A different gospel?

[fastfredy0]

@TB2
I give you props for the fine way you've represented your ideas against so many foes.

 

[David1701]

Got it. Thanks for telling me what I "refuse to believe." I love it when people tell me what I 'really' believe. However, I cannot express similar thanks nor can I condone your distortion of the gospel message of salvation.

Here's what I posted, "You don't "accept" that humans and primates, allegedly, had a common ancestor, since it's not true. You refuse to believe the Bible and, instead, you declare a lie..."

Here's what I meant, "One doesn't "accept" that humans and primates, allegedly, had a common ancestor, since it's not true. One refuses to believe the Bible and, instead, declares a lie..."

I don't know about America, but, in Britain, we often substitute "you" for "one", since "one", although grammatically correct, sounds awkward and snobbish, to our ears (unless one is upper class).

I also did not distort the gospel.

 

[David1701]

Hmmm ... surprised they didn't invent flight, go to the moon, etc. etc. etc. ... or maybe they did?

We are standing on the shoulders of previous generations, as far as knowledge and technology are concerned. This masks the decrease in intelligence, to a large extent.

Incidentally, ancient man did some things that we don't know how to do (e.g. cutting huge stones with such accuracy that you can't fit a piece of paper between them (in the earliest pyramids, in Egypt), and moving massive boulders over large distances.

 

[fastfredy0]

This masks the decrease in intelligence, to a large extent.

Well, this article disagrees with you. https://www.sciencealert.com/iq-tes...igher-but-are-humans-actually-getting-smarter

The “Flynn effect” refers to the observed rise in IQ scores over time from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4152423/

The devil may be in the details, but I'm too disinterested to read the details

 

[TB2]

Here's what I posted, "You don't "accept" that humans and primates, allegedly, had a common ancestor, since it's not true. You refuse to believe the Bible and, instead, you declare a lie..."

Here's what I meant, "One doesn't "accept" that humans and primates, allegedly, had a common ancestor, since it's not true. One refuses to believe the Bible and, instead, declares a lie..."

I don't know about America, but, in Britain, we often substitute "you" for "one", since "one", although grammatically correct, sounds awkward and snobbish, to our ears (unless one is upper class).

I also did not distort the gospel.

Thank you for the clarification. Best

 

[Eleanor]

I wonder if that's part of the problem/misunderstanding. From what I can tell, no one (in the NP) is saying that we can earn salvation through righteous works. From what I can tell everyone still rejects that. We can't earn our way to heaven! Amen? I think the issue is whether the salvation by works controversy of the Reformation against Catholic Church was inadevertently (and anachronistically) read back into the Bible when Paul was talking about something else.

That is circular.
There would have been no salvation by works controversy except by reading the issue out of the Bible in the first place,
which they did not turn and then read into the Bible

 

[Eleanor]

Correct, and we see in the NT that those identifying marks of Torah obedience--which remember is a covenant relationship to identify oneself as a member of God's people--those "works of the law" mentioned most by Paul are circumcision (also in the two verses you cite), dietary restrictions, and Sabbath observance.

Authority of a Biblical principle is not based on the number of times it is stated.

It was Calvin’s characteristic practice to back up his view by citing the early patristic fathers. Here he cites that their views are against his.
If it was "clearly stated in Paul," then Calvin himself wouldn't point out that it is "a matter of doubt even among the learned what 'the works of the law mean.'"
It does indeed seem to be the case.
Calvin's view is the same as Calvin’s. You're reading Paul through the lens of Calvin and claiming that's the clear teaching of Scripture, when it's just the clear teaching of Calvin. We all read through the lens of a certain denomination or tradition or background. You're reading through the lens of Calvin. I think it makes more sense to read through the lens of first and second century patristic church fathers because they were closer in time and more likely to understand what Paul meant that Calvin 1500 years later.

I knew nothing of Calvin nor of the patristic fathers in my study of Romans and Galatians.

Again, no one's disputing the other passages. The question is when Paul speaks not simply of works but "works of the Torah" is he speaking of something more specific? Indeed it seems he is and the earliest Church witness to this agrees.

And apart from any explanation of what difference it makes in NT doctrine, it is all smoke and mirrors.

Not denying works-for-salvation bad. "Works of the Torah" is just something more specific than a general pronouncement of you-can't-earn-your-way-to-heaven. Look at the passages in Romans and Galatians. Look at Romans chapter 2, 3, 4 where Paul talks about "works of the Law". It's all about circumcision. Paul brings up circumcision about 9 times and about 5-6 times in Galatians. Even the verses about the "works of the Law" you cite in Acts is tied to circumcision.
We still can't earn our way to heaven through righteous moral living (that is a false teaching). But "works of the Torah" is something more specific and always seems to be tied to circumcision (as the literal "boast in the flesh"). Circumcision, circumcision, circumcision. It's an epidemic of circumcision in those passages.

