| Author |
Message |
Doug222
| | Posted on Saturday, December 01, 2001 - 9:52 am: |     |
I see that no one has responded to Trippllb's question about Dr. Bacchiocchi's second response to Greg's letter. I am in the process of wading through it myself. I have read approximately 3/4 of it. I can say that his response is much more fitting of a person of his stature. His first response appeared much more personal than scholarly.
Having said that, I will say that he appears to exhibit the same problem that he accuses Greg of. I can't find his exact statement at the moment, but he says that one of the first rules of scholarship is to understand the oppositions argument before stating your conclusion. Dr Bacchiochi obviously has not done this. His argument is based on the assumption that those who believe in "New Covenant Theology" believe that God has offered two different methods of salvation. Under the Old Covenant, one was saved through obedience to the law. Under the New Covenant, one is saved through grace. However, I think we would all agree that even under the Old Covenant, one was saved by Grace. Galatians (chapter two I believe) does an excellent job of explaining that Abraham obtained righteousness through faith BEFORE he was circumcised and that the law functioned as a schoolmaster to point the believer to his/her need for Grace. So, Dr. Bacchiocci operates from a faulty premise.
He provides a compelling argument when he discusses Colossians 2:16,17. I must say that it was very enlightening for me. I was not fully aware of the background that he provided However, I still arrived at a diferent conclusion than he did. Once again, I believe Dr. Bacchiocchi has not understood the argument of his opponent. He seems to believe that Greg is arguing for the abrogation of the Sabbath. Instead (and I don't want to put words in Greg's mouth) Greg (or at least I) argues for (and I belive the Bible supports) the fulfillment of the Sabbath in Christ. That is a significant difference.
The problem in Collosae was that they (including a substantial number of Jews) were practicing empty religious rituals that had been mixed with secularism and paganism. Paul argues that if Jesus is not the end to whatever you are doing, then it is meaningless. That is why he urges them to hold to the gospel that was first delivered to them. He then reminds them that they have been given fullness or completeness in Jesus alone (independent of rituals/festivals).
In light of this, Paul says don't let anyone judge you in reference to food, drink, or religious festivals (including all of the Sabbath celebrations). Dr. Bacchiocchi seems to believe that Paul is actually reinforcing the need for observance whether than doing away with it. As I read this passage, I believe that Paul is doing neither. I believe he is saying that since all of these symbols pointed foreshadowed Jesus, that we are complete in Him. Therefore, you are free to observe the food/drink laws and religious festivals or not, but that each person should be convinced in his/her own heart and should not be judged, no matter which choice they make.
Dr. Bacchiocchi makes a big deal about the fact that Paul uses the present tense when he speaks of these rituals (i.e., "these ARE a shadow of things to come" rather than saying "these WERE a shadow of things to come). By dong so, he suggests that these rituals had not been done away with at the time of the letter to the Colossians (which was well after Jesus' death). I do not find a contrdiction here. As I said earlier, there were many Jews living in the region, and therefore many were still practicing Jewish traditions. That does not mean that these were required under the New Covenant.
There are many things I oculd say, but the last one I will say is probably the most important. The dead giveaway for Dr. Bacchiocchi's position is found in a statement he made early in his response. He said, "Unfortunately during the intertestamental period, the law did come to be viewed by the Jews as a mans of salvation, just as faithalone is considered by many Christians today as the only basis for their salvation. But a saving faith is never alone because it is always accompanied by loving obedience. Can a person truly obey God's laws without faith." Ah, here it is in writing. The old Adventist "grace plus" theology. Despite the clear teachings of the Bible, Dr bacchiocchi (and most Adventist) believe that at the foundation of the salvation equation is human effort. God's grace + My Obedience = Salvation. According to Issiah, all my righteousness is as filthy rags, therefore i could read that equation as God's Grace + 0 = Salvation. Therefore, my works/obedience does not even enter into the salvation equation. I know I am preaching to the choir, so I will just sit down.
This is just my .02 worth. It is amazing how when God removes the veil from your eyes, you can see error taught so plainly (no matter how eloquently spoken or convicingly argued).
