Doug Phillips Twists Scripture to Fit Jamestown Agenda

Hutch had this great idea! The following contest, sponsored by Vision Forum through Homeschooling Today Magazine, was posted on Doug’s blog today. See if you can spot any Scripture twisting (or history twisting) to make Jamestown fit Doug’s agenda. It is sad to see this misuse of God’s Word. This contest is based on the Jamestown Quadricentennial celebration this year.

***********************************************************************************************

Simply pick one of the Scripture discussion points below (or choose another of interest to your family) and write a persuasive essay expanding on the topic. Explain whether the settlers were operating under the truth of the Bible, or under a worldly deception.

Scripture discussion: The Founding Fathers of our nation were well-versed in the Bible — more so than we are today. Their views on all issues of life were therefore colored by Scripture. How do the following Scriptures help us better understand the settlers’ perspectives on the following? Upon which other Scriptures might they have based their actions? Also, which ideas and passages from the Bible can be found in the suggested readings and primary resources?

1. Land ownership (Ex. 20:12, Joshua 13-19, Acts 17:26, Deut. 32:7-8, Ex. 20:15 and Deut. 19:14)

Ex. 20:12 – “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you.”

Josh 13-19 – Dividing the Promised Land

Acts 17:26 – “And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,”

Deut. 32:7-8 – “Remember the days of old, Consider the years of many generations. Ask your father, and he will show you; Your elders, and they will tell you: When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations, When He separated the sons of Adam, He set the boundaries of the peoples According to the number of the children of Israel.”

Ex. 20:15 – “You shall not steal.”

Deut. 19:14 – “You shall not remove your neighbor’s landmark, which the men of old have set, in your inheritance which you will inherit in the land that the LORD your God is giving you to possess.”

2. “Interracial” marriage (2 Cor. 6:14, Gal. 3:28, Acts 17:26)

II Cor 6:14 – “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?”

Gal. 3:28 – “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Acts 17:26 – “And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,”

3. Building a population through native births, rather than sending over more colonists from England (Gen. 1:28, 8:16)

Gen. 1:28 – “Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Gen. 8:16 – “Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you.”

4. Evangelizing the natives (Matt. 28:18-20)

Matt. 28:18-20 – “And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.”

5. Pocahontas dressing like the settlers as an “Englishwoman” after her conversion rather than remaining in her native clothing (Gen 3:21)

Gen. 3:21 – “Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.”

Scripture discussion: Many, even in their native Virginia, are shying away from calling the Jamestown Quadricentennial a celebration, but instead refer to it as a commemoration. Discuss as a family the Scriptural basis for each of the following:

1. Remembrance of Jamestown, what the settlers did there, and teaching these things to our children (Deut. 32:7-8, Ps. 78; Ex. 20:12)

Deut. 32:7-8 – “Remember the days of old, Consider the years of many generations. Ask your father, and he will show you; Your elders, and they will tell you: When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations, When He separated the sons of Adam, He set the boundaries of the peoples According to the number of the children of Israel.”

Ps. 78:(4-8) – “We will not hide them from their children, Telling to the generation to come the praises of the LORD, And His strength and His wonderful works that He has done.
For He established a testimony in Jacob, And appointed a law in Israel, Which He commanded our fathers, That they should make them known to their children;
That the generation to come might know them, The children who would be born, That they may arise and declare them to their children,
That they may set their hope in God, And not forget the works of God, But keep His commandments;
And may not be like their fathers, A stubborn and rebellious generation, A generation that did not set its heart aright, And whose spirit was not faithful to God.”

Ex. 20:12 – “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you.”

2. Erecting a memorial to God’s providential deliverance of a people (Prov. 22:28, Josh. 4:19-20, Gen. 28:16-22, 1 Sam. 7:10-12)

Prov. 22:28 – “Do not remove the ancient landmark Which your fathers have set.”

Josh. 4:19-20 – “Now the people came up from the Jordan on the tenth day of the first month, and they camped in Gilgal on the east border of Jericho. And those twelve stones which they took out of the Jordan, Joshua set up in Gilgal.”

Gen. 28:16-22 – “Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, “Surely the LORD is in this place, and I did not know it.And he was afraid and said, “How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven!”
Then Jacob rose early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put at his head, set it up as a pillar, and poured oil on top of it. And he called the name of that place Bethel; but the name of that city had been Luz previously. Then Jacob made a vow, saying, “If God will be with me, and keep me in this way that I am going, and give me bread to eat and clothing to put on, so that I come back to my father’s house in peace, then the LORD shall be my God. And this stone which I have set as a pillar shall be God’s house, and of all that You give me I will surely give a tenth to You.”

I Sam. 7:10-12 – “Now as Samuel was offering up the burnt offering, the Philistines drew near to battle against Israel. But the LORD thundered with a loud thunder upon the Philistines that day, and so confused them that they were overcome before Israel. And the men of Israel went out of Mizpah and pursued the Philistines, and drove them back as far as below Beth Car. Then Samuel took a stone and set it up between Mizpah and Shen, and called its name Ebenezer, saying, “Thus far the LORD has helped us.”

3. Understanding the original words of the settlers from primary source documents, with the meaning that would have been understood at the time (Lev. 19:16; Prov. 15:14, 20:5, 23:23, 28:2b)

Lev. 19:16 – “You shall not go about as a talebearer among your people; nor shall you take a stand against the life of your neighbor: I am the LORD.”

Prov. 15:14 – “The heart of him who has understanding seeks knowledge, But the mouth of fools feeds on foolishness.”

Prov. 20:5 – “Counsel in the heart of man is like deep water, But a man of understanding will draw it out.”

Prov. 23:23 – “Buy the truth, and do not sell it, Also wisdom and instruction and understanding.”

Prov. 28:2b – “But by a man of understanding and knowledge Right will be prolonged.”

Be sure to include in the discussion, why it is right to honor our fathers and ancestors, rather than look down our noses at them. Should we wonder how they could have sinned in this way or that way? We would be wise to recognize that they were sinners just like us, and to consider ways in which we fail to honor them by sinning as they did — or in finding new and uniquely foolish ways to sin.

129 Responses to “Doug Phillips Twists Scripture to Fit Jamestown Agenda”

  1. Jen Says:

    Doug really does constantly talk about all of life being derived from the Word of God, that the Bible speaks to every single area and issue of life. I think that is one reason I got caught up in legalism — I began to think that there was a biblically right way to do every tiny, little detail of life. When Mike started questioning areas of life that he said were not specifically addressed by Scripture, I was incensed! That was my first glimpse that I had become a Pharisee, adding rules to Scripture.

    How many more Pharisees will Doug make teaching them this “principle”?

  2. Cynthia Gee Says:

    The Bible verses in this article condemn the thieving, land grabbing actions of the Jamestown settlers quite eloquently, don’t you think?

    “Deut. 19:14 – “You shall not remove your neighbor’s landmark, which the men of old have set, in your inheritance which you will inherit in the land that the LORD your God is giving you to possess.”

    …I’m sure the Indians would agree with this verse whole heartedly.

  3. Corrie Says:

    Because the founders were more well-versed in the Bible than people today, therefore their views on “all” issue of life were colored by Scripture? Is it really true that just because one person knows the Bible better than another person that the first person will automatically view “all” of life from a Scriptural perspective? Or does Vision Forum mean to claim this is true only of the founders? This is not a logical conclusion at all.

    Who knew God’s word better than anyone in Jesus’ day? The Pharisees and Sadduccees. They knew it but it did them no good. They were the blind leading the blind. I don’t even know if that statement is true. Were the founding fathers more versed in the Bible than we are today?

    I can tell you that I have debated homosexuals concerning the word of God and what it says about same-sex “marriage” and they know the Bible better than the average Christian. This group excluded, of course!

  4. Lin Says:

    Interracial marriage

    I don’t get it based on the scriptures he used.

    Is DP for or against interracial marriage?

  5. Mike Says:

    “Interracial marriage — I don’t get it based on the scriptures he used. Is DP for or against interracial marriage?”

    I noticed that, too. It looks like he is using these scriptures to say that we are supposed to marry only fellow believers, but that there is nothing unbiblical about interracial marriage.

  6. Hutch Says:

    Interracial marriage

    Mike-

    That was my point. The verses he used do not speak to the issue of interracial marriage at all. The verses only prove the concept that a believer is not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers.

    So, why not a caption that indicates what the verses support?

    It would be interesting to know what Doug’s position is on the issue of interracial marriages.

