Testing Tim Keller’s Gospel Forms
“So yes, there must be one gospel, yet there are clearly different forms in which that one gospel can be expressed.” - Tim Keller
In order for us to accept Tim Keller’s assertion, we should be able to “clearly” verify it in Scripture. There is no disputing the claim that there is only one gospel. What we are looking for is Keller’s grounds for the different forms. Keep in mind that despite the claims of several immature and irresponsible critics, I have never called Tim Keller a heretic, an anti-Christ, a false brother, or an apostate. Unlike some Keller fans, I do not automatically swallow everything he says without question simply because he’s Tim Keller. I do what I do to my own pastor, and what I hope Keller would desire for me to do (unless he plans on running for Pope), which is to compare what he says with what Scripture says.
To the degree that they match should be to the degree that we encourage, and vice versa. Those Keller All-Pro’s out there that continue to slander me by attributing such nasty judgments to me have already received their reward and will not be invited to the luxurious ocean cruise reserved for me and my horribly deceived cult members/followers. Keller is invited, but he must pass a doctrinal test (which we teach in private) and promise never to disagree with me - or else he gets kicked out. This is how twenty-first century neo-credo-hyper-calvinist (moderate-gnostic) cult leaders roll.
Now that the air is nice and clear, we can take a breath and continue with Tim Keller’s explanation of this peculiar doctrine.
“This is the Bible’s own way of speaking of the gospel, and we should stick with it. Paul is an example. After insisting there is only one gospel (Gal. 1:8), he then speaks of being entrusted with ‘the gospel of the uncircumcised’ as opposed to the ‘gospel of the circumcised’ (Gal. 2:7).”
Two major errors are easily spotted and they will be our focus. These two errors, once pointed out, will expose Keller’s explanation as spurious. The first error is the use of the word “of,” as in, “gospel of the circumcised.” The second error is the use of the word “opposed,” as in, “one gospel [form] opposed to the other.” Since Keller’s interpretation and understanding of Gal. 2:7 is foundational to his “gospel for the uncircumcised,” then a refutation of his interpretation would cause the entire structure of his argument to fall, and he would be without biblical grounds in the continuance of teaching and using it.
Regarding Keller’s use of the word “of” in Gal. 2:7
The context of 2:7 does not foster the interpretation that Keller needs in order to justify these “forms” of the gospel. Keller’s paraphrase of 1:8 and 2:7 collapses the contexts together, resulting in an erred interpretation. Paul does not insist on one gospel then speak of being entrusted to one form as opposed to the other, as Keller says. This statement is misleading and omits too much. Keller’s paraphrase is wanting.
Most scholars agree that Paul was defending himself against the Judaizers’ contention that he was preaching a deviant message. The Jerusalem Council’s decision vindicated Paul, and as John MacArthur points out, “they entrusted him with the primary responsibility of reporting their decision to the churches in Antioch, Syria, and Cicilia-areas where his work had been severely criticized by the Judaizers (Acts 15:22-24).”
Macarthur goes on to say,
Because some versions, such as the King James, have translated “the gospel of the uncircumcised” and “of the circumcised,” many liberal interpreters have suggested (for this and other reasons) that Peter and Paul preached different messages. But that idea is disproved by Galatians 1:6-9, by the decision of the Jerusalem Council, and by Greek grammar. The Greek article (tes) is here an objective genitive and does not indicate definition (”of”) but direction (to), as in our text and most modern translations. (MacArthur, John: Galatians. Chicago : Moody Press, 1996, c1987, S. 41)
Keller misses this crucial detail, a detail that changes the scope of the meaning. Keller’s appeal to Gal. 2:7 to justify his distinction between two gospel forms is unwarranted and therefore should be rejected as unbiblical.
Regarding Keller’s use of the word “opposed”
As we have seen from the grammatical argument above, a small detail can have a large impact. Rather than a gospel “of” the uncircumcised” and “of” the circumcised, Paul is saying that he had been entrusted with THE (definite article) gospel (singular) “to” the uncircumcised, and Peter “to” the circumcised.” Do you see the difference? The one gospel that was to be spread throughout the world had human instruments under the guidance of God that divided the labor between Paul and Barnabas, and Peter and Co. Regarding this “division of labor,” Machen points out,
“As a matter of fact, the so-called ‘division of labor’ between Paul and the original apostles was not, strictly speaking, a division of labor at all; its purpose was not negative; it was not meant at all as a limitation of the field to one party or of the other…” (J. Gresham Machen: Notes on Galatians, Solid Ground, p. 131)
Although Keller is not promoting the same exact liberal position that Machen is refuting, the refutation by Machen, Westminster Theological Seminary’s founder, still applies because he (Keller) insists that a limitation is indeed being referred to, so much of a limitation that each have their own supposed form. This is clearly seen in Keller’s use of the word “opposed.” He states that Paul refers to one form of the gospel as “opposed” to another.
Wuest comments, “[Paul's] thought is not that there are two different [forms of] gospels, or two different types of messages adjusted to the needs of the Jews and the Gentiles respectively. He means that to him was committed the responsibility of taking the gospel of grace to the Gentiles, and that to Peter was given the commission of taking it to the Jews.” (Kenneth Wuest: Galatians in the Greek New Testament, Eerdmans, Vol. 1, pgs. 63-64)
Burton says that the words circumcision and uncircumcision are genitives of connection denoting to whom the gospel is to be given. (Ibid. 64)
Lightfoot says that these phrases denote “a distinction in the sphere in which the gospel was to be preached, not a difference in the type of gospel.” (Ibid. 64)
Wuest translates: But on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with [the responsibility of preaching] the gospel to the uncircumcised as Peter with [the responsibility of preaching] the gospel to the circumcised. (Expanded Translation of the New Testament, Gal. 2:7)
F. F. Bruce comments, “[W]hen [Paul] received his revelation, together with the commission to preach Christ among the gentiles, he began to fulfill his commission at once without consulting the Christian leaders in Jerusalem.” “[James, Peter, and John] recognized that Paul and Barnabas had been specially called to evangelize gentiles, whereas their own responsibility was rather to evangelize their fellow Jews; they agreed to an appropriate demarcation of the two spheres of missionary activity.” (F. F. Bruce: Galatians, The Letter of Paul to the, Oxford Guide to the Bible, Oxford University Press, ed. Bruce M. Metzger & Michael D. Coogan, pgs. 238-239)
Since the Bible does not teach about or mention any gospel form for the circumcised or uncircumcised, Keller’s distinction is spurious. “To the gentiles” indicates the destination of the gospel Paul was sent to preach, and cannot (gramatically and/or exegetically) mean another form of the gospel he preached.
Haldane, in his commentary on Rom. 1:5 says that “among all nations” is in harmony with the majority interpretation of Gal. 2:7 in that “Paul here assigns the reason why he preaches to Gentiles, namely, that it is the destination of his office or apostleship, and not solely his own choice, Galatians 2:7.” (Robert Haldane: Exposition on Romans 1:5)
This is barely a scratch in the surface of the material that opposes Tim Keller’s claim that the Bible teaches different forms of the gospel according to Galatians 2:7. There is but one true gospel, and we’d better preach “it” (1 Cor. 9:16)!
