on this when I place it into the discussion with those who
believe in holiness in terms of law keeping Please notice that I left off comments about your
ignorance or refusal to consider the biblical truth of my comments. I
left off your obvious tactic of proof-texting to establish your theory and
omitted any reference or inference to the preaching of a false gospel. I
not only left it off -- I no longer think that way. reread that last phrase You are presenting out of an honest
heart. So am I. I hope you see the point. (you didn't)
Perhaps an apology for the use of âignoranceâ is appropriate.
If so, please correct me and instruct me on a more politically correct term
because Iâm at a loss here. Would some derivation of âunawareâ be a softer and
more preferable term?
Ok -- the scholars I have on my shelves, when
they disagree, they simply present their point and then add (i.e.)
"AT Robertson and Metzger argue otherwise ............. [and their point
if often presented]" Is it really necessary to let me
know that I am wrong, mistaken or a believer in false doctrine, or ignorant on
this particular point. I can figure out if you agree with me. All
you have to say is "that is not the way I look at it." I enjoy
discussing the bibilical message -- and if you really do keep
records, you will know that I have held up I Co 8:1-4 more than anyone on this
list -- and I mean that i have envoked that very scripture,
not that I am the only one who thinks he could be wrong.)
In a message dated 9/3/2004 11:06:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I donât
know the best way to answer this post. No matter what procedure I use, it comes
up muddy. I think I will try footnoting things (if they show up in the emailâ
this is a new procedure for me). The footnotes will represent the original
threaded email text I am answering (you should be able to simply *click* on the footnote number. After all,
many of Judyâs posts are lost to me because I donât know which [colors] are the
recent responses.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is in Dark
Red
and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] responds in Green
I have never had a vigorous discussion with anyone who
considers the old law to be in force. I know how "holiness
perfectionists" think and the standard run of the mill denominational
legalist. You (Slade and Tim) are defending something that is as foreign to me
as higher math (you know, division and fractions and such). The best you will
be able to do for me is give me a contextual thought (your context) of a number
of passages that bear on the subject. That is what I am trying to do for you.
Your scriptures and thinking will be considered. [1]
The problem I see here is that we [Tim and I] have given many
verses, but you state such things as âso
what.â This kind of flippant response makes it hard to continue
conversing (perhaps thatâs the point). When Yeshua is speaking on the mount,
Heâs doing what was the standard teaching practice of the day â He was using
Pharisaic techniques to inspire people to apply Torah to their lives (instead
of having a dead, 1,500-year-old document that no longer applies â similar to
the standard Christian view of Torah today). In Yeshuaâs famous âYou have heard it saidâ but I tell youâ
speeches, Yeshua was not dismissing the Old Testament for a newer version. If
he did, He would have been stoned as a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13.1-5; cf.
Matthew 5.19). For Yeshua to be the promised Messiah and the Prophet
Foretold, He had to uphold Torah and to get people back on the right track in
regard to its use (Deuteronomy 16.15-19). Instead, He is saying, âYou have heard it saidâ and I am telling you that you
know only half the storyââ
Please consider the following verse: Matthew 23.2-6
You are getting all choked up because the Lord cautioned the
Jewish reader and decendant not to add to His statutes and judgments? I
must admit that my hankie remains dry at this point.[2]
Ok. Great newsâ I guess. You seemed to have forgotten the
whole point of the conversation with your question above. The point was: OR SUBTRACT. We are not to add OR SUBTRACT
from Torah.
Not at all -- the point was (your words) That verse includes little old ME! It gets be âright hereâ to think that
God was thinking of me when He said that!
I will rephrase: You are getting all choked up about asking
the Jewish reader and decendant to not subtract from the
Torah??????!!!!!! How in the world does this verse envoke any emotional
response at all?
Two things wrong here. First, this answer is
hardly standard -- there is nothing standard with that first
sentence. Secondly, why not discuss the issues without getting personal.[3]
Why do you think Iâm getting personal? I am ignorant of much
and I freely admit it. Even when I know I am right J I
still hold to the probability that I may be wrong and require correction. Terry
and I have had many exchanges and I consider what he says to be vitally
important to my growth in Messiah â even when we disagree.