  7. Concerned Says:

    I think he is trying to showcase what he believes to be the first interracial marriage in America between Pocohantas and John Rolfe at Jamestown

    http://www.visionforumministries.org/events/jq/

    “This historic commemoration will highlight the important role Jamestown played in introducing the Christian common law to North America, establishing the first experiment in republican representative government, conducting America’s first Protestant Christian worship services and baptisms, and presiding over America’s first interracial marriage between Pocahontas and John Rolfe.” VF Ministries

  8. Mike Says:

    “The verses he used do not speak to the issue of interracial marriage at all. The verses only prove the concept that a believer is not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers.”

    No, Hutch, look again. The first reference speaks to inter-religious marriage, but the other two appear to support the idea that, since we are all one in Christ, then so-called “inter-racial” marriage is a moot point. Without any further explanation, I would have to conclude, tentatively, that this was done in order to refute those who would argue against “inter-racial” marriage.

  9. Jen Says:

    You really want to know why Doug is making an issue of “interracial” marriage? Here’s the deal. Some bloggers in the past couple years have had some fun pointing out Doug’s racist tendencies. There has been plenty of anecdotal evidence as well as some of the more overt things, such as his hailing Dabney. Every time one of these bloggers would point out something that appears to be racist, Doug would react, and often over-react, by going out of his way to appear multi-cultural. It was a very predictable pattern. If there was one black family at a conference, he would make sure to post their picture on his blog. He started going out of his way to make a huge deal of proving that he was NOT a racist. It became so over-the-top that many people had a good laugh about it. And the icing on the cake was Jamestown. One of the MAIN issues regarding Jamestown, at least in Doug’s mind, is that it was the occasion of the very first interracial marriage in the history of the United States (and before!).

    So, to those who know WHY Doug is over-reacting to this issue, it just provides a good laugh. There are way too many years of his emphasis in the opposite direction for most anyone to take him seriously. 🙂

  10. Mike Says:

    Hutch wrote: “That was my point.”

    Where did you make that point? This was your first comment on this thread.

  11. Jen Says:

    Mike, this article was Hutch’s idea in another thread. You can read his thoughts here.

  12. Mike Says:

    Okay, thanks.

  13. Morgan Farmer Says:

    Pass the whiskey.

    I read and re-read Jens post and then read it again. Stick a fork in me…..I am plumb smooth done..through and through.

    DP really teaches this insanity? People with brains accept this nonsensical gibberish?

    The whole thing that DP is doing is twisted! Call it twisted and get on with it I say.

    And make that a straight whiskey too….

    This has got to be among the most ridiculous things that any human being has ever done in the context of .

  14. Morgan Farmer Says:

    context of religion….one cannot call is christian

  15. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Here’s one problem. The essay contest focuses on Jamestown, and the winner gets a VF gift certificate. This may not be written by Doug. Clearly, someone who did write it had some knowledge of the Jamestown event however.

    As Jen points out, based on the history and tone of Doug’s stance on everything else in the past (separatist and isolationist), I assumed that he would be against interracial marriage. Then I’ve made a wrong assumption… Very sorry, folks.

    We’ve been given a great deal of confusing and conflicting agenda-driven issues to consider. Where’s Occam’s razor?
    – Doug’s Dabney veneration
    – VF’s isolationism and separatism (evangelism limited to already Christian groups and outspokenness against the non-normative Canaanites)
    – Risk of portraying anything related to the history of Jamestown in a negative light (Anything anti-Jamestown equates to both anti-Christian and anti-American with no middle ground in between. Everything is Black/White, all/nothing with Doug?)
    – VF/Doug’s need to seem non-racist
    – The pro-patriarchy, family and “specialness” of all things VF related (don’t be a filthy Canaanite) agenda

    Hmmm. I’ve got to ponder this complicated mix.

  16. Lynn Says:

    Jen:
    “You really want to know why Doug is making an issue of “interracial” marriage? Here’s the deal. Some bloggers in the past couple years have had some fun pointing out Doug’s racist tendencies.”

    Lynn:
    Jen, do you mean bloggers since mrsbinoculars, or were there bloggers before mrsbino who spoke on these issues?

  17. Jen Says:

    Cindy: “This may not be written by Doug.”

    Cindy, I did consider that and looked at both Doug’s blog article and Homeschooling Today’s article in depth to see if I could get a feel for it. Based upon my personal knowledge of how Doug writes, thinks, and speaks, there are MANY nuances that lead me to believe that Doug himself did indeed write this. And if, by some minute chance, he did not, the fact still stands that he not only supports this contest as is, but he is actively promoting it. I’ve heard Doug’s Jamestown talks. This is very much Doug.

    Lynn: “Jen, do you mean bloggers since mrsbinoculars, or were there bloggers before mrsbino who spoke on these issues?”

    Lynn, this began happening a couple years before Mrs. Binoculars came on the scene. The pattern is LONG established.

  18. Lynn Says:

    “Where’s Occam’s razor?”

    I think the answer is obvious, having been the blog that “Joe Friday” posted his rather well-known article to.

    I asked Jen a question just to see if Doug had been running from the charge of racism SINCE mrsbino took off, because if he has, there is your answer. He’s just being political. Matt’s site backfired on him, and now he’s running from what has been done to him, which was Matt Chancey’s tactics applied to him.

    Now, if Matt did that site, not JUST to smear Jen and Ministry Watchman, but in order to appear not racist themselves, because even PRIOR to mrsbino and Joe Friday’s backlash there were rumblings that Doug was racist, the above explanation would still fit the bill, which is politics as usual. And you could add to it that Matt started that site, not only to smear Jen, but also to distance Doug from rumblings of racism — that perhaps Matt was trying to kill two birds with one stone?

    It’s a very simple explanation, either way. I am just curious as to when the charges of racism against Doug started appearing, because if they started happening before mrsbino came on the scene, it would be quite plausible to think that Matt was trying to kill two birds with one stone.

    Except I think he wound up cooking someone’s goose instead.

  19. Lynn Says:

    Aha! Then my second explanation that Doug is just running from charges of racism, all the while not saying a thing about Dabney, but letting his writings about Dabney stand as they are, and that Matt Chancey WAS trying to do two things at once — discredit the Epsteins AND distance themselves from racists, especially kinists who revere Dabney — seems quite plausible.

  20. CD.Host Says:

    Put this in the wrong place before…

    In terms of Doug Phillips and twisting scripture I’ve been doing a series on patriarchy for church discipline. I finally got some time to finish the 3rd part today. The link next to my name directs to the 3rd part and the blog itself is http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/

    Hope you all enjoy and as usual feel free to leave any comments.

  21. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Looking at this again, pondering what was written earlier in the day, this essay contest has me quite upset. The guidelines given lead the writer to take the discussion where those who devised the contest wanted it to go. When you read the whole “evangelism through breeding” mindset into it, I can see the significance of Pocahontas as an example of acceptable interracial marriage. Pocahontas makes for a “normative example” of how the process can work. “She did so by completely throwing off her old culture (with even her manner of dress as proof)??” Leading the witness! To me, the focus on culture and interracial marriage as a focus diminishes the significance of Pocahontas’ conversion. Actually, I never really thought of the account as a cultural or racial issue but an account only concerning her faith. I guess that’s why I didn’t get the “interracial marriage point.”

    The suggestion of the change of her dress then brings up the issue of culture and the throwing off of all her past tradition to become exclusively British. Christianity is synonymous and indistinguishable from American patriotism or with the maintenance of behavioral standards. It’s subtle but strongly implied.

    Jen, you said that you’ve heard Jamestown messages from Doug before. Did he talk about the Bible that was translated for the Algonquins into their native tongue?

  22. Corrie Says:

    “It’s a very simple explanation, either way. I am just curious as to when the charges of racism against Doug started appearing, because if they started happening before mrsbino came on the scene, it would be quite plausible to think that Matt was trying to kill two birds with one stone.

    Except I think he wound up cooking someone’s goose instead.”

    Lynn,

    He actually killed three birds with one stone. Little Geneva was the other “bird”. Little Geneva was one of the sites that posited that VF was racist long before Jen and Mrs. Bino came on the scene.

    The reason I know this is because when all this hit the fan, in the early stages, I did some research concerning Little Geneva and I ended up reading quite a bit of back articles from that blog.

  23. Jen Says:

    Cindy: “Jen, you said that you’ve heard Jamestown messages from Doug before. Did he talk about the Bible that was translated for the Algonquins into their native tongue?”