111 Comments, Comment or Ping
the BOC
It amazes me how you guys spend so much time on proving others wrong who don’t agree with your doctrines. I have never heard of Tim Keller, only read some of his posting on this blog. What is he doing that is so wrong? He interprets the bible differently than you. Who’s to say your interpretation is the right one? I don’t see God endorsing you exclusively. Could there be truth in all of this mingled with some man made stuff? I am sure that is the case in all religions and denominations. Wasn’t Jesus’ prayer we be “as one, as he and the Father are one”? Seems all you do is cause division amongst the brothers. I wonder how much more powerful your church would be if you stop preaching division and start preaching unity and allow God to deal with individuals if they are in error. Your way makes people defensive and argumentative–God’s way makes them look inside themselves and answer FOR THEMSELVES. THAT is what makes the Word of God ALIVE! We don’t need people who are in error telling others us we are in error.
Jun 21st, 2008
agogley
Stephen:
Enjoyed the blog, agreed with the message but thought a couple paragraphs were a little confusing.
BOC: “Who’s to say your interpretation is the right one? I don’t see God endorsing you exclusively”
AGogley: I hear this one a lot. It’s completely ridiculous. There can only be one correct interpretation, otherwise you could interpret the Bible to say anything you desire. Excluding the possibility that both are wrong, only one of these guys can have the correct interpretation.
BOC: “God’s way makes them look inside themselves and answer FOR THEMSELVES. THAT is what makes the Word of God ALIVE! We don’t need people who are in error telling others us we are in error.”
AGogley: I hear this one a lot too. It’s a bunch of huey. Who says this is God’s way? Did God ever say this was His way? Did the apostles ever say this is God’s way? NO. In fact, the Bible indicates quite the opposite. God provided us with explanations and doctrine so that we would not look to ourselves for truth. Furthermore, the Bible indicates that we can’t possibly know truth and that our wisdom is foolishness to God.
BOC: We don’t need people who are in error telling others us we are in error.
AGogley: Then why are YOU still talking?
Jun 21st, 2008
Reformed Mama
BOC:”It amazes me how you guys spend so much time on proving others wrong who don’t agree with your doctrines”.
MAMA:It is not our “doctrines”, but the word of God we defend…”Every word of God is flawless; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him”.–Prov.30:5.
Shouldn’t we study, attempt to understand, hide in our hearts, use as a measure of all else…and yes defend…His every word?
This is part of what we are called to do as the body of Christ! How about a little love from you BOC…we could really use it!
Jun 21st, 2008
Johnny B
BOC said “It amazes me how you guys spend so much time on proving others wrong who don’t agree with your doctrines.” This is not about doctrine, it’s about the Gospel, the one. This is what Paul told Timothy. 1 Timothy 1:18-20 “This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according to the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, having faith and a good conscience, which some having rejected, concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck, of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.”
Then you take Jude’s exortation, vs 3 “Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” We need to defend the Gospel.
BOC said “Who’s to say your interpretation is the right one?”
That’s the problem, people think you can interpret the Scripture, how ever you want, not true. 2 Peter 1:20 “knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation”
BOC said “I wonder how much more powerful your church”
There is no, your Church, it’s the body of Christ, that all of God’s childern are a part of. 1 Corinthians 12:12-14 “For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body–whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free–and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. For in fact the body is not one member but many.”
Boc it may seem like no big deal, but we need to help each other, if we are going astray. Robert Letham, seen an error in Robert Reymond’s, teaching on the Trinity. In, New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. Reymond, had the frist edition, pulled and fix, the error. Now we have the second edition of, New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. As the body, we need to look out for each other, especially if your a teacher. If the error is not coorected, then, we need to let others know, so that others won’t follow the error. That’s why the Church as, Creeds and Councils, to correct error in the Church.
Jun 21st, 2008
the BOC
You only prove my point. Who’s to say your interpretation is right? Tim Keller believes he is right. Dr. Bob believes he is right. John Calvin believed he was right and so did Martin Luther. I could go on. Who’s interpretation is correct?
Reformed Mama said “It is not our “doctrines”, but the word of God we defend…”Every word of God is flawless; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him”.–Prov.30:5.”
Tim Keller is also defending the Word of God and so am I, just not according to your beliefs.
Agogley said: “God provided us with explanations and doctrine so that we would not look to ourselves for truth. Furthermore, the Bible indicates that we can’t possibly know truth and that our wisdom is foolishness to God.”
Yes, God provided us with explanations, but you twist it into religious doctrine. Do you cut your hair? Wear clothing made of two different materials? Do you eat a cheeseburger? Do you eat pork? Some do not–why? PERSONAL CONVICTION!
And don’t say we can’t possibly know the truth because the truth is Jesus, whom I happen to know.
Shalom!
Jun 21st, 2008
Mark Caro
BOC
It amazes me how you spent so much time proving that we are wrong.
Jun 21st, 2008
OvercommiTad2theWord
BOC-
When I read your posts I wonder how you have any idea of how God wants you to please and glorify Him in what you believe, think, say and do. How do you know what pleases God? You’ll know it when you hear it? You’ll know it when you feel it? Personal conviction?! Shouting it doesn’t make it truth! Show me in Scripture where God tells us that man’s conviction is truth. No, God revealed His truth to us in His Word and charged us to study it and use it as a standard to compare what others say about Him and pleasing Him. It’s really not that difficult, God transmitted His Word to us in earthly language that can be translated for us to understand. However, because translations are inerrant, disagreements can only be resolved by going to Scripture, if not through translations then to the original languages. Of course this is only if you want God’s opinion which you (or I) may not like, but our opinion is not relevant – only His.
Jun 21st, 2008
Travis
OvercommiTad2theWord
I appreciate that post very encouraging, it really only matters what his “opinion” is, and if we do not know completly what Gods “opinion” is on a matter than we cant just make it up, we must say we do not know.
BOC,
Can you give us a couple authers that you would say inspire you in understanding scripture or just favorite books? Im just trying to understand where you are coming from! Thanks.
Jun 21st, 2008
Travis
I spoke with Tim Keller today.
I asked him a few questions and just wanted to share his words with you. First off hes a really nice guy, second, I asked him about the two gospels and this was his reply (PARAPHRASED) There is only one gospel and it contains about 20 points to it, when I say the gospel for the uncircumsised I most definetly do not mean I leave out any of the 20 points (grace, faith, repentance, resurection, death, cross…..) and Paul did not start at the same point when presenting the gospel and sometimes didnt even get to the gospel(Acts 17) not intentionaly though. He explained the doctrine of God because they didnt have one, but many. With the Jews he could start somewhere else. But all 20 points should be preached to someone or a group, not nessasaraliy all the time if I am going to be reasoning for some time with someone or people i can spread it out and explain it, answer questions etc.
I then asked him about the Roman Catholic Church and if he considers them a Christian church. he said absolutly not, and would never councel anyone to stay in the catholic church, but he does believe there are Christians in the Catholic church, they are just dumb Christians, its like they are sitting a a table waiting for the feast but never are able to partake in anything but chips and salsa.