Circumcision was important because it was required by the Abrahamic covenant to be in the people of God.
However, through Christ who was the seed of Abraham, all the born again are in the Abrahamic covenant and inherit the promise (Gal 3:29).
And that does not answer the question of what difference NP makes in NT doctrine.

Paul gets so mad he even says in Galatians he wished the knife slipped and everything was cut off!

By which he is referring to castration.

Circumcision on the brain in these passages. We still can't earn our way to heaven. But Paul clearly seems to be speaking of something very specific with the "works of the Torah"---circumcision which was not a moral ethical thing but an outward identifying mark that you belong to the People of God.
Judaizers were saying you have to bear the identifying marks of the Torah covenant to be saved which is false! (Saved by moral works also false!).
Agreed, and in the Romans and Galatians passages the "works of the Law" are clearly tied to circumcision. Saying that by "works of the Torah" "what Paul 'really' means to say is ANY system or doctrine of trying to earn salvation through righteous meritorious works is wrong[which is true, that's still wrong!]" but that is actually reading *more into Scripture* than the immediate context allows (works-salvation still wrong! I agree).

Not in the light of Ro 3:20, Ac 13:39, Gal 2:16.
And if by works of the law Paul did not mean all meritorious works as asserted by NT,
what is the impact of NP on NT doctrine?

 

[TB2]

So now I know you are lying. You will not address the almost complete lack of transitional species in the fossil record. I want you to say after me, "Yes, there is a massive lack of transitional fossils species" and then you can talk about some ancient fish hybrid or something!

What is it with people here? "Heretic!" "Here's what you 'really' believe!" And now "Liar!"

Can you seriously (everyone) turn it down a notch? Stop with the insults and mudslinging and disparaging words. Or would you like to me to respond in kind??? Would you prefer I berate you for calling me a liar when YOU are the one who didn't carefully read the links I gave you? Should I chastise you for not even getting as far as Point 2 (or skimming over it) in the "THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS?" link which directly speaks to your question?

Here, let me save you some time and help you out: I am not a Neodarwinianist. Neodarwinianism/Modern Synthesis is an incomplete theory based of selection theory. Natural selection and random mutation can NOT account for the diversity of life. Modern evolutionary biology is *way* past all that (Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (ESS) and the mass evidence we've acquired in the past few decades shows that most genomic change does NOT happen via directional positive selection. Also turns out most 'random' mutations not so random or accidential but are under direct biological control. In just the past few decades alone a whole array of discoveries have shown that living cells have "evolvability" mechanisms and that a whole world of natural genetic engineering is going on all around us with DNA insertions and splicing and DNA transfer not just within species but between an across all taxa. The average person is born with 50 new mutations not found in either the mother or father.

Turns out the gradualists were wrong. But doesn't matter because turns out the discontinuous evolutionary 'leap' people like Goldschmidt were right after all. Turns out that large scale macroevolutionary changes in anatomy happen with small scale genetic tinkering and tweaking. It's been observed an proven experimentally. Even just changing developmental timing or regulating gene expression. Consider the huge difference between the hundreds of different types of cells in your body and how different a neuron is different from a blood cell and skin cell and bone cell and so on and yet they all have your SAME DNA. Turns out you can get all those vastly different cells just by switching on and off different sets of genes in different sequences and combinations (with NO mutations). Single mutations in regulatory genes can change the location of entire appendages on the body! Single mutations can cause leg bones with attached musculature to appear in fish fins!

It turns out genetic change is easier than we ever imagined and happening all the time; and we observe it too happening in real-time including instantaneous speciation, whole genome duplications, large scale genomic restructuring, serial endosymbiogenesis and more.

TWO-THIRDS of the human genome is made up of Transposable Elements ("Jumping Genes") that aren't even part of our original DNA. Human placenta development depends on a VIRAL gene that got inserted after creation.

There is also new evidence that establishes human-primate common ancestry beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now hear this and don't shoot the messenger:

I DONT WANT ANY OF IT TO BE TRUE!!! I HAVE BEEN AN ANTI-EVOLUTIONIST FOR MOST OF MY LIFE!!! BUT IF I TOLD YOU OTHERWISE THEN I REALLY WOULD BE LYING!!!

The evidence has become too overwhelming that we're now coming to a Copernicus Revolution type situation where the heliocentric theory can no longer be denied. That's the point we're getting too with evolutionary biology. I don't have all the answers, but as believers we're going to have to adjust and figure out what to do about it (similar to the adjustments Christians made with Galileo).