In His Grace
Doug |
Sabra
| | Posted on Saturday, December 01, 2001 - 12:51 pm: | |
Doug,
I think you have a lot to contribute to Dr. Bacchiocci (sp?) Why don't you write him? He says he welcomes response but I am proof that the only welcomed response is that which praises him. The biggest problem I have in his extensive arguements is that he exhibits no christian love that I can read. He only condemns and belittles Pastor Taylor and anyone who believes as he does. He may be a bible scholar but he is lacking in the true spirit of Christ. At least it doesn't come across in his writing. Why devote so much time to dispute someone's opinion? It is to the point of slander and I would have a big problem with a stranger writing so much on my personal testimony if I were Greg and Paula. Seems he is only drawing negative attention to himself and lifting up Greg and Paula in the process. Maybe that is what is supposed to happen :). I know God is in control and truth will prevail. He is a sad man in need of some light in his life. God bless him.
Sabra |
Doug222
| | Posted on Saturday, December 01, 2001 - 3:55 pm: | |
Sabra,
I'm not sure there is much to be gained in endless debating of the topic with Dr. Bacchiocchi. No matter what you, I, or anyone else might say, he will discount it, unless it supports his beliefs. My goodness, he even belittled the Apostle Paul. Did you see it in his letter? I'll quote:
"...[t]his means that Paul distinguishes between the temporary aspects of the Law, like circumcision, and the permanent nature of the Decalogue which reflects the moral standard of a new life in Christ. We (I sure owuld like to know who we is, but obviously Bacchiocchi is a part of them) wish that Paul had made this distinction clearer. No doubt, this would have helped sincere people like Pastor Taylor, not accustomed (notice the implied "like me")to analyze all what Paul has to say about the law."
Is this the height of arrogance or what? As if that is not enough, he then goes on to contradict Pauls counsel that ALL scripture is profitable for correction, reproof, doctrine, etc. by saying that Paul's instruction in Galatians should not be relied on for an understanding of the law--despite the fact that this was the primary purpose of the letter. He quotes C.E. Crawford (obviously one of the "we's referred to earlier) when he says:
"C.E. Crawford rightly warns that to 'fail to make full allowance for the special circumstance which called forth the [Galatian] letter would be to proceed in a quite uncritical and unscientific manner. In view of what has been said, it should be clear that it would be extremely unwise to take what Paul says in Galatians as one's starting point in trying to nderstand Paul's teaching on the law.' It is unfortunate that Pastor Taylor failed to heed this warning by taking Galatians as the starting point for defining Paul's view of the Law."
As you can see, if scripture does not support Dr. Bacchiocchi's point of view, he simply re-interprets or discounts it. Its too bad that the Holy Spirit did not consult with Dr. Bacchiocchi when it inspired Paul and the other writers of the sciprture. Just think of how much confusion we could have avoided.
I know that was a mean-spirited thing to say, but I said it to say that I think Greg's approach of not engaging in endless debates is probably best. I think I have reached the point at long last where I do not feel (as much) the need to justify my beliefs or convince everyone else to believe as i do. That is truly a liberating feeling.
In his Grace
Doug |
Richardhardison
| | Posted on Saturday, December 01, 2001 - 3:59 pm: | |
Is Taylor's open letter on the net? If so, does anyone have a link to it?
Richard L. Hardison |
Sabra
| | Posted on Saturday, December 01, 2001 - 4:42 pm: | |
www.biblicalperspectives.com
then under newsletter |
Richardhardison
| | Posted on Saturday, December 01, 2001 - 4:56 pm: | |
Sabra, that's Bacchiocchi's website. I didn't find Taylor's letter, just the good Doc's response.
Richard L. Hardison |
Richardhardison
| | Posted on Saturday, December 01, 2001 - 5:10 pm: | |
Doug, That's C.E. Cranfield, and your statement is worse than just mean spirited, you have taken the man out of context. If you are going to state that he re-interprets scripture to mean what he wants it to mean you have an obligation to show where he does it, not just smear the man. When it comes to the Sabbath and Paul's timekeeping the good Doc is in leftfield. When it comes to his soteriology, if he has represented Taylor's position correctly then the good Doc has Taylor by the theological short hairs. bacchiocchi's position on the law is quite orthodox and has been accepted by both of the major theological camps. Arthur Pink, a staunch Calvinist was quite clear on the matter and uses the same terms as the good Doc. The Wesleyan stream has been consistent on the law and it's application to the Christian, not in the pharisaical sense as a method of salvation, something it never was, but as a statement of God's character and a guide for christian life.
if you would like a copy of Arthur Pink's "The Christian and the Law" drop me an e-mail at mrgcoengr@hotmail.com and I'll send you a copy attached to the reply. You'll need the adobe reader which you can get at www.adobe.com. It's quite large so it will take awhile to download.