He still says his article on the gospel explains it all, so I would say go back there and reread it, which I am going to do, and test it with scripture.
Jun 21st, 2008
agogley
BOC: Yes, God provided us with explanations, but you twist it into religious doctrine.
AGogley: Really?! Please cite one example where I have taken one of God’s explanations and turned it into religious doctrine.
BOC: Do you cut your hair? Wear clothing made of two different materials? Do you eat a cheeseburger? Do you eat pork? Some do not–why? PERSONAL CONVICTION!
AGogley: BOC, these people who don’t eat cheeseburgers, where did they get such a personal conviction that doing so is wrong? Did they just wake up one morning and believe that eating pork was wrong? No…that conviction comes from failure to correctly interpret scripture.
BOC: And don’t say we can’t possibly know the truth because the truth is Jesus, whom I happen to know.
AGogley: I should have been more specific. The whole Bible, and the whole of experience, bear witness that by nature we are ignorant of the truth. No doubt there are many truths which an unconverted man does know. He may know the truths of mathematics and arithmetic - he may know many of the common everyday truths; but still it cannot be said that an unconverted man knows the truth, for Christ is the truth. “And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” How do we know the truth? By looking to ourselves? “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.”
“but just as it is written, “THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM.” For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.”
“He who trusts in his own heart is a fool” —Still want to look to yourself?
“Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.—Wonder why the Bereans didn’t look to themselves?”
“You will make known to me the path of life” —Why didn’t he figure it out for himself?
“holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict”
Jun 21st, 2008
agogley
Travis:
I get the impression from what I have read of Keller’s writings is that he isn’t saying there are two messages. I get the impression is that he is trying to say that the delivery of the gospel should vary in response to different groups. I get the impression that he is saying that like the four gospel books, the message was the same but presented differently to different audiences.
I don’t necessarily diagree with that idea in general. Obviously, If I go to Mexico I’m going to present the gospel in Spanish and not in English. My conversation with a pagan tribe in Africa will probably flow along different lines than my conversation with an American unbeliever who has been going to church their entire life.
However, I feel that this was the thinking behind the origin of the seeker sensitive movement and that this thinking, left unchecked, leads to heresy and un-Biblical practices. We have to be very careful in being all things to all people that we don’t commit sin in the process.
Jun 21st, 2008
the BOC
Agogley said: ” these people who don’t eat cheeseburgers, where did they get such a personal conviction that doing so is wrong? Did they just wake up one morning and believe that eating pork was wrong? No…that conviction comes from failure to correctly interpret scripture.”
Exodus 23:19 and Exodus 34:26 “”Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the Lord your God. “Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.”
So not to sin against a Holy God, Jews refrain from eating dairy and meat products together. They are so into not offending God, they won’t even eat a cheeseburger or a milkshake with it. Now tell me who is interpreting scripture incorrectly? Are you willing to do that, Agog? Are your convictions that strong? DO you eat cheeseburgers because God said it was OK, or do you believe there is nothing wrong with it. Then why do the Jews follow those laws. And don’t say because they don’t know the Messiah because I know plenty of Jewish believers who follow the Torah-STILL TO THIS DAY!!!
Jun 21st, 2008
the BOC
Overcommitted said:
“Of course this is only if you want God’s opinion which you (or I) may not like, but our opinion is not relevant – only His.”
Lev 19:29-30 “This is to be a lasting ordinance for you: On the tenth day of the seventh month you must deny yourselves and not do any work–whether native-born or an alien living among you– 30 because on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the Lord, you will be clean from all your sins.”
God’s opinion, not mine. A LASTING ordinance, meaning forever. When was the last time any of you celebrated Yom Kippor? Did Jesus take care of that? Why did God say a LASTING ordinance if he planned on doing away with when Jesus came? He did predestine that, you know? Did he not know it? Am I interpreting that wrong? There are plenty of other scriptures where God specifically says we are to do things LASTING that the church doesn’t do. I’d be happy to list them for you, but maybe you should read the word for yourself. And go ahead and interpret it according to your convictions!
Jun 21st, 2008
the BOC
Travis-
“Our Father Abraham” by Marvin R. Wilson
“Revolution in the Church” by Dr. Michael Brown
“Velvet Elvis” by Rob Bell ( a heretic in your eyes)
“the BIBLE” by God
Jun 21st, 2008
OvercommiTad2theWord
BOC-
You said “And go ahead and interpret it according to your convictions!”
You’ve lost me. What is the point of reading the Word at all if you are filtering it through your convictions? What if my convictions are that no one should go to hell? It’s meaningless since according to the Word in Luke 13:13 (ISV) “…the gate is wide and the road is spacious that leads to destruction, and many people are entering by it.” I can convict all I want and it won’t change Jesus’ words.
When I go to your Leviticus passage there’s something completely different there, check it out. But since you quote it, do you follow all of Leviticus? If not then you’ve lost me again - you can’t pick and choose. Leviticus contains instructions (among other directives) for the priests to lead their people in sacrificing to God as a temporary covering for the sins of their people. The animal sacrifices pointed to the coming messiah who would forever end those flesh offerings when Jesus died as prophesied and predestined.
Travis-
Thanks for the Amen, man. If God wanted us to decide on our own or take a vote, He sure wasted a lot of ink & paper, animal skins, papyrus, etc.
Jun 21st, 2008
the BOC
Agogley said-
“What if my convictions are that no one should go to hell?”
It was Paul’s conviction- 1 Cor 9:22 “To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.” Why did he do such a thing? Because he didn’t want to see anyone burn in hell. That is strong conviction, my friend. Even though the bible says some will be sent there, I can still have the conviction to save the ones I come in contact with.
By the way, it is also God’s conviction that know burn in hell–it is why he sent his Son. But the bible does say to “fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” Mat 10:28. So hell is real–it is my conviction that no one go there-so I’ll do my best to preach the Gospel that will keep them out.
Agogley said:
“When I go to your Leviticus passage there’s something completely different there, check it out.”
It is Leviticus 16–have you ever made a mistake? Oh, I forgot you guys are perfect and know everything–sorry!!
Agogley said:
“do you follow all of Leviticus?”
No. I am not Jesus. But God has convicted me on some things in there that He doesn’t want me doing–PERSONAL CONVICTION!
But the things that say “LASTING” I grab hold of because God ordained it. But you have done away with and rewritten the bible. So be careful of how you interpret those scriptures, lest you use your own conviction.
Agogley said:
“Leviticus contains instructions (among other directives) for the priests to lead their people in sacrificing to God as a temporary covering for the sins of their people.”
Are you not part of a “royal priesthood”? The Levites were servants who minstered unto the Lord. Is the Church not that any more? Who is picking and choosing now, my friend?–you pick and choose the scriptures that fit your mold just like the rest of us! So back to my original question:
What makes your interpretation right and mine or Tim Keller’s wrong when all have convictions backed by scripture?
Don’t dodge the question any more!
Shalom!
Hope you learn something good and useful in church today!
Jun 22nd, 2008
agogley
For clarification, BOC attributed comments to me that were actually from OvercommiTad2theWord.
Jun 22nd, 2008
agogley
BOC: Exodus 23:19 and Exodus 34:26 “”Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the Lord your God. “Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.”