    Not in the messages I heard, but since I did not go to Jamestown, I am not saying that he didn’t say it at all. But that does not appear to be an important truth he was trying to get across either. These were his main points regarding Jamestown:

    First use of the Christian common law
    First Republican government
    First Christian church and thanksgiving
    First Christian conversions and baptisms
    First interracial marriage
    First acts of lawful interposition against tyranny
    (Moms had lots of babies)

    John, thanks for filling us in on some of those details of Vision Forum’s “white-only” past. Are there any non-white employees there now? (No.) It seems to me that one of the ways that Doug overreacts to the charges of racism is that when he hears of a story about someone of a different color that he can use to further his own agenda, that he makes an undue emphasis on that story and certain aspects of that story. If I remember correctly, his first non-white doll was Hawaiian and he capitalized on some Hawaiian princess’ story of her being a Christian.

    Then, I believe he used that same doll to make her Pocahontas as well. The first time I heard Doug’s Jamestown message, he said that THE REASON Pocahontas had to go before royalty in England was because of her conversion to Christ and that it had nothing to do with her race. The second time I heard this message (both times in person – six months apart), Doug changed one little detail to “at least one report stated” this. The change in terms was significant to me, although I doubt if anyone else picked up on it, especially if they hadn’t heard his message before.

  24. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “It seems to me that one of the ways that Doug overreacts to the charges of racism is that when he hears of a story about someone of a different color that he can use to further his own agenda, that he makes an undue emphasis on that story and certain aspects of that story.”

    LOL… and that translates to “sucking up”, in any language.

  25. Sheldon Says:

    Jen, you’re correct that the Hawaiian princess story was when Doug really began to shift into damage control mode. And Corrie is correct that all of this damaging information first appeared on Little Geneva.

    Mike is correct that the first verse Doug offers to support interracial marriage has nothing to do with it, and I suggest that the other two do not either.

    If Galatians 3:28 authorizes interracial marriage, it must also authorize homosexual marriage since it says “neither male nor female.” Or perhaps Doug has not considered the more logical interpretation of the verse, which is that all sons and daughters of the Second Adam, of any race, have been equally justified by the cross.

    Likewise, Acts 17:26 says that God Himself created the nations and separated them. How does interracial marriage fit with this verse since it would lead to the dissolution of nations? One can easily believe that we all came from one blood without leaping to the conclusion that God wants to obliterate the races by making us all uniform. It seems to me that God likes diversity since He created it.

    At any rate, Doug has some homework to do, and if this is any evidence of the depth of his scriptural exposition, it leaves much to be desired.

  26. CD.Host Says:

    Cindy Kunsman —
    The suggestion of the change of her dress then brings up the issue of culture and the throwing off of all her past tradition to become exclusively British. Christianity is synonymous and indistinguishable from American patriotism or with the maintenance of behavioral standards.

    One of the key things that distinguished the fundamentalist movement from the mainstream churches was the belief that converting to Christianity was not a cultural conversion. You see this most clearly in the US at the turn of the 1890-1920 period with regard to Jewish converts.

    Mainstream churches saw the development of a “protestant judaism” (reformed judaism) as a very successful conversion process. Jews were mostly attending synagogues that had a look and feel of a church: a sermon, pastor/rabbi directed prayer rather than individual prayer, a distinguished “front” of the worship area…. That is they felt they had a come a long way towards “converting” the Jews even though their attitudes towards Jesus and salvation had not changed one bit. Those people of Jewish descent that explicitly converted were expected to give up ethnic foods.
    This is consistent with how many of these churches acted in Europe as part of the “state church” system. State churches are an arm of the government and handle the “soft” aspects of inculturating people. That is they have an obligation to get new citizens to act and think the dominant culture. “Conversion” is not just conversion to christianity but full assimilation. And the “mainstream” churches saw this as their obligation with regard to America.

    Conversely Moody took the opposite position. Moody’s bible college served salted fishes, thicker breads and other eastern european foods to students who came from jewish backgrounds. In his words, “The great commission calls upon us to convert to men to Christianity not to anglo-saxonism”.

    If Cindy’s interpretation of what Doug means is correct then Doug is essentially taking the “state church” position.

  27. RR Says:

    The real answer is that Doug Phillips needs to go to seminary if he is going to attempt to teach the Word of God. This is yet again another example of why he doesn’t qualify to be an elder. Biblically Elders are to be able to teach the Word as Paul instructed, “in dealing with the people do as I did with Apollos and stick to the scriptures”.
    That of course presupposes that you have a working knowledge of the Word of God and are not willing to pervert it for your chosen agenda. Mr. Phillips fails both test and shouldn’t be allowed to serve as an Elder, even if he is the only elder at his “church”. So much for the plurality of elders called for in scripture.

  28. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    CD Host,

    I strongly considered enrolling in the missions to Jewish peoples at Moody in Chicago!

    Evangelism efforts to the Jews makes for a very unique example, however. Because Christianity essentially developed from Judaism, it receives different consideration. There’s probably a bell curve that represents degrees of affection for Judaism among protestants with a continuum extending from Zionism (influenced by premillenial eschatology) to a Martin Luther-type antagonism. Judaism enjoys a position with Protestants because of our common ancestry that does not apply to other religious groups. I’d also say that DL Moody represents the least legalistic example of the Dispensationalists of his day. I’d love to hear some of your thoughts about Ryrie on the subject.

    Doug’s take on things (as I would not even say that his view is represenative of all the churches affliliated with his NCFIC group) communicates to me as very much like a “state church” viewpoint. Although our founding fathers were Christian, they specifically set up a system that spoke against the establishment of the “state church,” I find that many of the Christian groups who call for America’s return to her Christian influenced ideals really call for a type of theocracy. The deism and the role of the Unitarian founders prevelant among them is often downplayed, however their version of deism probably surpasses the conservative Christian beleifs of our current day. But you are correct. The practical message of Doug (that I also received throughout my formative years without the generational twist) is very much a “church-state” message. I’m sure that Doug would deny this, but given the rest of his dealings, his message becomes theocratic.

  29. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Hey everybody:

    Due to popular demand, Don Veinot just put the full article about Doug Phillips online (about 2 months early)!

    You can link to it, but I’m making you all go to my site first to get a good laugh from the cool, borrowed graphic. Jen can post the direct link! Ha, ha, ha.

    http://www.undermuchgrace.com/view/?pageID=340994

  30. K. Theodore Jenkins Says:

    Because Christianity essentially developed from Judaism, it receives different consideration.

    Mrs. Kunsman, the unanimous consent of all Christians for thousands of years is not that Christianity did ‘develop from Judaism’. Historically our ancestors believed Christianity is the one true faith of all time. The idea of Christ being an offshoot of Judaism is buying into left-wing lies as old as Karl Marx. Jesus Christ and His Gospel was not God’s plan b. It was the faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Judaism comes from the Talmudic rabbis and was the faith of the Pharisees that nailed Christ to the cross.

    There’s probably a bell curve that represents degrees of affection for Judaism among protestants with a continuum extending from Zionism (influenced by premillenial eschatology) to a Martin Luther-type antagonism. Judaism enjoys a position with Protestants because of our common ancestry that does not apply to other religious groups.

    There’s no connection between Judaism and the Protestant Reformation whatsoever. Judaism represented a departure from the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ into legalistic Phariseeical traditions stemming from the blasphemous Talmud, which says that Jesus Christ is boiling in steaming hot feces for all eternity.

    Here’s a statement from the Talmud, the Jewish holy book considered more important than the Old Testament amongst Orthodox Jews:

    He and his disciples practiced sorcery and black magic, led Jews astray into idolatry, and were sponsored by foreign, gentile powers for the purpose of subverting Jewish worship (Sanhedrin 43a).

    There are many more -the Virgin herself is dismissed as a hooker who played the harlot “with many men”.

    Protestantism, a sixteenth-century nationalistic departure by catholic Western Christendom from papal supremacy, is in no way shape or form a descendant of Judaism, and no Orthodox Jew would want his faith compared to ours. I recall you had written an open letter to Chris Ortiz and apparently gave money to Chalcedon -are you aware of R. J. Rushdoony’s views on Judaism?

    Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Knox -all of the Magisterial Reformers- had nothing good to say about Judaism. No one did for 1,600 years until international banking and the rise of Oliver Cromwell.

    Doug’s take on things (as I would not even say that his view is represenative of all the churches affliliated with his NCFIC group) communicates to me as very much like a “state church” viewpoint.

    He’s a Reformed Baptist who celebrated the anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown. How on earth could he believe in a State-Church?