If you know everything, then please accept my apology because
it would be impossible for you to approach any discussion with an inkling of
ignorance. I choose to consider you human as I am because of the quantity of
mistakes to date.
Perhaps an apology for the use of âignoranceâ is appropriate.
If so, please correct me and instruct me on a more politically correct term
because Iâm at a loss here. Would some derivation of âunawareâ be a softer and
more preferable term?
As far as your first complaint, it is the pat answer I get when I speak with Christians who
deny the relevance of Torah in the Christian life. You have yet to approach me
with even one new idea against the supposed dichotomy between Torah/Law and
Grace (or better stated: the irrelevance of Torah in the Christian life).
Reconcile this passage to Romans 5:13 - 25. I
believe that I have preciously asked this question. Silence.
Please notice that I left off comments about your ignorance or refusal to
consider the biblical truth of my comments. I left off your obvious
tactic of proof-texting to establish your theory and omitted any reference or
inference to the preaching of a false gospel. I not only left it
off -- I no longer think that way. You are presenting out of
an honest heart. So am I. I hope you see the point.[4]
This is a standard duck-and-jab technique. Perhaps you asked
that question of someone else? [I tried looking back and I canât find it (and I
do keep records).] I asked you the question regarding James and you dodged it.
Once you have thought it through and have honored me with your solid,
Scripturally based answer, I will spend like time answering yours.
I must admit to having a loss to understand why you think I
am proof-texting. Can you give examples of this?
You have said one thing that rings true. We [you and I]
preach two different gospels.
[1] The law by which we are judged is no longer a
code of conduct, written in stone or in some way codified.
It is now written on the
papyrus of the Torah Scroll, the acid-free paper of your Older Testament
portion of your Bible. It is also written on your heart if you have experienced
the Ezekiel 36.25-27 promise that revealed itself in Acts 2. If itâs written there,
you will obey it out of love for the God who redeemed you. After all, the
Children of Yisrael sated, âWe will OBEY and we will HEARâ before they heard.
Check out Exodus 19. NOW THATâS FAITH!
We, on the other hand, want to see the writing on the wall before we creatively
bypass it and call it passÃ.
I have never
had a vigorous discussion with anyone who considers the old law to be in force.
I know how "holiness perfectionists" think and the standard run of
the mill denominational legalist. You (Slade and Tim) are defending something
that is as foreign to me as higher math (you know, division and fractions and
such). The best you will be able to do for me is give me a contextual thought
(your context) of a number of passages that bear on the subject. That is what I
am trying to do for you. Your scriptures and thinking will be considered.
[2] While youâre in the dusty section of your Bible,
read Deuteronomy 4.3. What do you think of that one?? That verse includes
little old ME! It gets be âright
hereâ to think that God was thinking of me when He said that!
You are getting all choked up
because the Lord cautioned the Jewish reader and decendant not to add to
His statutes and judgments? I must admit that my hankie remains dry at
this point.
[3] This is a standard answer and it comes from
ignorance.
Two things
wrong here. First, this answer is hardly standard
-- there is nothing standard with that first sentence.
Secondly, why not discuss the issues without
getting personal.
[4] If anything, one who gives the âstandard answerâ above should be worried in regard to James
2.14-17, realizing that contextually and culturally, works in this passage is âMitzvotâ which is translated two ways (and one way in
truth): Good Deeds, Observance of Torah.
Reconcile
this passage to Romans 5:13 - 25. I believe that I have preciously
asked this question. Silence. Please notice that I left off
comments about your ignorance or refusal to consider the biblical truth of my
comments. I left off your obvious tactic of proof-texting to establish your
theory and omitted any reference or inference to the preaching of a false
gospel. I not only left it off -- I no longer think that
way. You are presenting out of an honest heart. So am
I. I hope you see the point.