So not to sin against a Holy God, Jews refrain from eating dairy and meat products together. They are so into not offending God, they won’t even eat a cheeseburger or a milkshake with it. Now tell me who is interpreting scripture incorrectly?
AGogley: Well, BOC, if you are interpreting a verse about firstfruits and cooking goats to mean that you shouldn’t have a milkshake (made from cow’s milk) and a cheeseburger (made from beef) then I would say you are the one interpreting Scripture incorrectly.
BOC: Are you willing to do that, Agog? Are your convictions that strong? DO you eat cheeseburgers because God said it was OK, or do you believe there is nothing wrong with it.
AGogley: Do what exactly? Stop eating cheeseburgers and milkshakes? Sure. If the God through Scripture, commanded me, instructed me, or otherwise taught that I should not eat something then I would not eat it. But, since I am a Goy, I was never under the law since the law was given to Isreal.
BOC: DO you eat cheeseburgers because God said it was OK, or do you believe there is nothing wrong with it.
AGogley: Umm…both? Obviously if I don’t see any instruction or principle against doing something, I’m not going to say it’s wrong to do.
BOC: Then why do the Jews follow those laws. And don’t say because they don’t know the Messiah because I know plenty of Jewish believers who follow the Torah-STILL TO THIS DAY!!!
AGogley: They follow the Torah to this day because they are weak in their faith (Romans 14) and because they fail to interpret and understand Scripture properly. They may also believe that being Jewish gives them some added privilege. The New Testament deals with all of these issues very clearly.
The key to understanding this issue is knowing that the Old Testament law was given to the nation of Israel, not to Christians. Some of the laws were to make the Israelites know how to obey and please God (the Ten Commandments for example), some of them were to show them how to worship God (the sacrificial system), some of them were to simply make the Israelites different from other nations (the food and clothing rules). The Old Testament law does not apply to us today. This is clearly demonstrated in Acts 10, 15; Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:24-26; Ephesians 2:15.
Jun 22nd, 2008
the BOC
Sorry about my mistake in misquoting Overcommitted as AG-I am not perfect like you guys.
AG said:
“They follow the Torah to this day because they are weak in their faith (Romans 14) and because they fail to interpret and understand Scripture properly. They may also believe that being Jewish gives them some added privilege. The New Testament deals with all of these issues very clearly.”
Tell that to an Hasidic Jew and watch his faith in God and knowledge of the scripture (including the NT) bury yours in the ground. Being Jewish does give them and added privilege, but that is another discussion which I will not go into you with until you address what makes you right and me wrong when both of our convictions are strong. We both have scripture to back our beliefs, yet you are diligently trying to prove me wrong. I haven’t said you are wrong because there is truth in what you say, but a lot of it is jumbled with your own PERSONAL CONVICTION which has nothing to do with me. I am not forcing my beliefs on you I am simply presenting a different way of looking at scripture-through the eyes of the individuals who wrote it-Jewish men. These men thought, lived and breathed Jewish and not Gentile like you do.
AG said:
“The key to understanding this issue is knowing that the Old Testament law was given to the nation of Israel, not to Christians.”
Were we not grafted in? How can you say such a thing and claim you interpret scripture correctly? You have written the most ignorant statement I have ever read in my life!
AG also said:
“The Old Testament law does not apply to us today”
Probably the second most ignorant statement I have ever read. If what you say is true, then why did Paul continue practicing Judaism? Why is every red letter in your NT found in the OT? Jesus was Jew to the core along with ALL his disciples. The law applies just as much today as it did when God gave it. Without it, we would not know what sin is and we would never be convicted of we do not know.
Jun 22nd, 2008
the BOC
Agogley-
Get off the cheeseburger issue. If you’ve ever been to Israel, you’d know that that in McDonalds or any other restaurant there is no such thing as a cheeseburger and the dairy products such as milk and ice cream are sold in a separate area where there is no possibility of it coming in contact with meat. They do not want to offend God in any way–whether it is a goat or a cow-they’d rather not take the chance. That is conviction, friend, something you are too religious to know anything about.
Why don’t you address the other things I wrote about?
And answer my question!
Don’t forget to consult Dr, Bob!
Shalom
Jun 22nd, 2008
agogley
BOC:
I’m having difficulty wading through your various non-sequiturs and other logical fallacies. Soooooooooo…..I’ll just respond with the following.
1.) Doctrine is important.
Scripture plainly teaches that we must be sound in the faith–which is to say that doctrine does matter (1 Tim. 4:6; 2 Tim. 4:2-3; Tit. 1:9; 2:1). It matters a lot.
“If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing” (1 Tim. 6:3-4
2.) Proper hermeneutics need to be applied in order to arrive at a proper interpretation of Scripture.
3.) I’m not asking you to accept my interpretation or Stephen’s interpretation. I’m telling you that after applying proper exegetical techniques, I have arrived at an interpretation that is supported by Scripture not by feelings, emotion, conviction, or flipping a coin. I have provided several prooftexts. If you disagree with the interpretation please support your position from Scripture. I’m not at all interested in what you, I, or even Dr. Bob THINKS about this or other subjects. I’ve given you Scripture time and time again.
Jun 22nd, 2008
the BOC
AG said:
” proper exegetical techniques” and “proper hermeneutics need to be applied”
Proper by whose standards? Tim Keller doesn’t use proper techniques, but you do? Give me a break!
Sound doctrine stems from Judaism-something the church has done away with a long time ago.
AG said:
“If you disagree with the interpretation please support your position from Scripture”
I have but you insist on proving me wrong. You have interpreted the scriptures I gave by using your own PERSONAL CONVICTION. You have provided several scriptures which i see differently. and the whole point at the start my post was to ask what makes you right and me wrong and I still haven’t gotten an answer other than theological rhetoric. Faith Defenders–God is so weak He needs someone to defend Him? How arrogant! That is the reason you think you are right-God uses you exclusively to reveal His word through and that sounds a little like a cult to me. Be careful, AG you may not be as correct as you think you are. Dr. Bob ain’t God and could very well be wrong in his teachings.
Have a nice existence and keep searching. Your head is too hard to penetrate so I am done with this conversation!
Shalom!
Jun 23rd, 2008
Travis
BOC said,
These men thought, lived and breathed Jewish and not Gentile like you do.
What if AG is interpreting the scripture the way he sees Jewish men would? All we have is scripture, so another question would be how do we interpret it? Is it up for grabs, we can make it mean anything? How do we 1000’s of years later now know what Jewish men interpreted the scripture to be? Could not the church for the past 2000 years think they were doing just that, minus the anti Jews.
Jun 23rd, 2008
the BOC
Travis said:
“What if AG is interpreting the scripture the way he sees Jewish men would?”
He is not, Travis. His views are anti-Semitic. And if he were, that would be his own belief system and PERSONAL CONVICTION which he interprets scripture according to anyway, just like you and I do. Jewish tradition and culture does not waiver with every fad that comes along like it does in the Western World.
Jun 23rd, 2008
Reformed Mama
BOC~
Did you just call Agogley’s views “anti-semitic”?
We’ve let you display your harsh tones and your insults for months…but this comment goes too far! I demand an apology from you for Agogley…VERY uncalled for!!!