    Although our founding fathers were Christian…

    Which founding fathers? The one’s that set up a giant phallic monument in their capitol? The ones that shaped the streets of the capitol in the shape of the Satanic pentagram and the (pagan god Minverva’s) owl? The ones that practiced devil-worship and sex orgies secretly with the Hellfire Club in London, compared themselves to Moses, and initiated the God-hater Voltaire into the French Lodge? The ones that gave us the “Great Seal” of the sun-god Horus? The ones that turned around and taxed us more than the king of England not but a few decades after the founding of the republic?

    The founders were a mixed bag. Many were Christian, but not all. Patrick Henry smelt a rat, and I think it can be demonstrably shown that time has proven him right. And what you’re saying is, from all appearance, what Doug believes.

    …they specifically set up a system that spoke against the establishment of the “state church,” I find that many of the Christian groups who call for America’s return to her Christian influenced ideals really call for a type of theocracy.

    With all due respect, you have given money to Chalcedon. The Chalcedon Foundation has made clear for decades, and in virtually all of their publications, that they are calling for, and working toward, a theocracy.

    The deism and the role of the Unitarian founders prevelant among them is often downplayed, however their version of deism probably surpasses the conservative Christian beleifs of our current day.

    You think that eighteenth-century deism, which believed holy books, supernatural events, and divine revelation were the fables of innovative fools, and that “God’s will” was to be determined solely by human reason, is better than the conservative Christian belief-systems of our time? So you’d rather be an old Mason than a modern Reformed Baptist? Please clarify, as I’m sure this cannot be what you meant.

    The practical message of Doug (that I also received throughout my formative years without the generational twist) is very much a “church-state” message. I’m sure that Doug would deny this, but given the rest of his dealings, his message becomes theocratic.

    I don’t think Doug Phillips advocates a State-Church. If BCA is a 501c3 tax-exempt corporation, than he is the pastor of a state-sponsored church, which would be ironic, since most of the blame for State-Churches falls on classical Protestants and Anglicans (as our friend David Zuniga would lovingly point out). But most American Baptist churches are licensed by the State, preach and practice statism, yet the bishop suffragan of the Reformed Episcopal Church has condemned church incorporation, and many (if not most) Reformed Episcopal congregations are not 501c3. Gotta love the irony.

    But what does God-rule have to do with this? One can believe the God should rule both church and state without believing the state should administer the sacraments, or that the church should execute sinners. They are certainly separate spheres of authority, and when joined at the hip often infringe upon Christian liberty (hushmoney.org has good stuff on this) -but both are under King Christ.

    I cannot fathom how in a time wherein thousands of babies are murdered ‘legally’ every day, public opposition to sodomy is made illegal, the President seeks to enforce vaccination upon the populace, militarized police and constant surveillance abound….people are finding time to criticize a small, marginalized group of theocrats.

    I believe Doug Phillips is a crook, for a multitude of reasons that have already come to surface. I think much of what is practiced at his church (and “family-integrated churches” like his) are legalistic and unbiblical. But if his only crime is believing what our Puritan forefathers believed, perhaps we need to re-examine what it is we’re doing here, and why, in the scheme of things, it matters.

  31. Jen Says:

    I love the graphic, Cindy, but you don’t identify which level Doug is at! That’s part of the graphic; we have to known what the current threat level is! 🙂

  32. Jen Says:

    Kevin: “I believe Doug Phillips is a crook, for a multitude of reasons that have already come to surface. I think much of what is practiced at his church (and “family-integrated churches” like his) are legalistic and unbiblical. But if his only crime is believing what our Puritan forefathers believed, perhaps we need to re-examine what it is we’re doing here, and why, in the scheme of things, it matters.”

    I don’t think anyone here is talking about crimes, per se. The nature of this particular article, Kevin, is Scripture twisting, a serious charge not only for a believer, for especially for an elder and one who teaches other Christians. God does not look lightly on those who twist His Word, whether the Puritans believed it or not.

    BTW, BCA is NOT a 501(c)3.

  33. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “Judaism represented a departure from the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ into legalistic Phariseeical traditions stemming from the blasphemous Talmud, which says that Jesus Christ is boiling in steaming hot feces for all eternity.”

    Better check your sources, K. Theodore. The only people I ever heard say this about Jews and the Talmud were Nazis.

  34. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Hi Mr. Jenkins,

    I’m confused about your perceptions here. I don’t interpret these issues as “either/or.”

    Mrs. Kunsman, the unanimous consent of all Christians for thousands of years is not that Christianity did ‘develop from Judaism’.
    Nothing in Christianity is unanimous, let alone consent. Perhaps not from within Christianity, but Christianity was perceived as a cultus of Judaism from the days of Jesus. I agree with your statement if you make it less inclusive. Paul stated that the Gospel of Christ was the power of God unto salvation to the Jew first and also the Greek. In the Book of Romans, Paul states that the Jews would be readily grafted back into the True Vine. Above and beyond this, do Christians have good reason to be affectionate to Judaism? No, but it does persist as a perception and a powerful one in the 20th and into the 21st century. I don’t presume to be any defender of it, but this perception is alive and well in many Christian circles. (The heart has its reasons that reason knows not, as good old Pascal would say.)

    Concerning our Christian founding fathers, I agree that they were a mixed bag which is the point of mentioning the deists and rebels and generally rough and naughty colonists. James Mason, Witherspoon and the founders that were students of Witherspoon would well qualify as very Christian. Then there’s Jefferson who was Unitarian and a deist and strongly influenced by Locke. (To clarify my poorly explained point about the deists: in comparison to most who call themselves Christian today, given the decline and dumbing down of Americans in general, these men would probably be better prepared to face the challenges of our day than most of our contemporaries. If Jefferson ran against George Bush in 04, who would you have voted for?) In this venue, I expected that it is widely accepted that our founders were certainly Christian (say as compared to the French revolution…). And you are certainly right. I would rather vote for a Reformed Baptist over a Mason any day. (That is another point that is downplayed by many who blend American patriotism and Christianity: masonic influences and the Unitarian strangeness and the other mixed bag elements represented by our founding fathers.) I learned nothing of this until I was an adult by pursing my own study. The issue is one of nostagia and a looking to the ideologically distorted past to solve or modern day and future problems. That which does not enhance our agenda gets buried by our nostagia about our past as the solutions for past days gets lost in the fray.

    I defer to Mark Noll and the “Scandal of the Evangelical Mind” if this topic of melded American patriotism and Christianity piques your interest. Rifkin also discusses this in “The Emerging Order” also. You would enjoy reading these I think. This was a convention of thought that grew out of the Fundamentalism and Revivalism of the early 20th century. I perceive that Doug approximates this melding of Christian and American through Vision Forum. It is a strong element of the Constitution Party also. I agree that Doug does not formaly desire theocracy or a “state church,” but because of his hegemonic tendencies, I fear this is a concern. American equates to Christian and proper Christian becomes more narrowly defined in Doug’s ideology.

    Oh, the church incorporation issue is an ironic and strange thing… God bless our brother, David Z! The irony is tragic. (That’s a whole other state-church kind of thing!)

    The theonomy presents as another mixed bag for me. I learned much through Rushdoony and his writings and did not always agree with them (eg, Judiasm and the holocaust). I now have a Calvinistic take on theonomy as an essential element for the Christian and less as a standard for our disintegrating culture. Christian must take theonomy (written on our hearts) to society through our influence and stewardship. Twenty years ago, owing to both idealism and youth, I believed that it was critical to capture our government for Christ. I no longer look to that endeavor as particularly wise or fruitful, given our current state of American affairs. If we do not make disciples of our countrymen, as Tocquevelle noted, we cannot make our system work.

    You state: ” But if his only crime is believing what our Puritan forefathers believed, perhaps we need to re-examine what it is we’re doing here, and why, in the scheme of things, it matters.”

    The crime is not in believing what our forefathers believed but in the misrepresenation of what our forefathers believed. It seems that you and I share some of the same concerns regarding this, given what you’ve written. Noll and Rifkin speak to this danger in depth as a shortcut which relieves our minds from critically evaluating truth in regard to the subject. There is danger in failing to make the distinction. American is certainly not Christian any longer, although we still do “borrow from that capital” as Bork and others have stated. I believe that our founders would be deeply concerned to note that few Christians make these distinctions between Christian and American ideals. Our liberties flow undeniably from the Word of God (consider the contrast of French Revolution), however our understanding of what it means to be American is no longer Christian within our postmodern and post-Christian era.