I found Taylor's manifesto on Dale Ratzlaff's site.
Richard L. Hardison |
Doug222
| | Posted on Saturday, December 01, 2001 - 10:10 pm: | |
No thank you Richard. I will stick with the Bible and the Holy Spirit. Although I may not be as learned as Dr. Bacchiocchi, C.E. Cranfield, Arthur Pink, and many other theological "scholars," that has never been a qualification to understand the Gospel. I find myself to be in good company considering the Apostle Paul was a tentmaker by trade (who by the way fancied himself as being well schooled in the Law until he had a certain experience on the road to Damascus)and Peter was an uneducated fisherman. My issue is with Dr. Bacchiochi (or any other scholar) who discounts specific inspired teaching on a particular topic (Galatians 3 for example), or has the audacity to suggest that the inspired word is somehow inadequate (a point for which I provided a direct quote), in order to support views that are speculative at best, in that they cannot point to a single text that "specifically" supports their view (i.e. the distinction between the moral and ceremonial law).
I am not interested in reviving the discussion about whether Calvinists, Weslyans, or any other earthly authority agrees (or disagrees)with the Doctor's position, however, if you can point to SPECIFIC teaching (not prooftexts)in the scripture that shows where I or anyone else has misapplied scripture, I would be very much interested.
I apologize in advance if what I am saying sounds harsh or critical. But, I am reminded of the teaching of the Apostle Paul who said, "Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but (that's a big BUT) we preach Christ crucified: a stumblingblock to Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God....God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise."
The Gospel is not so complicated that we need scholars to interpret it for us.
In His Grace
Doug |
Trippllb
| | Posted on Sunday, December 02, 2001 - 6:25 am: | |
Richard, Greg's story is located right here on FAF under the stories section. The url is: http://www.formeradventist.com/taylor.html |
Richardhardison
| | Posted on Sunday, December 02, 2001 - 10:38 am: | |
Thanx, Tripp i downloaded and printed it from Dale Ratzlaff's site.
Doug, I have never been one to say that one MUST read the historical theologians to understand scripture. If I were then I would be a hypocrite as I reached my conclusions from scripture alone, before I ever read any of the historical theologians. I'm not trying to revive anything, juts trying to get you to see there is another viewpoint that challenges yours. people such as Pink gave their lives to study of the word and it is foolishness to say that we don't need those people. If anything, there is a desperate need for them as a check to our own human arrogance.
While the people you name were "unlettered" they far exceeded the average modern christian in their knowledge of God and and His word. What i detect in you is a fear of having your position challenged by someone who knows more than you. your direct quote, alas, was entirely out of context and wrested as a result.
The reality is, gang, that Taylor arrived at an opinion, Bacchiochi challenges that opinion and no one on this forum, or anywhere else I've seen really refutes the man. A number of people have smeared him, but all I've seen are the warm fuzzies, a few wrested scriptures, and Doug's out of context quote. At least Greg Taylor has tried. he screwed up a goodly bit, reading somethings into passages that aren't there, mixing ceremonial and moral laws in one place and buying into the idea that there is no separation in another place.
Frankly, if what I've seen so far is the consistent "former" position then Bacchiocchi will continue to eat your theological lunch. Your obligation, Doug, is to disprove him. he's made the assertion and has been challenged, not the other way around. Show your position using the same type of argument he uses to show where he has wrested scripture, how he has taken it out of context and reinterpreted it to mean what he wants it to say (and you had better be right because if you can't show he lied and misused scripture you owe the man an apology because you have impugned his integrity a close reading of Matthew 7:1-2 is in order my friend). You really haven't tried yet and your last statement above is childish at best, if not outright arrogant and hateful.
I'll leave you with my favorite statement by Charles Finney, "My brother, sister, friend - read, study, think, and read again. You were made to think. It will do you good to think; to develop your powers by study. God designed that religion should require thought, intense thought, and should thoroughly develop our powers of thought!"
The rest is up to you.
Richard L. Hardison |
Sabra
| | Posted on Sunday, December 02, 2001 - 12:49 pm: | |
Richard,
I am no bible scholar but I do not see how our obligation is to disprove Dr. Bacchiocchi. Our only obligation is to share the gospel with the poor in spirit and Dr. Bacchiocchi fits that description in my opinion. I have shared my testimony and he has responded very negatively and ungraciously and that is all I intend to do. It is not in our best interest as christians to argue with anyone. I didn't interpret Doug's message as being mean spirited at all and I'm not sure which side you are on. You seem to like controversy and I'm not sure that is the purpose of this forum. Most of us are just trying to share and gain knowledge, not dispute. |
Richardhardison
| | Posted on Sunday, December 02, 2001 - 2:31 pm: | |
Sabra, I point you to the example of the Apostle Paul. Without being willing to go to the Synagogues and mars Hill, Paul would not have been what he was.