Jun 23rd, 2008
Travis
Are You sure about this?
Jewish tradition and culture does not waiver with every fad that comes along like it does in the Western World.
Has the culture changed from Moses time to Christ? How about Christ to Present?
Back to the subject, BOC or anyone, would you use a different prequal to the gospel for the Jews than you would a Gentile?
Jun 23rd, 2008
the BOC
Reformed Mama said:
“I demand an apology from you for Agogley…VERY uncalled for!!!”
AGogley said: “They follow the Torah to this day because they are weak in their faith (Romans 14) and because they fail to interpret and understand Scripture properly. They may also believe that being Jewish gives them some added privilege. The New Testament deals with all of these issues very clearly.
The key to understanding this issue is knowing that the Old Testament law was given to the nation of Israel, not to Christians. Some of the laws were to make the Israelites know how to obey and please God (the Ten Commandments for example), some of them were to show them how to worship God (the sacrificial system), some of them were to simply make the Israelites different from other nations (the food and clothing rules). The Old Testament law does not apply to us today.”
AG is speaking of Replacement Theology which is anti Semitic. I will not apologize for calling a doctrine of demons when I see it.
Shalom!
Jun 23rd, 2008
the BOC
Travis-
They still celebrate the Feast Days, bar mitzvahs, their weddings are still conducted the same way–their religion is their culture and their culture is their religion and it all revolves around God. There are lukewarm Jews just like there are lukewarm Christians who allow the world to influence them more than God.
Now look at the church and see what has influenced her–Christ’s birthday is celebrated on the pagan feast day of the god Mithras. His resurrection is celebrated on the feast day of the goddess of fertility Esther when it actually occurred during Passover. Look at the church today, changing with every passing fad–it has become a business. Your mentor Dr. Bob is not exempt from this practice. Making money off the Gospel is despicable! Someone receives a revelation and an entire denomination is born. How many denominations existed in the early church? ONE–they were all JEWS!!! And it was understood that Gentiles would become a part of the Jews as Paul said in Romans 11, not the other way around.
Have I answered your question?
Jun 23rd, 2008
Reformed Mama
BOC~
We can debate Replacement theology, Romans 14, rule-keeping etc…however Agogley’s comments are NOT anti-semitic!
In his pastoring Dr. Bob constantly reminds us to look at Scripture through Jewish eyes. We do realize we have been “grafted in” and in this we rejoice! You constantly berate us and Dr. Bob…we can disagree on issues…but I call on you to do so with “gentleness and respect”…no matter how much you dislike us.
The apology is still owed…
Jun 23rd, 2008
Samuel Garcia
Hmmm….I hadn’t heard about Tim Keller’s view on “Gospel Forms” until you put up the previous post and now this one. I’m really hesitant to take his side or yours (mainly because I haven’t really familiarized myself with his side) but I do have some quick questions/comments based on what I know so far from your posts:
1) I would agree that there are many different legitimate methods of presenting the gospel. But really, isn’t another way to say this just that there are different “forms” of the gospel? I would have no problem with the vocabulary as long as it would come from that perspective, which it seems Keller does.
2) I’m not sure how much reading you have done into Missiology Stephen, but much of your objections seem to me that they would be quickly invalidated on the mission field. The gospel is really “modified” many times so that it is relevant to foreign cultures such as the Trobrianders. One would be tempted to go in without prior information and proclaim our God as the Father of all creation. But for these people there is no direct relationship between fathers and sons because it is very focused on the matriline. So there are many hard calls one would have to make in order to be relevant, especially when certain statements would make them automatically completely shut down to the gospel (”Jesus is like the chief of the world.” “Chiefs can be usurped and wield malevolent magic over us, is that your God?”)
Another quick example is this other culture (i forget where) in which sheep are highly offensive but pigs are prized above all things. Should a Christian go in and proclaim Jesus as the lamb of God? There’s a true story of a missionary who did this and whole villages immediately became violently angry at the thought that God could be associated with a sheep. Later this missionary contextualized the gospel to say that Jesus is the “pig” of the world and one of leaders of a tribe, as he saw the ramifications of everything else the missionary had been saying, began to cry and the whole village was soon converted. These are really tough things to think about.
3) In my study of Romans 1, I have seen very strongly that Paul speaks about the sins of immorality and the idolatry from which it comes. You ask about the power of Keller’s message if he limits his discussion to a certain extent to gain the unbeliever’s trust to speak truth into their life. I can’t say what he would say, but I do not see an inconsistency here since the toppling of idolatry should and will lead to a renewed empowerment to be moral through the Holy Spirit.
4) Keller does not seem to be presenting different gospels but just different ways of presenting them. The more I speak to different people about the gospel and am exposed to the difficult choices that missionaries have to make, I can confirm that this sort of theology (in missiology) is not only necessary but has led countless people to come to Christ en masse.
Jun 23rd, 2008
Travis
Stephen,
First off I think using Gal 2:7 as a reference is completly wrong, for backing of prequaling the gospel, I dont even know what he was thinking with using that, Paul and Peter were called to different people not different gospels, so Gal 2:7 really has no place in saying we must speak one way to one person and one way to another.
Second, I dont know if he knows the very basic exegisis mistake he did, this is not a application error but a literal mistake. I think he made a mistake on using this and needs to fix it.
I checked different translations and most agree that it is (to) the uncircumsised.
KJV - But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;
NKJV - Gal 2:7 - But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter
NLT - Gal 2:7 - They saw that God had given me the responsibility of preaching the Good News to the Gentiles, just as he had given Peter the responsibility of preaching to the Jews.
NIV - Gal 2:7 - On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews.
ESV - Gal 2:7 - On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised
NASB - Gal 2:7 - But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter {had been} to the circumcised
RSV - Gal 2:7 - but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised
ASV - Gal 2:7 - but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with [the gospel] of the circumcision
Young - Gal 2:7 - but, on the contrary, having seen that I have been entrusted with the good news of the uncircumcision, as Peter with [that] of the circumcision,
Darby - Gal 2:7 - but, on the contrary, seeing that the glad tidings of the uncircumcision were confided to me, even as to Peter that of the circumcision,
Webster - Gal 2:7 - But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] to Peter;
HNV - Gal 2:7 - but to the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the Good News for the uncircumcision, even as Rock with the Good News for the circumcision
Jun 23rd, 2008
Travis
Amen to ONE TRUE GOSPEL, we must get it preached no matter what the circomstance will be when we do get to preach it, if that means we must explain about God first do it, if that means we must explain about repentance first do it, where ever you start is not the point of scripture, but one point is the gospel going forth.
Jun 23rd, 2008
agogley
Sam,
The gospel isn’t that Jesus is the lamb of God. Lamb is just allegorical for being the pure sacrifice for our sins. I wouldn’t use terms like lamb of God until there had been adequate understanding. Infants require milk, only grown adults eat meat!
I’ve already posted that I’m not opposed to Keller’s point (that I believe he is trying to make) although I am opposed to his choice of words.
Jun 23rd, 2008
agogley
BOC:
You keep saying goodbye, but you never go away.