    It matters here because as Doug Phillips demonstrates, our answers to our modern dilemmas rest in our idealism and idealistic perceptions of the past. It matters for those who take exception to the methods who seek to revive and restore our culture. Phillips’ militant fecundity and exclusionary doctrine (top down) or one-on-one evangelism of the dregs to change the hearts of our culture so that God’s rule can work in our republican system (bottom up)?

    Let me know (here or via email) if I need to do more explaining! I come at this from a global approach as I aspire to balance between pragmatism and idealism. I think that we do agree and understand one another that God is sovereignly leading and guiding us for His glory and our best, despite our philosophies about how these things will all come together. In that I rejoice.

  35. Lawrence Says:

    Cynthia,
    When researching the Talmud comments alleged to be in reference to Jesus a few years ago, I found that there were a couple of rabbis who actually admit that the references in the Talmud are code about Jesus, which does seem to give the assertion that the passages are about Christ some traction, so this stuff does not just appear from Nazis. Although admittedly, that it was all only from Nazis is what I thought I would find when I started looking.

    I had to get a bit older before I quit bickering about stuff like and realize that these things are a vain argument. Jesus Christ rose and is sitting on the right hand of God. He will come again to judge as Scripture plainly states in Testaments Old and New, and what folk do not come to realize that sooner, then they surely will later – regardless of their current beliefs about Him.

    The Talmud is the embodiment and continuation of the Tradition of the Elders that Jesus soundly and flatly condemned in the New Testament because the Pharisees judged His Word in light of their tradition and not their tradition in light of His Word. They took their extra-biblical items and made a new law. Sounds familiar doesn’t it? The hermeneutic does work any better now than it did then and is no less the product of Hell itself.

    You will find that the Jewish fables that Paul warned us about reside in the Talmud, some of which Islam co-opted and integrated into Islam.

    Still, all Jews do not follow the Talmud. The Karaites, for instance, reject that God ever gave an oral tradition and adhere only to the written Word alone (our OT).

  36. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Lawrence (and K. Theodore, too!),

    Your post above concerning Judaism is very true and telling.

    But I suppose that I’ve been too subtle in describing why I mentioned the Protestant-Judaism affection that exists today as a strong influence in many Protestant groups. I do not ascribe to this ideology, aside from the honor of the lineage of Christ as my own by adoption into His spiritual house as portrayed in the Old Testament, noted above in my previous post. I LEFT that realm of Christianity (and my parents who have rejected me as a result for following “heresy” of a Reformed faith) because of the fideism, anti-intellectualism and mysticism also prevalent in those groups. So I am all too well-aware that affection for Jews exists among Protestants. I also have friends who converted from Judaism to Christianity who speak notably of the affection that they enjoy as a result of their Jewish heritage (both of whom are now Baptist BTW).

    I stated in response to C-D Host’s example (concerning outward appearances) that the use of the example of Jews converting to Protestant Christianity isn’t representative of all convert groups. In no way did I purpose to present some sort of apologetic for “the fellowship of Christians and Jews” (an actual organization BTW). There is a strong Christian sub-culture that ascribes to this (one that I LEFT!).

  37. Morgan Farmer Says:

    To those of you that are SO WELL VERSED in Talmudic scholarship you may want to check out a few things…..

    http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html

    http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud

  38. Morgan Farmer Says:

    Obviously I being one of THOSE JEWS really have a problems with THOSE GENTILES misusing the Jewish heritage and literature for their own self serving analogies and purposes.

  39. Morgan Farmer Says:

    He and his disciples practiced sorcery and black magic, led Jews astray into idolatry, and were sponsored by foreign, gentile powers for the purpose of subverting Jewish worship (Sanhedrin 43a).

    What it REALLY SAYS:
    It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that “[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him.” But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover.

    Ulla said: Would one think that we should look for exonerating evidence for him? He was an enticer and G-d said (Deuteronomy 13:9) “Show him no pity or compassion, and do not shield him.”

    IF YOU READ THIS CAREFULLY…you will note that ‘Yeshu’ being spoken of here in the Talmud was executed on the EVE of passover… DUH FOLKS Jesus was crucified on PASSOVER!!!!!!!! Read the entire narrative at the website I provided (angelfire)

    Triple sheesh on crackers, biscuits and toast!

    and some g-r-r-r-r-r-r thrown in as well.

  40. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Morgan, Morgan.

    Where have you been? What’s going on here? I love the Jewishness of Jesus and have a longing/grieving in my heart for the Jewish people to recognize Jesus as Messiah. Our AG church hosted many Moody missionaries from their program there, and I would sit and weep as I listened. And here I go now! Although the theology of the Pentecostal stuff that I learned was not Scriptural and much was fueled by eschatology, within it, I so responded to the love of the Jewishness of my Lord and Savior. I also had the wonderful experience of learning Greek from a believer who was raised Jewish (reading a NT by flashlight under the covers in bed at night). My heart longs to see my Jewish friends grafted back into the True Vine.

    So when I speak of this, why is it that so many people get so upset, as if this longing in my heart means that I embrace the Pharisees and Saducees? Or as if I am building some argument that Jews have some kind of angle that makes them Christian somehow? I’ve got no doctrine outside of the writings of Paul in Romans about grafting the Jews back into Christ. Do you think that people assume that I’m building some sort of new doctrine?

    Where did I go wrong here, Morgan? How could I have communicated any of this any better? I’m really shocked to get this kind of reaction here in a forum like this. How do I need to state things in a better way?

  41. Mike Says:

    Morgan and everyone — May I request that we all clearly mark quotes from others in our posts? It is very confusing to read comments with your words not clearly distinguished from those of the person you are responding to. A simple intro like this: Morgan wrote: or at the least some quotation marks.

    I tried to use hash marks, as commonly done on most lists, but that only makes the material between thw marks disappear. So I use both an introduction and quotation marks. I think it would greatly enhance communication and reduce frustration and confusion if we all did this.

    Thanks.

  42. Kriegerwulff Says:

    The Trinity Foundation publishes the works of Gordon Clark, an excellent presuppositional apologist along with Van Til.

    You are aware, of course, that Clark and Van Til were at odds with each other? There was a giant debate through the 70s and 80s between Clark and Van Til (and in some places, still raging today): Clark asserted that Van Til was inherently irrational, and Van Til said that Clark was a rationalist. (extreme reduction of arguments here)

    The OPC exonerated Clark after their investigation. I just couldn’t believe that somebody would actually recommend Clark and then in the same breath talk about how he and Van Til were such great presuppostional apologists… the two guys were completely at odds with each other. The Trinity Foundation sells several books dealing specifically with the debate, and you can download many lectures for free on the subject as well.

  43. Morgan Farmer Says:

    Its not who loves the Jews and who does not its the blatant misquoting of the Talmud that I object to. Its just another example of how gentiles twist the Talmud for their own examples. Which is incredibly ironic since the thread here is discussing the very same thing. Its not OK to twist the Bible as we know it but its OK to mangle and misquote the Talmud. BTW do you even know how MANY Talmud(s) there are?

    Its the same old thing yeah we love the Jews…..It has nothing to do with the Jews being converted and how many nights anyone stays awake being worried about them. It is about the misquoting and misinterpreting the Talmud to twist the Talmud to further the christian need to convert all of us/them. God is able to convert as many as HE pleases just like HE DID with me.

    Cindy honey you got your feelings hurt…I am sorry… forgive me…my response(s) are mostly geared towards K Theodore.

  44. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Morgan wrote: Cindy honey you got your feelings hurt…I am sorry… forgive me…my response(s) are mostly geared towards K Theodore.

    Dear Morgan,

    You did not hurt my feelings at all but ran to my aid as I see it. I am abraided and confused by the dramatic response of K. Theodore Jenkins. You’re right to correct the misuse and misquoting of the Talmud or any document. We should be above reproach.

    I was taught from a young age to pray for the peace of Isreal and for the salvation of them to be restored into the Vine. Why was this concept even expanded into “Judaism had nothing to do with the Protestant Reformation” and arguments from the Talmud anyway? Do you understand this reaction?

    (BTW, Morgan. Please pray for my dear friend Barry Levine so that I can introduce you to him in heaven.)

  45. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Kriegerwulff wrote: I just couldn’t believe that somebody would actually recommend Clark and then in the same breath talk about how he and Van Til were such great presuppostional apologists… the two guys were completely at odds with each other.

    I am not a black/white thinker when it comes to these topics. Both men represented different schools of thought concerning presuppostional apologetics despite the fact that they did not agree. As noted further up the thread here, someone was shocked to note that I used to support Chalcedon, but I disagreed with RJR on the subject of the holocaust. So what? This weekend, I stated that I disagreed with John MacArthur on women, but this does not mean that I completely repudiate him. I’ve read Darby too, and I agree with some of his statements yet staunchly disagree with others.