What I can tell you is that all this evidence for natural genetic engineering going on around us within built in 'evolvability' mechanisms makes evolution easier than ever, BUT the origin of these mechanisms and the Origin of Life all the more difficult to explain naturally, because all these in built mechanisms on the face of it would seem to support DESIGN (Do I have your attention now?).

So, good news and bad news. There's a staggering amount of new evidence for evolution that shows most mutations are not "accidents" but under biologic control and that genome evolution is largely a biologically controlled process. The silver lining is it makes the ORIGIN of all these things all the more difficult to explain by natural causes.

And I can be a great resource for you. If you stop treating me like the enemy. I have extensive knowledge and experience and interact with high level scientists in the ORIGIN OF LIFE FIELD and can talk your ears off for months about all the scientific evidence that indicates it is IMPOSSIBLE for life to spontaneously emerge from nonlife by natural causes.

Trust me, I HATE having to share this information about evolution. I DON'T WANT IT TO BE TRUE. But like I said I truly would be LYING to you if I told you otherwise and pretended everything was OK for us when it comes to this issue.

 

[ReverendRV]

Notice to the Posters...

Let's just talk, without AD Hom insinuations...

Have Fun...

 

[Eleanor]

@TB2
I give you props for the fine way you've represented your ideas against so many foes.
View attachment 445

Looks just like you!

 

[David1701]

You are promoting a false gospel.

We are told to speak the truth in love so I will do my best to. You may disagree vociferously about how to interpret Genesis and think your way is the "biblical" way. You may think believers who recognize evolution are backsliders, compromisers of the worst kind, in grave error, on a slippery slope. That's fine. We can agree to disagree. But when you call fellow believers heretics destined to hell you take it too far, my friend. We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Our common salvation does not depend on whether we recognize evolution or whether we think the earth is old or young or whether we accept Calvin or Luther or whether we like or hate NT Wright. None of that matters when it comes to salvation, and I'll thank you to remember that.

Anyone who believes in molecules-to-man evolution denies various biblical doctrines of great importance.

Yes, we are saved by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ; however, once we find out about the creation narrative, if we are born again, we will be expected to believe it. Not believing it (and "reinterpreting" it to mean something other than what it says is exactly that) indicates that the person has an authority that he deems higher than the Bible (consciously or otherwise) and that he "interprets" the Bible in the light of that authority (e.g. the current opinions of many scientists about the origins of man). This is inconsistent with the new heart/spirit that God gives.

 

[David1701]

You think TB2 is not saved then? Or do you believe that Christians that have been born again can lose their salvation?

I don't know the salvation status of the professing Christians here; but, I do sometimes post indicators, based on biblical principles.

No, I don't believe that born again Christians can lose their salvation

 

[David1701]

Well, this article disagrees with you. https://www.sciencealert.com/iq-tes...igher-but-are-humans-actually-getting-smarter

The “Flynn effect” refers to the observed rise in IQ scores over time from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4152423/

The devil may be in the details, but I'm too disinterested to read the details

IQ is based on a number of factors, e.g. nutrition, general health (mental and physical), physical fitness, hydration, natural mental ability, etc.. There have been large improvements in areas like nutrition, health, etc., which artificially boost average IQ scores, compared with past decades/centuries. Obviously, we have no IQ scores from thousands of years ago...

Edit: Incidentally, did you know that it's possible to boost your IQ score, at least a little, by practising IQ tests? I used to have an acquaintance, in Edinburgh, with an IQ of about 170 (well into the genius range - officially measured) and he confirmed that this is true, by experience.

 

[Arial]

You are promoting a false gospel.

Would that be the same thing as heresy?

 

[TB2]

More word salad.

More hand waving

The subject is how we are justified.

The subject is "works of the Law." At least that's what I'm addressing right now. I'm going point by point through Phil Johnson's article starting with that one. If you want to start with justification that is certainly your right and choice. I can only do one point at a time. Apologies for my limitations.

The traditional Protestant view is that no work brings justification. That having been reconciled to God through faith in the substitutionary work of Christ on the cross, that justifies us. Nothing more, nothing less. Why? Because our sins had a sentence upon them of death and the wrath of God, the Just Judge. Jesus took that penalty in our place on the cross. Defeated sin and death as our enemies. Therefore those who put their trust in His person and His work, are justified. Made the righteousness of Christ in Him.

Amen

NP uses the scriptures that contain "by the works of the law" , nothing else of scripture, and base the rest of their arguments on scholars, historical discoveries, credentials etc. Does that sound like the use of the whole counsel of GOD?