Having a discussion with you is like talking to a rabid dog who indiscriminately lashes out at everyone within sight. You not only insult me without any proof, evidence, or Scriptural support whatsoever but you also insist on time and time again pulling Dr. Morey’s name through the mud. Dr. Morey rarely posts on this blog and yet you seem to have some vindictive angst that you hold against him. I can’t think of any other reason why you would insult him more than twice in a thread that is not by him, from him, or includes any comments by him.
Lastly, I’m not even sure why you would bother posting to defend Tim Keller who no doubt, would agree with me on most of the doctrinal statements that I’ve presented here (assuming he holds to Presbyterian beliefs). My guess is that you’re just here to stir up dissension.
Matthew 7:6 says “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.”
How apropos.
Jun 23rd, 2008
agogley
Sam: see for context my post to travis on the 21st. I think you and I will find much in common here.
Jun 23rd, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Hi Sam,
The issue here is with the use of Galatians 2:7 to justify Keller’s [degree of] contextualization. I have said before that I am not opposed to contextualization per se, only the subtraction of gospel elements in order to contextualize. This is when we seem to cross the line.
______________________
For the uncircumcised - this gospel is for postmodern listeners that “consider all moral statements to be culturally relative and socially constructed.” Keller says that these people are not to be given the other form of the gospel (for the circumcised) because “[i]f you try to convict them of guilt for sexual lust, they will simply say, ‘You have your standards, and I have mine.’ If you respond with a diatribe on the dangers of relativism, your listeners will simply feel scolded and distanced.” So rather than explaining their sin to them in the context of the falling short of the demands of God’s moral law, Keller “take[s] a page from Kierkegaard’s The Sickness Unto Death and define[s] sin as building your identity-your self-worth and happiness-on anything other than God. That is, [he] use[s] the biblical definition of sin as idolatry. That puts the emphasis not as much on ‘doing bad things’ but on ‘making good things into ultimate things.’”
If that summary of Tim Keller’s “gospel for the uncircumcised” was not clear enough, the following paragraph in his own words should give you a clearer understanding of what he means when he says “my gospel for the uncircumcised.”
“Instead of telling them they are sinning because they are sleeping with their girlfriends or boyfriends, I tell them that they are sinning because they are looking to their romances to give their lives meaning, to justify and save them, to give them what they should be looking for from God. This idolatry leads to anxiety, obsessiveness, envy, and resentment. I have found that when you describe their lives in terms of idolatry, postmodern people do not give much resistance. Then Christ and his salvation can be presented not (at this point) so much as their only hope for forgiveness, but as their only hope for freedom. This is my ‘gospel for the uncircumcised.’”
_______________________
Here we see that Keller, unlike Paul to the gentiles (uncircumcised), has eliminated elements and replaced them with redefined items, items from Soren Kierkegaard’s un-Christian philosophy. This equivocation takes the gospel of mercy and grace out of its biblical context and produces a synthetic parallel effect of wordly benefits that mimic the gospel of Jesus Christ.
But as stated in the OP, regardless of one’s position concerning contextualization, use of Gal. 2:7 in the manner Keller has done so is exegetically invalid, and as I said – spurious.
P.S. Sam, I looked for you at Frank’s graduation ceremony in LA. They informed me, no SG
I told Mig to say hi for me. Hope it found its way to you.
Jun 23rd, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Travis,
I’m glad you see the point of my post and agree that Gal. 2:7 is basic verse abuse. The context has nothing to do with the way Keller has used it and I have pushed back on it to show how in the name of contextualization, biblical exegesis seems to fall in line at least as high as second place. It needs to be first.
AGogley,
As always, you’ve brought up very valid points. I read your 6/21 post to Travis and I am in line with you in thinking that Keller means one message with different deliveries. I see danger in allowing his uncircumcised gospel to go, as you’ve said, “unchecked,” because it can lead to heresy and unbiblical practice. You have correctly perceived the link to the seeker-sensitive movement, and in case you didn’t know, Keller is well-established in that (Rick Warren’s purpose Driven) movement now because of compromises such as these.
Jun 23rd, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Jun 23rd, 2008
the BOC
My question of what makes you right and others wrong was never answered and now I know why–what makes you right is your own PERSONAL CONVICTION and arrogance.
And when valid points are brought up I am ignored.
Jun 24th, 2008
Travis
Stephen,
I agree with the dangers and think it must be cautioned that this way of thinking must only be viewed in light of scripture, and that is as far as it should be taken. So is Keller an Apostate, I dont think so, but it should be warned what this teaching could and is portrayed as “seeker sensitive” but at the same time you have the extremes of a lot of teachings we shouldnt just stop doing something because someone takes it out of context, ie anti semitism to reformed theology (Im sur ethere are other examples) we must stop doing something if scripture says we should. Other than tha we have freedom.
Jun 24th, 2008
Glen
I would agree with Travis in that Keller’s message is “seeker sensitive.” I listened to a message given by him (linked in a previous post) and the first person that he quoted (in a positive light) was Brian McLaren. This shows the “seeker sensitive” side of the message.
Jun 24th, 2008
the BOC
Reformed Mama said:
“In his pastoring Dr. Bob constantly reminds us to look at Scripture through Jewish eyes.”
If you saw scripture through Jewish eyes, you wouldn’t believe in predestination because Jews don’t and never did believe in that nonsense, including Messianic Jews.
Jun 24th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Jewish writers…Jewish Book…King of the Jews…predestination is clearly taught…nice try though…
apology still owed…
Jun 24th, 2008
OvercommiTad2theWord
BOC-
I guess maybe you haven’t seen passages like this so without taking up a bunch of space I’ll just post a few…
Romans 8
29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son…
Eph 1
…5 he predestined us for adoption to himself through Jesus the Messiah, according to the pleasure of his will…
…11 In the Messiah we were also chosen when we were predestined…
Pretty clear don’t you think?
Also,
Maybe you haven’t seen this either?
Eph 2
15 By his death he ended the whole system of Jewish law that excluded the Gentiles.
May the Holy Spirit grant you understanding when you read His Word.
Jun 24th, 2008
agogley
The Jews never believed in that “nonsense”, huh? I suppose they just ignored all the verses such as the following? Clearly, predestination came from Jewish understanding.
And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing;
(Gen 12:2)
God said to Abram, “Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years. “But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve, and afterward they will come out with many possessions. “As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age. “Then in the fourth generation they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete.”
(Gen 15:13-16)
indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies. “In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”
(Gen 22:17-18)
“I have loved you,” says the LORD. But you say, “How have You loved us?” “Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the LORD. “Yet I have loved Jacob; but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness.”
(Mal 1:2-3)
Jun 24th, 2008
agogley
Stephen:
I’m especially sensitive to the seeker sensitive movement (no pun intended). Whenever I hear about modifying our approach, I’m cautious. Frankly, I wish others were too.
I was talking to a co-worker today who attends a Lutheran church of the evangelical synod. Her pastor is all for allowing openly homosexual persons serve as pastors. Now how can a pastor of all people, possibly read the Bible and accept homosexuality? But I suppose if you follow BOC’s method of personal conviction, you’ll wind up there eventually.