    No man has a corner on truth which is why I believe it is good to read broadly and be familiar with many viewpoints before ascribing to just one. For those who know Van Til and Bahnsen, they should also be familiar with Clark and Robbins. They make different contributions to the faith and make their human errors but they are worth reading and deserve honor where it is due.

    Here is where I think we run into trouble as people and Christians and Americans. We take for granted that it is possible to both disagree with someone yet still affirm those things with which we agree. We should not just sign off and believe whatever Joe Pastor says is true on one subject and therefore agree with his stance on everything. We should not condemn or repudiate people based on this either.

  46. Morgan Farmer Says:

    Cindy, Luther was convinced that once the corruption of the catholic church was exposed that the jews would want to convert to christianity. After all they had been persecuted severely by the catholics
    I have copied this from aish.com:

    LUTHER AND THE JEWS

    Luther had seen how shamefully the Church had treated the Jews, and he had a plan to change that. He was sure that the reason that Jews did not convert to Christianity was that they couldn’t stomach the corruption of the Church. Now the Jews would see that the Protestants were different and that they would be nice to the Jews. And then, the Jews would all become Christians.

    He wrote in his work entitled, That Jesus Christ Was A Jew:

    “For they [Church clergy] have dealt with the Jews as if they were dogs and not human beings. They have done nothing for them but curse them and seize their wealth … I hope that if the Jews are treated friendly and instructed kindly enough through the Bible, many of them will become real Christians and come back to the ancestral faith of the prophets and patriarchs…”

    Naturally, the Jews didn’t go for Protestantism either. Their allegiance to Judaism and the Torah had nothing to do with the Christians being nasty to them. To Jews, Christianity was a false religion from the start, and the behavior of the Christians over the years only proved it.

    Now Martin Luther would further add to that proof. As soon as the Jews rejected his overtures and didn’t start converting en masse, Luther turned into one of the most virulent anti-Semites in history.

    A few years later, he wrote in his Concerning The Jews And Their Lies:

    “What shall we do with this damned rejected race of Jews since they live among us and we know about their lying and blasphemy and cursing. We cannot tolerate them even if we do not wish to share their lives, curses and blasphemy. Perhaps we can spare a few of them from the fire and flames. Let me give you my honest advice…”

    Luther’s “honest advice” outlined a plan for dealing with the Jews. It included:

    burn all synagogues
    destroy Jewish holy books
    forbid rabbis to teach
    destroy Jewish homes
    ban Jews from roads and markets
    forbid Jews to make loans
    seize Jewish property
    force Jews to do hard labor
    expel Jews from Christian towns
    (For more on Luther’s plan see A History of the Jews by Paul Johnson, p. 242. See also Why the Jews? by Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin, p. 107.)

    Four hundred years later, Hitler and the Nazis, using Luther’s writings in their anti-Jewish propaganda, would put that plan into action.

    NEXT: THE KABBALISTS

    Note:
    I have received a lot of feedback from Christian readers regarding the topic of Medieval anti-Semitism. Most of the comments come from evangelical Christians who claim that those who persecuted Jews in the Middle Ages were not really true Christians and that I shouldn’t lump all Chritians together.

    Readers of this series should understand that this is a history series and as such, it reflects the historical realities of the past. One thousand years ago in Western Europe, there were no evangelicals. The Catholic Church reigned supreme. Superstitious, violent anti-Semitism was rampant and there were no Christian supporters of the Jewish people.

    Today, thank God, the situation is very different. There are tens of millions of Christians who are good friends of the Jewish people and true supporters of Israel.

    In no way is the series meant to reflect the modern realities of Jewish-Chrisitan interaction, nor is it meant as an attack against Israel’s true friends and allies. My sincere apologies if it was understood to be otherwise.

    Sincerely,
    Rabbi Ken Spiro”

    end quote from website.
    #41 of 81 in the Aish.com Jewish History Series

    So Cindy as you see history is most convoluted and strange. How I love the internet…..Back then the only person publishing the news of Luthers split with the church was Guttenberg. People even today do not want to admit that even dear Martin Luther had his faults……

    Bless his heart …..

  47. Morgan Farmer Says:

    OHHHHH Cindy, also read Boccacios ‘The Decameron’.

    Morgan

  48. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Morgan,

    Thank you for all of this. I just ordered a copy of the Decameron (even though I think my husband has a copy of it somewhere). How wonderful that we serve a God who allows us to learn and change for the better.

    A PA Dutch buss and driche to you! (hug and kiss)

  49. Morgan Farmer Says:

    John Robbins is a superb scholar..however his book ‘Can the OPC Be Saved?” threw me into post traumatic stress syndrome as I was just starting to be a part of an OPC church plant and had just come out of ‘the horror church’.

    While I think he goes a bit overboard sometimes (don’t we all)..he is by far probably among the top christian apologists today. He knows what he believes and is not afraid to speak against what he does not.

  50. Morgan Farmer Says:

    Believe.

  51. Morgan Farmer Says:

    grammar….the horror

  52. Hutch Says:

    Morgan said: IF YOU READ THIS CAREFULLY…you will note that ‘Yeshu’ being spoken of here in the Talmud was executed on the EVE of passover… DUH FOLKS Jesus was crucified on PASSOVER!!!!!!!! Read the entire narrative at the website I provided (angelfire)

    Bible Trivia Question: Fellow bible students:

    How could Jesus who came to fulfill the law and to live a perfect sinless life eat the Passover with His disciples one evening and offer Himself up as the perfect spotless Passover Lamb of God the next evening and not be in error?

    Jen-

    If this is too off topic and you moderate this post, I understand.

  53. Kriegerwulff Says:

    Morgan Farmer:

    I read the article you posted earlier…would you care to explain this?
    Most of the supposed “blasphemies” of Jesus and Mary in the Talmud do not refer to them at all.
    That right there, in the very apologetics you supplied with which to refute the claim of K Theodore, admits that there is such blasphemies.

    How many Talmuds? Two. Babylonian and Jerusalem. Both compiled separately, in the locations as their names would indicate. It took centuries to compile the Talmuds, and the process began in the 3rd century if I’m not mistaken. The Talmud is the commentary on the Mishna (I happen to own Jacob Neusner’s translation of Mishna)…it is the Mishna that constitutes the Oral Tradition, and the Talmud is the teaching of the rabbis as to what the tradition means.

    Its just another example of how gentiles twist the Talmud for their own examples.
    Yeah, I seem to remember that we goy aren’t even supposed to read it…shame on us.

    It is about the misquoting and misinterpreting the Talmud to twist the Talmud to further the christian need to convert all of us/them.
    Us? So….you are identifying yourself WITH the Christ-haters?

    Luther turned into one of the most virulent anti-Semites in history.
    As long as we’re pointing to how we goy misrepresent things, I’m not going to let you people do it either. Luther didn’t have any problems with the Eastern Orthodox Christians, Antiochan, Jerusalem, or the Muslim people. His problem was with Jews, and to assert that he was then “the most virulent anti-semites in history” is a flat lie…he didn’t have anything against Semites. So before you start getting all upset with we Goy for misrepresenting things, why don’t you make sure your people get it right. The whole beam in your own eye thing.

    Today, thank God, the situation is very different. There are tens of millions of Christians who are good friends of the Jewish people and true supporters of Israel.
    Oh yeah, thank God we can have John Hagee give a talk to AIPAC about how Jews are the greatest thing on the earth, and if we don’t support jews we’re all going to die and suffer. And Jews are still god’s modern day chosen people. And jews just can’t do any wrong, and we Goy had better line up and do what we’re told. Since we’re animals and all. (oh, since I’m here, this is why Luther wanted to prevent Jews from loaning to Christians) Thank god.

  54. Mike Says:

    Morgan and Kriegerwulff — I do not believe that I am alone in my desire to see facts and logic — and not just sarcasm and insinuations. I am interested in the topic you two are touching on, but, aside from those links provided by Morgan, all I see are recriminations and nasty sarcasm.

    As the emperor in *Amadeus* said to Mozart: You are passionate… but you do not… persuade. I respectfully ask you both to please tone down the extreme language and tell us plainly what you believe the facts to be — without the ridiculous extremes, such as :”the Jews can do no wrong, and we had better line up and do as we’re told.”

    Please? Pretty please?

