NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/messiani/3719

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 8.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!nobody
From: [e-mail] (Paul Dillinger)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Jewish/Christian Consistency   (was Humanism)
Date: 23 Dec 1992 15:20:58 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Lines: 181
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdl102.sdd.hp.com

> In article  <[e-mail]>
>  [e-mail] (Rob Strom) writes:
>
> RS:
> [some deletions]
>
> You have changed the subject from whether Christianity teaches that
> belief in Jesus guarantees salvation without the need for t'shuvah
> ... [ more deletions]

I, too, would like to keep to the subject:

Let me begin with a summary. The posted ideas by Rob Strom was that:

    1. T'shuva is not required in Christianity
    2. Belief in the God-hood of Jesus is required for salvation in
         Christianity
    3. These are Christian ideas and not Jewish ideas.
    4. Therefore Christianity is not consistent with Judaism
    5. Since 1 and 2 are consistent with Messianic Judaism, Messianic
         Judaism is not consistent with (Rabbinic?...Biblical?) Judaism.

In my prior post I noted that Jesus himself did not teach 1 and 2. This
creates a problem. And, I'd like to suggest a way to work it out:

Let's call the system of belief based on both the TN"K and the NT:
"Biblical Christianity" (BC); and call the general doctrines popularly
preached today by a majority of evangelists: "Modern Christianity"
(MC).

(Now, can we do the same for Judaism? Is there a Judaism solely based
upon the TN"K?  Is there another based upon the TN"K and the Talmud? For
now, I'll assume that the latter is what you refer to as "Jewish" or
"Judaism". Is there a way of defining "Biblical Judaism" (BJ) as
distinct from "Rabbinic Judaism" (RJ) or for that matter "Modern
Judaism" (MJ)? It might help if you make a contribution in this area.)

> But in your above paragraph you undercut your argument that
> we can find what 'Christianity says' by looking at the deeper
> meanings of the text and the Greek scholarship and so forth.

I would like to avoid the "deeper meaning" approach for now. I feel that
the plain meaning of the NT text will be useful.

> Because, unlike Judaism, Christianity is an evangelical religion,
> for all practical purposes, 'Christianity says' whatever the
> vast majority of the evangelists say.  And I have probably
> listened to as many or more evangelists as you have.  And what
> the evangelists say is that salvation is a "free gift" from
> God/Jesus to those who choose to believe in him.  And, even
> leaving out the Jesus part, that just isn't a Jewish idea.

I agree with you that salvation as a "free gift" (no t'shuva required)
is what the evangelist say. This is a message of Modern Christianity.
This not a Jewish idea, as you say, and I am adding that it is not a
Biblical Christianity idea either. The NT, which is consistent with
Biblical Christianity, by definition, shows t'shuva is required. (I can
post references if you like.)

So, for this particular issue which you raised, this shows one area in
which Jewish ideas and Biblical Christianity are consistent.

> As you know from reading my postings, I am not interested in
> having faith in the Gospel message.  I am interested in evaluating
> claims by Messianics that the Gospel message is foreshadowed
> in Jewish teachings.  I am interested in disputing claims
> by Messianics that Christianity is consistent with "Biblical Judaism".
>

My point is that for the issue that you identified, that is, required
t'shuva, that Biblical Christianity *is* consistent with Biblical
Judaism. It is Modern Christianity that is inconsistent with Biblical
Judaism.

> [more deletions]
>
> RS:
> Most evangelists use the term "saved" to mean "saved from
> death/hell", rather than your meaning of "sinless".  In fact
> most evangelists claim both to be saved and to be sinners.

This is an important distinction. And the evangelist's claim, again,
underscores the difference between Modern Christianity and Biblical
Christianity. The NT claims that it is absurd for a believer to continue
to live in sin (Rom 6:1,2,6,12,14,18). When the angel of the Lord
announced the birth of Jesus, he said "For he shall save his people from
their sins. (Matt 1:20)

> Few evangelists (except for some Judaizing Christians on
> this newsgroup) claim to be doing t'shuvah in the sense
> of a sincere attempt/desire to follow Torah.

And again, the evangelist's position underscores the difference between
Biblical Christianity and Modern Christianity. Correspondingly, it also
underscores the difference between Modern Christianity and Messianic
Judaism.

> RS:
> If living like Jesus did is an index of salvation, then I fear
> few are saved.

Again, your point is a good one. Your point is at variance with Modern
Christianity, but agrees with the NT, showing the consistency between
Biblical Christianity and Judaism. (The NT references are: Matt 19:25,
20:16, and 1Pe 4:18. (And if you would indicate your preference, I can
include the text when references to NT are made, so you won't have to
look them up.))

> RS:
> In the above, you are taking a "works righteousness" position which
> is actually closer to my view, but different from the typical
> Christian position espoused by evangelists ...

You are restating the very point I am making:

    1.  Biblical Christianity and Modern Christianity are distinctly
         different in the major areas you mention. (There are yet other
         major differences)
    2.  As you state, Biblical Christianity is more consistent with your
         views than is Modern Christianity.
    3.  Therefore, at least in the matter of t'shuva, anyone whose view
         is consistent with Biblical Christianity is also consistent
         with the views of Judaism.

>RS:
> ... or posted here by such people as Bruce Tiffany and Bruce Benning.

I have not read the posts you are referring to, and maybe the Bruces can
comment. I think the subject of "works righteousness", as you called
it, is not understood by most Modern Christians. (Based on reading and
hearing their explanation of the matter.)

My feeling is that Modern Christianity ignores the statement made by
James in the NT:

    You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by
    faith only. (James 2:24)

in favor of the statement made by Paul:

    Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but
    by the faith of Jesus Christ, ... for by the works of the law
    shall no flesh be justified. (Galatians 2:16)

Biblical Christians are willing to face two sides of what might look
like a paradox. Modern Christians say the one verse is true and the
other is not true. (e.g. Martin Luther said James was wrong)

> [more deletions]
> I don't at all think that commitment to help the less
> fortunate is an exclusively Christian domain.

I agree.

And finally, the above logic also applies to the second issue you raised
concerning the God-hood of Jesus. The resulting logic is:

    1. Belief in the God-hood of Jesus is not required for salvation, in
         Judaism.
    2. Belief in the God-hood of Jesus is not required for salvation, in
         Biblical Christianity.
    3. Belief in the God-hood of Jesus *is* required for salvation, in
         Modern Christianity.
    4. Therefore, Judaism is consistent (at least in this regard) with
         Biblical Christianity.
    5. Therefore, to the extent Messianic Judaism is consistent with
         Biblical Christianity, it is also consistent with Judaism.

In summary, can we agree then that in the following areas,

    1. T'shuva is required for salvation
    2. Belief in the God-hood of Jesus is not required for salvation

that the Jewish position is consistent with Biblical Christianity and
with Messianic Judaism?


-
  Paul       Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another:
Dillinger                                                    Mal 3:16a
-