No one's saying Scripture doesn't teach salvation by grace through faith without works. If "works of the Torah" has a more narrow meaning that doesn't change the other Scriptures that refer to "works" generally. Is that what your worried about? No matter the outcome of "works of the Torah" it's still true that salvation is by grace through faith and that we can't earn salvation through meritorious moral works.

And it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the Pharisees were legalists or not in the book of Galatians. That is a red herring.

Actually, that's a big point of contention with the OP v NP

 

[TB2]

Would that be the same thing as heresy?

That's a good question. Depends on how one's defines heresy. What's important is that we all know we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and so any qualifications to that like you also have to reject evolution or have to believe the earth is thousands of years old amounts to adding additional hoops to jump through and to that extent is indeed a false gospel by adding extra requirements to salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Sounds strangely like requiring extra "works" for salvation; at least analogously in the sense that that is also adding extra requirements. I would expect you to denounce it yourself and any such move and any added requirements of any kind to the gospel of grace.

 

[TB2]

That is circular.
There would have been no salvation by works controversy except by reading the issue out of the Bible in the first place,
which they did not turn and then read into the Bible

Seriously? What you're advocating is practically the very definition of a circular argument: assuming the truth of your conclusion before demonstrating it. Well I guess there's no way to have a fair dialogue on the meaning of "works of the Law" then when you've already decided a priori that your view is the correct biblical one and "therefore" anyone else's must be wrong. And this despite even Calvin himself noting there was uncertainty about the meaning of "works of the Law."

Authority of a Biblical principle is not based on the number of times it is stated.

Who said it was? What does that have to do with the fact that circumcision is biblically tied to "works of the Law"?

I knew nothing of Calvin nor of the patristic fathers in my study of Romans and Galatians.

Everyone reads Scripture should the lens of prior background knowledge that they have (or think they have). It's unavoidable. Most people just don't realize it. This includes prior conceptions and definitions of words.

This is all smoke and mirrors until the issue is identified to which "works of the law" is relating.

You showed me yourself that it's tied to circumcision with the verses from Acts you posted. Romans and Galatians tie it to circumcision too. So in answer to the question, "what are the works of the law?" We know *biblically* that at minimum circumcision is one example because that's the example Paul gives. So the question then becomes what else is included under the term "works of the Law." You seem very certain of the answer to this question while Calvin noted the uncertainty that existed.

Non-Biblical thinking.
It's a matter of obedience, and obedience is a moral issue.
Scripture does not think in terms of "moral" issues, it thinks in terms of God's law, obedience and the consequences of man's diobedience

I'm truly not trying to be flippant, but please *think* about your statement about what Scripture "thinks in terms of."

And apart from any explanation of what difference it makes in NT doctrine, it is all smoke and mirrors

Incorrect. That is cart before the horse. First we establish the text and the meaning of the text, then we consider doctrine.

And that does not answer the question of what difference NP makes in NT doctrine.

That wasn't the question we are tackling. At least I wasn't. The question I've been considering is the meaning of "works of the Law."

By which he is referring to castration.

Yes! In the context of circumcision. That he wished those who were causing trouble that when they were being circumcised the knife had slipped

 

[David1701]

That's a good question. Depends on how one's defines heresy. What's important is that we all know we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and so any qualifications to that like you also have to reject evolution or have to believe the earth is thousands of years old amounts to adding additional hoops to jump through and to that extent is indeed a false gospel by adding extra requirements to salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Sounds strangely like requiring extra "works" for salvation; at least analogously in the sense that that is also adding extra requirements. I would expect you to denounce it yourself and any such move and any added requirements of any kind to the gospel of grace.

This is a misrepresentation.

The fruit that someone bears (attitudes, deeds and beliefs) shows what is inside. This is not a requirement for salvation, but evidence of it (or the lack thereof). Acceptance, or rejection, of important, clearly declared truths, in God's word, is an indicator of the heart from which it flows.

Note that I said "evidence", not proof. Cognitive dissonance is always a possibility, at least temporarily, as is a temporary stubbornness.

 

[Eleanor]

Seriously? What you're advocating is practically the very definition of a circular argument: assuming the truth of your conclusion before demonstrating it.

My argument is demonstrated from Scripture.

You are unable to explain the impact on Christian doctrine of the NP assertion that "works of the law" means the ceremonial laws; e.g., circumcision, Sabbath, food laws.
With no impact to consider regarding it, the NP assertion regarding "works of the law" is just smoke and mirrors.