  55. K. Theodore Jenkins Says:

    I don’t think anyone here is talking about crimes, per se. The nature of this particular article, Kevin, is Scripture twisting, a serious charge not only for a believer, for especially for an elder and one who teaches other Christians. God does not look lightly on those who twist His Word, whether the Puritans believed it or not.

    Jen, who determines what Scripture-twisting is? If Doug Phillips is twisting the Scriptures for apparently denying that dispensational congregations are true churches, how do we determine this? Dispensationalism is at odds with orthodox Christianity, like Arianism or Nestorianism were/are. Am I cultist for agreeing with Athanasius? Can you look at your KJV or NIV and see in the Scriptures something the faith of our fathers (and mothers *sigh*) didn’t, and thus determine them to be cultists along with Phillips?

    My interpretation of Scripture is that dispensationalists are not orthodox Christians, and dispensationalism is incompatible with orthodox Christianity. Yours, and Don Venoit’s, is different. But why is your interpretation better than mine? I believe mine to be biblical and logical. You believe yours to be likewise. What does this mean, and how does this help the Church?

    Better check your sources, K. Theodore. The only people I ever heard say this about Jews and the Talmud were Nazis.

    Cynthia, if were the Nazis were the only people saying 2 + 2 = 4, how would this influence your mathematics?

  56. Micah Gelatt Says:

    “How could Jesus who came to fulfill the law and to live a perfect sinless life eat the Passover with His disciples one evening and offer Himself up as the perfect spotless Passover Lamb of God the next evening and not be in error?”

    Um, because He is, like uh……God…..

  57. K. Theodore Jenkins Says:

    Nothing in Christianity is unanimous, let alone consent. Perhaps not from within Christianity, but Christianity was perceived as a cultus of Judaism from the days of Jesus.

    So you’re saying that what I’m saying came from within Christianity, but the truth is that people’s perceptions (ancient ones at that) about our religion were actually correct?

    And we call Catholics syncretists…

    I agree with your statement if you make it less inclusive. Paul stated that the Gospel of Christ was the power of God unto salvation to the Jew first and also the Greek. In the Book of Romans, Paul states that the Jews would be readily grafted back into the True Vine. Above and beyond this, do Christians have good reason to be affectionate to Judaism?

    Ok, hold up. “Above and beyond this” doesn’t work here, as “this” does not prove we should have any affection toward Judaism. There is much debate over who the Hebrews in that time even were, or what Paul was saying when he said “Jew”. But all that aside, the beliefs of Jews can no way be inferred from any of those Scripture passages to be something we are to have any affinity for. Those beliefs are the anti-Christian blasphemies of the Pharisees that Christ so vehemently condemned. Have no fellowship with unfruitful works of darkness, but rather, expose them (Ephesians 5:11). No fellowship cancels out “Christians and Jews Against Secularism”, I’m afraid.

    No, but it does persist as a perception and a powerful one in the 20th and into the 21st century. I don’t presume to be any defender of it, but this perception is alive and well in many Christian circles. (The heart has its reasons that reason knows not, as good old Pascal would say.)

    There are so many things wrong about this statement that I get goosebumps when reading it. You say you don’t presume to be any defender of it, but you’ve not only defended it, you’ve argued it here. You made a public statement completely anathema to the universal Christian Church of all ages, at odds with the very message of Jesus Christ, saying that what He came and preached was really an off-shoot of a non-Christian religion; or syncretism (with the religion of Judaism). Since then you’ve conceded that this belief did not come out of Christianity, but was a commonly held assumption from ancient times, and one that’s grown in present times. You’ve even admitted it may be unreasonable.

    Because this perception is alive and well in many Christian circles is all the more reason to oppose it, just like the perception that circumcision is necessary is alive and well in conservative evangelical churches is all the more reason to oppose it.

    Concerning our Christian founding fathers, I agree that they were a mixed bag which is the point of mentioning the deists and rebels and generally rough and naughty colonists. James Mason, Witherspoon and the founders that were students of Witherspoon would well qualify as very Christian. Then there’s Jefferson who was Unitarian and a deist and strongly influenced by Locke. (To clarify my poorly explained point about the deists: in comparison to most who call themselves Christian today, given the decline and dumbing down of Americans in general, these men would probably be better prepared to face the challenges of our day than most of our contemporaries. If Jefferson ran against George Bush in 04, who would you have voted for?) In this venue, I expected that it is widely accepted that our founders were certainly Christian (say as compared to the French revolution…). And you are certainly right. I would rather vote for a Reformed Baptist over a Mason any day. (That is another point that is downplayed by many who blend American patriotism and Christianity: masonic influences and the Unitarian strangeness and the other mixed bag elements represented by our founding fathers.) I learned nothing of this until I was an adult by pursing my own study. The issue is one of nostagia and a looking to the ideologically distorted past to solve or modern day and future problems. That which does not enhance our agenda gets buried by our nostagia about our past as the solutions for past days gets lost in the fray.

    I think this is very reasonable, and agree with much of what you have to say here. I didn’t figure that’s what you were trying to communicate, but wanted it on the record.

    I take no issue with someone finding good qualities even in the Unitarian-deist Jefferson. He was certainly a great statesman, and I would take him over George Bush any day. I made this a point of contention in light of Don Venoit’s article, and his mention of the wrapping up of Reformed evangelicalism into the box of Americanism. The irony is that if I were to show any interest in the kingdom and rulership of Justinian, Charlemagne, or Constantine, and speak of good things they did for the Church and society, instantly I would be attacked by the majority of commentators on here for ‘snuggling with the beast’ because they had images of Christ in their castles. But those same pious people, we know who they are, turn around and praise men like Ben Franklin and Teddy Roosevelt, with statues of goddesses adorning their capitol building.

    Our medieval ancestors sinned in worshiping pictures of Jesus Christ and His Mother. Our founding fathers decorated their capitol with pagan symbolism, goddesses, and male genitals. And I’m somehow supposed to think they established a Christian nation, but Otto the Great is beyond the pale. That’s asking too much of me.

    I defer to Mark Noll and the “Scandal of the Evangelical Mind” if this topic of melded American patriotism and Christianity piques your interest. Rifkin also discusses this in “The Emerging Order” also. You would enjoy reading these I think.

    Probably. I’ll look ’em up.

    This was a convention of thought that grew out of the Fundamentalism and Revivalism of the early 20th century. I perceive that Doug approximates this melding of Christian and American through Vision Forum. It is a strong element of the Constitution Party also. I agree that Doug does not formaly desire theocracy or a “state church,” but because of his hegemonic tendencies, I fear this is a concern. American equates to Christian and proper Christian becomes more narrowly defined in Doug’s ideology.

    I agree in part. Obviously Doug desires theocracy. Gary DeMar, Joseph Moorecraft, and like I said, Chalcedon (which you donated to) all are theocrats. This is not me saying this -they themselves say it. And they’re absolutely right. It’s either theonomy or autonomy, to quote Cornelius Van Til. God’s Law or man’s law. God’s rule or man’s rule.

    The Americanism is of concern. In my humble opinion, this is just as syncretistic as Doug would accuse Roman Catholics or Lutherans of being. He and those of his ilk just replace Aristotle with John Locke, antiquity with the Napoleanic era.

    Oh, the church incorporation issue is an ironic and strange thing… God bless our brother, David Z! The irony is tragic. (That’s a whole other state-church kind of thing!)

    Isn’t it though?

    The theonomy presents as another mixed bag for me. I learned much through Rushdoony and his writings and did not always agree with them (eg, Judiasm and the holocaust). I now have a Calvinistic take on theonomy as an essential element for the Christian and less as a standard for our disintegrating culture. Christian must take theonomy (written on our hearts) to society through our influence and stewardship. Twenty years ago, owing to both idealism and youth, I believed that it was critical to capture our government for Christ. I no longer look to that endeavor as particularly wise or fruitful, given our current state of American affairs. If we do not make disciples of our countrymen, as Tocquevelle noted, we cannot make our system work.

    I completely agree.

    The crime is not in believing what our forefathers believed but in the misrepresenation of what our forefathers believed. It seems that you and I share some of the same concerns regarding this, given what you’ve written. Noll and Rifkin speak to this danger in depth as a shortcut which relieves our minds from critically evaluating truth in regard to the subject. There is danger in failing to make the distinction. American is certainly not Christian any longer, although we still do “borrow from that capital” as Bork and others have stated. I believe that our founders would be deeply concerned to note that few Christians make these distinctions between Christian and American ideals. Our liberties flow undeniably from the Word of God (consider the contrast of French Revolution), however our understanding of what it means to be American is no longer Christian within our postmodern and post-Christian era.