If a forum is nothing but a place where you give each other the warm fuzzies then why not go to aToday? Proverbs 17:7 says, "As iron sharpens iron, So a man sharpens the countenance of his friend." Christians don't gather just to drink coffee and make each other feel good. They gather to strengthen one another, and that includes helping one another gain knowledge so they can face the world with the Gospel. If fora such as this don't serve part of that purpose then some one is not being a good steward of the money God has given them.
Dispute is one of the ways we sharpen ourselves to face the world. In the case of Bacchiocchi I can't answer to your statement that he was hateful, or ungracious, towards you as I haven't seen either side. A testimony, however, is not what is needed if you really believe he is wrong. Paul told us we are to silence people with the truth. I saw both issue 76 and 77 where he responds to Taylor, and the first was quite ungracious. The second is of a far different character where he exegetes the relevant passages. Frankly, what I've seen so far he far outclasses, to use a southernism, any other dog in the fight. He also, in general, happens to be in the mainstream of post-reformation thought. As it was with Martin Luther, unless you can show him from reason and scripture that he is wrong he won't let go, and he shouldn't. "Testimonies" don't fall into that category.
I'l leave you a passage from Arthur Pink's "The Law and The Saint,"
"History has repeated itself. Of old, God complained of Ephraim, "I have written to him the great things of My Law, but they were counted as a strange thing" (Ho 8:12). Observe how God speaks of His Law: "The great things of My Law"! They are not precepts of little moment, but to be lightly esteemed, and slighted; but are of great authority, importance, and value. But, as then, so during the last few years--they have been "counted as a strange thing". Christian teachers have vied with each other in denouncing the Law as a "yoke of bondage", "a grievous burden", "a remorseless enemy". They have declared in trumpet tones that Christians should regard the Law as "a strange thing": that it was never designed for them: that it was given to Israel, and then made an end of at the Cross of Christ. They have warned God's people to have nothing to do with the Ten Commandments. They have denounced as "Legalists" Christians of the past, who, like Paul, "served the Law" (Ro 7:25). They have affirmed that Grace rules the Law out of the Christian's life as absolutely as it did out of his salvation. They have held up to ridicule those who contended for a Christian Sabbath, and have classed them with Seventh-Day Adventists. Having sown the wind, is it any wonder that we are now reaping the whirlwind?"
Arthur Pink was a staunch Calvinist you would be well advised to read.
Richard L. Hardison |
Lydell
| | Posted on Sunday, December 02, 2001 - 4:09 pm: | |
>If anything, there is a desperate need for them as a check to our own human arrogance.
So, Richard, we are then to pity those who are not English speaking Christians with access to the writings of the historical theologians, for their understanding of the scriptures can never truly be complete? |
Colleentinker
| | Posted on Sunday, December 02, 2001 - 6:30 pm: | |
This forum has specific guidelines for posting etiquette. Everyone who received a password also received a link to the Terms and Conditions page of this website. Under the heading for Forum Posting, item "b" states the type of posting that is not allowed. Included are posts that are "unlawful, abusive, threatening, libelous, defamatory, offensiveÖ" etc.
This forum exists to provide support, discussion, prayer, and safety for those who are former Adventists and who need to ask questions and discuss areas of uncertainty, difficulty, or trauma, doctrinal or relational. Discussion of Dr. Bacchiocchi's missives are appropriate in that his response involves one of our forum members and addresses an issue we ALL have to deal with.
Arguing in defense of Dr. Bacchiocchi's scholarship and maligning the scholarship of others who do not agree is outside the scope of this forum.
As you quoted, Richard Hardison, "As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend." (Proverbs 27:17) This quote is not referring to argument and debate. People sharpen each other only in the context of relationships in which love lies behind all exchanges. Only love makes correction and reproof a vehicle of true sharpening. A person is only safe to change in an atmosphere of love.
Paul is clear in Titus 3:9, "Avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are uprofitable and useless."
Further, in 1 Corinthians 8:1b-3, Paul says this, "Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God."