Well I guess there's no way to have a fair dialogue on the meaning of "works of the Law" then when you've already decided a priori that your view is the correct biblical one and "therefore" anyone else's must be wrong. And this despite even Calvin himself noting there was uncertainty about the meaning of "works of the Law."
Who said it was? What does that have to do with the fact that circumcision is biblically tied to "works of the Law"?

Everyone reads Scripture should the lens of prior background knowledge that they have (or think they have). It's unavoidable. Most people just don't realize it. This includes prior conceptions and definitions of words.

You showed me yourself that it's tied to circumcision with the verses from Acts you posted. Romans and Galatians tie it to circumcision too. So in answer to the question, "what are the works of the law?" We know *biblically* that at minimum circumcision is one example because that's the example Paul gives. So the question then becomes what else is included under the term "works of the Law." You seem very certain of the answer to this question while Calvin noted the uncertainty that existed.
I'm truly not trying to be flippant, but please *think* about your statement about what Scripture "thinks in terms of."
Incorrect. That is cart before the horse. First we establish the text and the meaning of the text, then we consider doctrine.
That wasn't the question we are tackling. At least I wasn't. The question I've been considering is the meaning of "works of the Law."
Yes! In the context of circumcision. That he wished those who were causing trouble that when they were being circumcised the knife had slipped

 

[Sereni-tea]

I wonder if that's part of the problem/misunderstanding. From what I can tell, no one (in the NP) is saying that we can earn salvation through righteous works. From what I can tell everyone still rejects that. We can't earn our way to heaven! Amen? I think the issue is whether the salvation by works controversy of the Reformation against Catholic Church was inadevertently (and anachronistically) read back into the Bible when Paul was talking about something else. The more we learn about Pharisaic belief of the time the more it seems like the long time assumption that the Pharisees were just legalists trying to earn their way into heaven is an incorrect one or at least an oversimplified and caricatured view, and that they did believe in grace and forgiveness. Their views were certainly more nuanced than the common assumptions give them credit.

So it's not that we can earn our way to heaven through righteous works (that's still false!), it's just to say that it's possible that Paul was talking about something else in the first century than the Catholic-Protestant works controversy 1500 years later (and indeed the first and second century church understanding of Paul seems to back this up).

I agree with you here. I have not read a lot on this issue, and will be interested to hear what you learn from the book you mentioned.

However, from what I have learnt, and then reading through this thread, it seems to me that misunderstandings abound on what the NP is saying. We need to be clear about this otherwise it leads to a lot of unnecessary division and confusion. Even though the NP is not an homogenous group and different people are saying different things, we can still make some general statements.

As far as I can tell everyone in the NP camp (including Wright) agrees we are saved by grace alone through faith alone. This is not what is being debated, although many opponents of the NP seem to have taken this way.

The specific issue in question is who and what was Paul is arguing against in his letter to the Romans and Galatians. The answer to this question changes the context of 'works of the law' in these letters.

The OP says Paul’s opponents, the Jews and Judaizers, were adding works to one’s one-on-one relationship with God. In the view of the OP the Judaizers were saying you are saved by faith in God and moral law keeping and this is the problem Paul was addressing in Romans and Galatians. The OP says that Paul was correcting a one-on-one personal vertical error (i.e. an error between man and God).

The NP is saying the OP is incorrect in the way they view the Judaizers. They base this on the evidence that has come to light since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls which has provided us with a wealth of information about the second temple period and what Jewish thought was at the time of Christ. This is something the Reformers did not have access to.
The NP says that the Judaises never thought this vertical relationship was about faith and works, but rather to stay in the covenant family of God was all about keeping the works of the law - circumcision, keeping kosher, keeping sabbath, etc. The error is a horizontal one about who was allowed at the communion table. The Judaizers wanted the Gentiles to be circumcised, etc. The NP says this is what Paul is saying No! to. He says in the Messiah, these cultural boundary markers have been torn down and you can now come to the communion table regardless of ethnical background.

So the diagreement between the OP and the NP is not about how one is saved. They all agree salvation by grace alone through faith alone. It is about how the Judaizers are viewed and what their specific arguments are that Paul was addressing.

This has a number of implications, but still has nothing to do with salvation through faith. Nor does this change anything else in Scripture.

As I said, I have not read a lot about this topic, nor is it one I am particularly interested in at the moment. What has interested me, and what I do like about the NP, is the focus on covenant family which I think is sorely lacking in the church today. I see that we spend a lot of time talking about our individual relationship with God, and rightly so as this of course is incredibly important. However we spend very little time talking about what that means in a horizontal relationship with other Christians. We were saved individually but we were saved to be the people of God, the Body of Christ.