Jun 24th, 2008
the BOC
Reformed Mama-
Christians teach predestination-Jews don’t.
You are completely clueless!
Jun 24th, 2008
agogley
Reformd: You must be doing something right! Now you’ve been insulted just like myself and Dr. Morey. Fine, fine company you now hold…LOL.
Jun 24th, 2008
the BOC
Overcommitted-
Jesus said: “”Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”
Paul said: “By his death he ended the whole system of Jewish law that excluded the Gentiles.”
I don’t know what translation that is, but Paul is not Jesus and when the bible contradicts itself, I think I’d rather listen to the Son of God. You put your trust in book rather than God.
And as far as your predestination passages, I read them differently, which brings me back to my original question of who is right and who is wrong. I believe you take them out of context. Does that make you wrong? No, it just means we disagree and it has no bearing on my salvation or yours. If God predestines all, why did he repent of making people before he destroyed the earth with a flood. If he knew it would happen why was he sorry? That would make God wishy washy. The God I follow is not wishy washy–I don’t know about yours. I guess I am predestined to be kicked off this blog because I can’t get a straight answer out of any of you.
Jun 24th, 2008
the BOC
AG–
Hey, dude!
You said the Old Testament law does not apply to us today. And that I pick and choose.
Don’t quote the Torah because according to you it was done away with!
Genesis is the 1st book in the Torah. If you quote one thing and leave out another that was supposedly “done away with”, I question YOUR ability to interpret scripture when YOU pick and choose!
Jun 24th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
The BOC,
Would you please explain your understanding (based on your convictions or whatever method you choose to use) of the New Covenant?
I’ve read most of the back-and-forthing in this thread and I have not been able to quite pinpoint what your take on it would be. From my vantage point, it seems that the nature of the New Covenant is where the greatest divide will be.
Thanks!
Jun 24th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
AGogley,
I forget who it was that said this to me (maybe Chris Rosebrough or James White - I forget), but the seeker sensitive movement “is a movement that aims to cater to a group that does not exist.”
“…no one seeks for God.” (Romans 3:11b)
The saying stuck with me ever since.
Jun 24th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Agogley…I accept your welcome into “the insulted” club! Let’s bring Stephen too…cuz wow…he’s REALLY doing something right…many insults…lol
Loved your “rabid dog” post…so true…
Shhh…don’t tell BOC that Paul was a Jew AND he taught predestination!
Jun 24th, 2008
Glen
Reformed Mama,
When you were said “to look at Scripture through Jewish eyes” you were refering to a historical/gramattical look right? I believe that is where you were coming from.
Jun 25th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Yes, Glen…aka (according to BOC) MY OWN CONVICTIONS…lol…
Jun 25th, 2008
Glen
If that’s the case then I would say you have pretty good convictions.
Jun 25th, 2008
Shanks
Stephen, I think you are becoming slightly trigger happy in going after Keller and what is more you are doing so unhelpfully. Could I suggest you take time to pray through these things more fully before you post and also pray and search your own heart to see if jealousy might be at the heart of what you are posting.
As for Keller’s message on this it is in fact ultra biblical that we change the tone of the message and thus the form of it dependent upon the audience. Why do we have four accounts of the life of Jesus?
Mark wrote a simple action packed account suitable for all enquirers whilst Matthew writes an account specifically for those with a grounding in the Old Testament. They preach the same message but it’s form changes.
Moving on to Keller. I have heard him talk about this many times, what he is saying is that we have two different groups, moralist who love the idea of a holy God who will judge the wicked but hate the idea of compassion, and relativists, who love all the talk about forgiveness but hate all talk of judgment. Keller says we need to say to the moralist that they too fall short and therefore need to rely only on God’s radical grace for a relationship with him. Whilst relativists need to acknowledge that God requires a standard we cannot meet because he is a holy judge and that is why we need forgiveness and the unconditional love shown at the cross. You see it is the same message given a different form?
This is ultra biblical and indeed is what the apostles did. Take Paul: “We are justified by faith alone” written for the doubter who wonders whether they can really ever be good enough for God… and then you have James “a man is justified by what he does and not by faith alone” are they preaching a different message? of course not! James is talking instead to the person who uses grace as a license for immorality. He is saying that you need a belief that behaves. Paul is saying only faith saves you, James says only through deeds can you know you have faith. It is the same message in a different form depending on whom you are writing to.
Jun 25th, 2008
Glen
Shanks,
“…Keller says we need to say to the moralist that they too fall short and therefore need to rely only on God’s radical grace for a relationship with him.” How are we to present a true view the Gospel to relativists without presenting them with the fact that God does judge and has the right to judge us for our sins?
Keller wrote “Instead of telling them they are sinning because they are sleeping with their girlfriends or boyfriends, I tell them that they are sinning because they are looking to their romances to give their lives meaning, to justify and save them, to give them what they should be looking for from God.” How are we to give a true view of our depraved sin nature if we don’t tell them what sin is? We cannot skirt around the issue of sin as it is the reason that we need the forgiveness of God.
Jun 25th, 2008
the BOC
Stephen-
You asked a question and the following is my answer. I am not inviting you to prove me wrong. We can disagree on many things, but the Blood of Jesus is the binding that should hold us together.
Luke 22:20–In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
Why is it poured out?
Matthew 26:28–This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Why does blood need to be for my sins need to be forgiven?
Because God requires it-
Genesis 3:21–”The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.”
I believe Jesus was the propitiation for my sins and the sins of all mankind from Adam to the last human being that will be born. Gods purpose in creating us was for relationship. Creation is about relationship, how things work together. Man made a bad choice and we were separated from our Father. God gave His Son as a permanent blood sacrifice to reconcile us to Himself. But relationships work two ways–they aren’t one sided. I believe we have a choice. Deut. 30:19–”This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.” I do believe in predestination, just not the way you define it. The sun is predestined to rise tomorrow. A cow is predestined to do what cows do. A tree is predestined to do what a tree does. The point is they have no choice in the matter, they simply do what they were created to do. I believe man was predestined to spend eternity in relationship with God–but free will blew that to pieces. In the same way free will can allow us to choose life, choose Jesus.
Does that answer your question?
Jun 25th, 2008
the BOC
Reformed Mama-
Why do you mock me? Do you get some kind of charge in displaying your arrogance?
Romans 11:20–”…..Do not be arrogant, but be afraid.”
A warning from Paul none of you seem to care about!
Jun 25th, 2008
agogley
Reformed Mama:
I’m going to stop telling BOC anything. You simply cannot have a coherent conversation.
He says that Jews never believed in predestination so I quote Scripture from the Old Testament that presumably Jews believed in at some point. Then he tells me that I’m picking and choosing because I don’t believe that Christians are bound by the law.
He says that Paul contradicted Jesus (and that the Bible has contradictions) so he chooses to follow Jesus. And yet, he has the temerity to then use Paul’s writings back at you (picking and choosing is a principle he apparently only applies to me). Of course, he quotes the verse completely of of context (he doesn’t even quote the entirety of the verse because then the context would be obvious) which, I might point out, is something he accused me of only a few posts earlier. The true context of that passage is this: “Paul saw that some of the Gentiles might be in danger of exultation over the fallen Jews, and therefore cautions them against it.”