The gospel changes us with our without theological "knowledge". The conclusions which Doug has reached are, I believe from what he has said, the result of his honest desire for truth and his appeal to the Holy Spirit to help him read the Bible and to understand its truth. The new birth is quite apart from intellectual knowledge.
Praise God that he does increase our knowledge, but our focus on this forum is not to dispute knowledge and our understandings. This forum is a place of truth and safety and peace, not a place of dispute and arguing.
We are not saying you have to agree with "us" in order to post here. We are saying it is outside the scope of this forum to stir up arguments and disputes. Those things come from our natural selves--the part of ourselves that wish to be recognized for our expertise. This forum is dedicated to discussion that has as its goal the pursuit of truth and the building up of the Body of Christ.
This is not the place for intimidation or arguing.
We continue to pray for us all.
Richard and Colleen |
Trippllb
| | Posted on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 7:09 am: | |
To take a page from Richards book, let me leave you with my favorite quote from Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along." |
Sabra
| | Posted on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 4:25 pm: | |
Richard,
I consider myself well advised to read the Holy Bible. You can keep the Pink and the White for that matter. I'll stick to the RED blood of Jesus.
Not mis-informed, just well informed,
Sabra |
Janice (Janice)
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 4:29 pm: | |
This is another topic that I found interesting. I pasted some of the remarks from Richard Hardison: Proverbs 17:7 says, "As iron sharpens iron, So a man sharpens the countenance of his friend." Christians don't gather just to drink coffee and make each other feel good. They gather to strengthen one another, and that includes helping one another gain knowledge so they can face the world with the Gospel. If for such as this don't serve part of that purpose then some one is not being a good steward of the money God has given them.
DISPUTE is one of the ways we SHARPEN ourselves to face the world. I really don't know the entire events that led to the post but thought it was an interesting observation and one that I truly believe in. We are suppose to bear one another's burdens and since ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, then shouldn't we be going about our father's business?
Having said that, I will continue to go through the different topics and try to find the threads that I started and discuss them.
I pray that God will give me the right words to help give sound doctrine and good instructions while asking that you all do the same with me, I have feelings too and am only human and would never have made mention of any individual had I not felt like the devil was attacking me, I need prayers so much more than open rebuke. I will continue to ask for prayer too that will help me to be more kind in my rebukes while praying for others that.....never mind.
God bless us and help us all, amen.
Janice |
Janice (Janice)
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 4:36 pm: | |
This is another topic that I found interesting. I pasted some of the remarks from Richard Hardison: Proverbs 17:7 says, "As iron sharpens iron, So a man sharpens the countenance of his friend." Christians don't gather just to drink coffee and make each other feel good. They gather to strengthen one another, and that includes helping one another gain knowledge so they can face the world with the Gospel. If for such as this don't serve part of that purpose then some one is not being a good steward of the money God has given them.
DISPUTE is one of the ways we SHARPEN ourselves to face the world. I really don't know the entire events that led to the post but thought it was an interesting observation and one that I truly believe in. We are suppose to bear one another's burdens and since ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, then shouldn't we be going about our father's business?
Having said that, I will continue to go through the different topics and try to find the threads that I started and discuss them.
I pray that God will give me the right words to help give sound doctrine and good instructions while asking that you all do the same with me, I have feelings too and am only human and would never have made mention of any individual had I not felt like the devil was attacking me, I need prayers so much more than open rebuke. I will continue to ask for prayer too that will help me to be more kind in my rebukes while praying for others that.....never mind.
God bless us and help us all, amen.
Janice |
Richardhardison (Richardhardison)
| | Posted on Sunday, April 06, 2003 - 8:17 pm: | |
Janice,
What led to the post was a basic argument I've seen crop up in Pentecostal circles, and it based upon an anti-intellectual attitude. Sabra's attitude is typical. Everything they accused Bacchiocci of, they exemplified. I've read the entire record of the dispute, and frankly, the good Doc ate their lunch, and supper besides.
Proverbs 27:17 definitely includes theological dispute. The metaphor is drawn directly from sharpening of tools where a steel is used to put a fine edge on the tool. It deals directly with the abrasion that is necessary to put the fine edge on the tool.
Sabra's and Lydell's sad attempts at sarcasm was the reason I quit posting (I came back because I got an e-mail asking if I had been banned). Everything I quoted is available on the internet, right along with much that was written by those historical theologians. ccel.org has a bunch that is worth reading.
Richard L. Hardison |
|
