Friday, April 19, 2013

Issue-Sharpening and Other Benefits of Discussing Torah with Gene

So in our last discussion we talked about the intermarriage crisis of Ezra.  The comments also got into elements of bilateral ecclesiology.  Note that there are two pillars of exclusionist (bilateralist) Messianic teaching (to which our friend Gene also adheres):

(1) the Church is a separate group of elect composed solely of non-Jews; 
(2) Israel is composed only of ethnic Jews and those who have converted under Jewish auspices.

Naturally, Gene is not open to the truth that the Ekklesia is not a separate group of elect but rather refers to Israel.  He doesn't want to hear that.  He wants non-Jews to stay in church and learn Christian traditions (e.g. pork is tasty on Easter and fondling pigskinned footballs can be a religious experience).

Naturally, Gene disagrees with Paul's assessment in Ephesians 2 that the physical Jews have failed to recognize the covenantal status of non-Jewish Believers.  Gene sees such talk as de-legitimizing the Jewish race (which, of course, it does not).

So the lines are becoming sharper with each passing day.


12 comments:

  1. "(1) the Church is a separate group of elect composed solely of non-Jews; "

    No, that's not what "bilateral ecclesiology" about. It refers to a two-winged Church, composed of Gentiles (nations) and Jews (Israel), complementing each other, and not a Ekklesia just for non-Jews.

    "exclusionist"

    That's a derogatory term, Peter, like racist. Contrary, I include Gentiles in the community of G-d, so this would make me an inclusionist.

    "So the lines are becoming sharper with each passing day. "

    Much of this are old lines that were sharpened long ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Inclusionism is egalitarian. It's about the reality that non-Jewish Believers in joining the covenants have a right as citizens to keep the commands incumbent on common citizens.

      You're a great guy and I love you as a dear brother but you are not an Inclusionist.

      Delete
    2. "you are not an Inclusionist."

      Peter, according to the narrow definition you've put forth, than no, I am not. But to my understanding of what it means to include Gentiles (without putting them under laws not meant for them), I am.

      Delete
    3. Not meant for them?

      Well, folks, the line doesn't get much sharper than that.

      Delete
    4. "non-Jewish Believers in joining the covenants have a right as citizens to keep the commands incumbent on common citizens."

      Peter, non-Jewish believers may keep them all they want, there's nobody stopping them. As free people, they do have that right. It's when you claim "they are obligated to keep them", that's when the problem arises. There's a significant difference between rights and obligations.

      Delete
    5. Peter, non-Jewish believers may keep them all they want, there's nobody stopping them. As free people, they do have that right. It's when you claim "they are obligated to keep them", that's when the problem arises. There's a significant difference between rights and obligations.

      Not if the commandments are what some claim to be identity markers...

      For you, gentiles are not in covenant with God, so they have no covenant obligation, but for most of the Christian world and for most of our beliefs here, we believe gentiles are now in covenant relationship with God and are thus obligated to the covenant.

      Delete
    6. "Not if the commandments are what some claim to be identity markers..."

      Gentiles are already walking around wearing those or performing them. Who's stopping them?

      "but for most of the Christian world and for most of our beliefs here, we believe gentiles are now in covenant relationship with God and are thus obligated to the covenant."

      Christians partake in the benefits of the New Covenant made with Israel, since Jews have shared with them in their spiritual blessings.

      "They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises." (Romans 9:4)

      Delete
    7. Gentiles are already walking around wearing those or performing them. Who's stopping them?

      Well of course no one can stop them, my point is that they do not have that right as you said, if it truly is a representation of identity, that does not belong to them.

      "but for most of the Christian world and for most of our beliefs here, we believe gentiles are now in covenant relationship with God and are thus obligated to the covenant."

      Christians partake in the benefits of the New Covenant made with Israel, since Jews have shared with them in their spiritual blessings.


      Again, I understand why you don't see obligation, because gentiles are not in a covenant relationship, hopefully though, you can see why we believe in obligation, since we believe gentiles are in covenant relationship, it is a simple equation.

      "They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises." (Romans 9:4)

      Exactly, not to gentiles, thus if gentiles want to be part, they can through the King of Israel, who brings them in, and graphs them into a Tree that belongs specifically to Israel, along with the promises, the worship, the Law, etc. It all belongs to Israel, not to the world, but God wants all to join Him.

      Delete
    8. Zion,

      Just to be clear: you're for non-Jewish Believers wearing tzitzit and keeping Shabbat, etc, correct?

      Delete
    9. Absolutely, I was only arguing from their perspective. I do that a lot, which can confuse people as to where I stand, but it makes it easier to point out the contradictions, to debate from their own views, in my opinion.

      Delete
  2. OK, Gene, if you insist, we call you and the BE crowed racists...No big deal....

    ReplyDelete