BOC says he believes that Man was predestined to spend eternity in relationship with God yet in some odd contradiction, man’s free well “blew that to pieces.” So either there really wasn’t predestination or God wasn’t powerful enough to actually follow through on something he predestined. In yet another odd paradoxical statement, he believes that animals and celestial objects are predestined but not humans. Coincidentally, Romans 11, which he quotes from above, is filled with statements affirming predestination and election!
Jun 25th, 2008
agogley
Glen wrote: Keller wrote “Instead of telling them they are sinning because they are sleeping with their girlfriends or boyfriends, I tell them that they are sinning because they are looking to their romances to give their lives meaning, to justify and save them, to give them what they should be looking for from God.”
Agogley: I didn’t see those comments by him before. He must be terribly naive. First of all, sex outside of marriage and seeking meaning from something other than God are seperate sins. You can be married and still try to find meaning apart from God The second part I can talk about from personal experience. Before I came to Christ, I had a few sexual encounters. I can tell you that sleeping with your girlfriend had ZERO to do with seeking meaning in my life. In fact, there were occasions when I intentionally sought sex without meaning. “Sleeping with my girlfriend” had everything to do with getting sex on the cheap and easy.
This is exactly what I fear with the seeker sensitive movement. They omit the truth under the pretext that they are merely sugar coating it. I can understand that the first words out of my mouth when intiating a conversation with a heathen probably wont be along the lines of “stop sleeping with your gf/bf, you fornicator!” But at the same time you can’t change the truth either. At some point you have to tell them that fornication, adultery, homosexuality is a sin and condemned by God.
Jun 25th, 2008
the BOC
AG-
Nice try, but you aren’t suckering me in to your one sided arguments and your refusal to accept that in your arrogance you might not be interpreting scripture correctly. You have the need to prove others wrong and I feel sorry for you. You don’t have enough faith in God to believe He is capable of defending Himself, so you use your limited knowledge to try–and that is sad! I have a strong feeling when we stand before God, we’ll be surprised about who clueless both of us are about Him and His Word. You didn’t ask the question and the answer wasn’t for you. Keep your comments to yourself and heed the warning Paul gives.
Personally, I think you all have already been cut off.
Jun 26th, 2008
the BOC
Do you believe everything Paul wrote? What about the following?
1 Corinthians 14:34 “women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”
You sure have a big mouth for one who believes in the inerrancy of the Bible. Picking and choosing scripture like the rest of the Faith Defenders. And church is, as we know, not a building but people. So why do you insist on talking out of both sides of your mouth?
SILENCE!!!!
Jun 26th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Agogley~
Thanks for sharing part of your testimony above in your reply to what Glen wrote…it’s very encouraging to hear what God has done for His people!
You are sooo right about not being able to have a coherent conversation with BOC…I will join you in giving up! Too bad because I really enjoy the back and forth here…but he is just not able to play nice. The flip flops alone make one dizzy as you pointed out! I am praying a “Road to Damascus” experience for him…perhaps like Saul/Paul he really thinks he is behaving properly! Some of my recent favs from above are: “Why do you mock me”? and that he thinks “(we) all have already been cut off” and of course the clever “SILENCE!!!!”…lol
God’s grace Agogley…
Jun 26th, 2008
Glen
BOC,
So do you not believe everything Paul wrote? If you don’t then I would like to know which parts we can throw out. Do you use the new erasable version of the Bible?
I think you should read up on what some of the commentaries have to say about that passage (I would suggest Henry and Calvin) and also read it in its context.
Jun 26th, 2008
the BOC
Glen-
You guys have already thrown out the law–so why are you asking me? The erasable is yours, not mine. As always, I am ignored when a valid point is brought up. In 1 Corinthians 14:34 Paul is speaking from the Law that Jesus, (according to AG and most of you out here), supposedly did away with. Why Paul tell them to follow a law that doesn’t exist anymore? Because he was Jewish, he didn’t stop following the law and he continued to adhere to it because it was a part of him, like it should be for Christians.
I have discovered that Faith Defenders isn’t as important as a thought it was. You have a small following with even smaller minds and a much smaller influence in the Grand Design. Keep on talking ‘cuz no ones listening–And I wish Dr Bob the best on his new very large book. I hope God blesses him with a very large paycheck. BiblicalThought.com is removed from my bookmarks. Email me if you’d like to get one last dig in because I won’t be back out here.
steve40d@yahoo.com
Shalom!
Jun 26th, 2008
the oucast
how come you have not answered the BOC’s original queston? what makes you think you’re right?
Jun 26th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
The BOC must have really been rattled in his research of the nature of the New Covenant. This seems to dismantle the faith of the hyper-Zionist types once they discover that over 80% of what they believe are nothing but the types and shadows that find fulfillment in the New Covenant Scriptures. This is sad because some of them are regenerate and this discovery sends them into deep spiritual despair. Since Steve has used his final goodbye stage to lash out in wickedness, something he has often done, it’s a sign that the foul and sour wine is the product of a sour and rotten fruit.
Let this be a lesson of what one looks like when shipwrecked because of false-hope in a defective and obsolete covenant.
Christians, rejoice!
Jun 26th, 2008
the oucast
stop dissing on the BOC! you are the sour and rotten fruit! can’t you see what you have done?! you run off people who share different beliefs than you. you are ignorent fools! ! you are blind! jesus would not have pushed people away, he would have accepted them for who they are. you disgust me! you are too religous and think you are too perfect.
AG: if the OT was for the Jews than why bother reading the rest of the bible, because the NT was written by Jewish people who were influenced by the OT
Jun 26th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Stephen~
Is it just our blog that has commenters disappear only to reappear…new in name only??
Jun 26th, 2008
OvercommiTad2theWord
C’mon Steve just admit it! You just can’t stay away. Maybe its God. Search your convictions.
Jun 26th, 2008
the oucast
i am not steve. i just want to know what makes you think you are right. i read the forum and saw that you pushed the BOC away and that you have not answered his question yet.
Jun 26th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Reformed Mama,
That’s a good question. But since I don’t want to hand the knife out to be slandered as an arrogant know-it-all, I can’t answer (I haven’t researched “all” blogs!).
I can assure you of something that I am certain of. Like WA, David, and Phillip (from Mario’s thread on effectual calling) are all the same “human” person, it should be known that the BOC and The Outcast (BOC2) also have the same exact IP address.
Nice call…
Jun 26th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
The Outcast said:
“how come you have not answered the BOC’s original queston? what makes you think you’re right?”
About what, specifically?
Jun 26th, 2008
the oucast
listen i am not steve i am his 13 year old son who wants to know why you haven’t answered his question. i swear i am not steve duplantis. he doesn’t even know im on here. and you may call me BOC2
Jun 26th, 2008
the oucast
the question was what make you think your interputation is the right one.
Jun 26th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
OK, I will be glad to answer your questions, or his questions.
You asked what makes us think we’re right. I don’t think any of us here would say we think we’re right about everything. What is the specific thing that you think we think we’re right about?
Jun 26th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Which interpretation?
Jun 26th, 2008
the oucast
of scripture.
Jun 26th, 2008