    I think I agree.

    It matters here because as Doug Phillips demonstrates, our answers to our modern dilemmas rest in our idealism and idealistic perceptions of the past. It matters for those who take exception to the methods who seek to revive and restore our culture. Phillips’ militant fecundity and exclusionary doctrine (top down) or one-on-one evangelism of the dregs to change the hearts of our culture so that God’s rule can work in our republican system (bottom up)?

    But if our culture was bad to begin with, why revive it? If the republic couldn’t last even for a few decades, how will it work now, with a military-dictatorship on the horizon?

    Let me know (here or via email) if I need to do more explaining! I come at this from a global approach as I aspire to balance between pragmatism and idealism. I think that we do agree and understand one another that God is sovereignly leading and guiding us for His glory and our best, despite our philosophies about how these things will all come together. In that I rejoice.

    I think you’re clarification has helped. Feel free to interact with what I’ve said above. I do have some concerns, but I appreciate your clarity.

  58. Jen Says:

    Hutch: “How could Jesus who came to fulfill the law and to live a perfect sinless life eat the Passover with His disciples one evening and offer Himself up as the perfect spotless Passover Lamb of God the next evening and not be in error?”

    It might off-topic, but I’m dying to know the answer!

  59. Hutch Says:

    Jen-

    You know my style, its a long answer and I believe an important answer-it is fascinating. It is one of those basic apologetic questions that detractors of the faith use to attempt to discredit the bible. I will e-mail you the verse by verse answer. Enjoy.

    Micah-

    You are correct with the short answer: Because He is God! Indeed!

  60. Morgan Farmer Says:

    KWULF:
    Us? So….you are identifying yourself WITH the Christ-haters?

    Good fro you you knew the Talmud answer…most do not!
    No only identifying myself as a person of jewish heritage. After being a christian for 20 years I am still buffetted by well meaning ‘christians’ making SURE that I am believing the RIGHT THING. You have no idea how many RIGHT THINGS I have been told to believe…all different….by different people.

    So yeah I tend to get nasty and sarcastic as most Jewish christian people do when the ‘subject’ is presented by people that really have not studied the Jewish traditions, literature, torah etc. I stopped wearing my cross and star because of all the ‘completed jew comments’.

    “How could Jesus who came to fulfill the law and to live a perfect sinless life eat the Passover with His disciples one evening and offer Himself up as the perfect spotless Passover Lamb of God the next evening and not be in error?”

    This is a crazy question. I can’t wait to see the answer. Are there now being legalistic suggestions that Jesus did it wrong????

    KWULF: Today, thank God, the situation is very different. There are tens of millions of Christians who are good friends of the Jewish people and true supporters of Israel.
    Oh yeah, thank God we can have John Hagee give a talk to AIPAC about how Jews are the greatest thing on the earth, and if we don’t support jews we’re all going to die and suffer. And Jews are still god’s modern day chosen people. And jews just can’t do any wrong, and we Goy had better line up and do what we’re told. Since we’re animals and all. (oh, since I’m here, this is why Luther wanted to prevent Jews from loaning to Christians) Thank god.

    YES YES YES….SOMEONE FINALLYSAYS IT LIKE IT IS!!!!!

  61. Morgan Farmer Says:

    oops HIT THE SUBMIT BUTTON TOO SOON…..

    The American movement for Israel is about the biggest scam in the entire universe. KWUlf in his style spills the beans top to bottom…this is something else that I am totally sick of. As a matter of fact…..I am sick of it all.

    Seriously my adherence to an organized body of believers is being tested and I am finding that organized religion is pretty much a crock of whatever is in crocks.

    The point is that the Israeli and Messianic communities take advantage of the eschatology preached in a lot of these churches today…and thats what it is all about end times and all that stuff….

    For the record I do not send money to Israel. My links were provided for historical and literary reference only. I personally could care less if Luther was or was not an anti-semite…that was/was not his issue to face God with not mine.

  62. Lynn Says:

    Hutch: “How could Jesus who came to fulfill the law and to live a perfect sinless life eat the Passover with His disciples one evening and offer Himself up as the perfect spotless Passover Lamb of God the next evening and not be in error?”

    Hutch, I don’t understand your question. Jesus at the Passover meal with his disciples, that night was betrayed and given over to the Romans, was crucified, died, and removed from the cross and buried before sundown. So he didn’t offer himself as the Passover lamb “the next evening.” He had the Passover meal that twilight, and it was all over before the “next evening.”

  63. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “There is much debate over who the Hebrews in that time even were, or what Paul was saying when he said “Jew”.”

    Only among conspiracy theorists and Kinists, K. Theodore.

    Some of them think that most Jews today are not true Jews but are descended from a tribe called the Khazars , who converted to Judaism during the early Middle Ages.

    Many in the tin-foil hat crowd believe that the Ashkenazi Jews are the evil descendants of the Khazars, and are bent upon destroying both Christianity and the remnant of “true” Judaism; the nuttier ones, like Christian ID pastor Arnold Murray , claim that while a few Jews are true Hebrews, most are descendants of the Khazars and trace their line back to Cain, who, Murray maintains, is the offspring of Eve and Satan rather than Adam.

  64. K. Theodore Jenkins Says:

    BTW, the article raises a lot of good points, and it will be interesting to see what pastors, seminarians, and others have to say in the coming months and years.

  65. Jen Says:

    Kevin, I’m not following which article you are referring to.

    Kevin: “It’s either theonomy or autonomy, to quote Cornelius Van Til. God’s Law or man’s law. God’s rule or man’s rule.”

    Not exactly, Kevin. I follow God’s Law and I know you claim to follow God’s Law, but I think we follow two very different laws. The question really is, “What is God’s Law?” I do not follow theonomy or autonomy, and I know many of my commenters here do not either.

  66. Morgan Farmer Says:

    Jen for me its just what rules in my heart…for God (by the Holy Spirit) to have HIS way or me to have MY way.

    (Sorry if this confused things even more….)

  67. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Hi K. Theodore,

    Let me attempt to clean up a little more of this. You responded (after I stated that Christianity was perceived as a cultus of Judaism): “So you’re saying that what I’m saying came from within Christianity, but the truth is that people’s perceptions (ancient ones at that) about our religion were actually correct?”

    Jesus was most certainly Jewish, as were the Apostles. Again (as I’ve explained in a few posts since this one from which you quote), I am not defending the perceptions of people as responsible or logical or accurate. It is my experience from within a number of Baptist (non-Reformed) groups and many Charismatic/Pentecostal groups (many Charistmatics think that Pentecost is something different; people that I believe are truly Christian but have many and serious intermural issues) hold to an affectionate view towards Jews. Eschatology feeds into this view for them (and I’m qualified to make that statement since I was very much a part of this group before embracing a Reformed view). I meant to distinguish this group from “all Christians” when I responded to you with : “I agree with your statement if you make it less inclusive. “ I stated so in response to your use of “all Christians” when you originally stated: “Mrs. Kunsman, the unanimous consent of all Christians for thousands of years is not that Christianity did ‘develop from Judaism’.” If Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, etal and our Savior Jesus was Jewish, then in that sense, Christianity did develop from Jewish roots.

    Consider also that many of these within the group of Christians (whether you consider them Christian is another issue), that they operate under fideism and anti-intellectualism. Though it is not “forensically defensible” from the New Covenant, when many hear “Jew,” they think of Jesus within the New Testament. They do not think of today’s Judaism or what very little church history they may have picked up. (Many of these do not know anything about Luther and would deny that their church, in it’s history, ever had anything to do with Catholicism or a pope. Their understanding goes from John on Patamos, believing that it was the last written book because it is against the binder, to Whitfield or Billy Sunday or Finney or Kenyon. What went on in between for them, I have no idea.) Many of these people have hearts of gold and live justly with some of the most godly characters I know. They love Jesus with their whole hearts (but many are neither encouraged nor want to engage their minds to learn anything other than the Word, as if learning church history would detract from their devotion). In our sound-bite society and seeker-friendly churches, I would bet that this group grows daily. This is deeply disturbing, but these people are our brethren IMO. I think what you perceive as syncretism is their evangelistic missionary effort. How do we oppose this missionary effort then? You speak in terms of doctrine, and for them it is an attidude.

    You continue to state: “Because this perception is alive and well in many Christian circles is all the more reason to oppose it, just like the perception that circumcision is necessary is alive and well in conservative evangelical churches is all the more reason to oppose it.”

    I do oppose it. I’ve opposed it to the extent that my mother has shunned me and my father stops in at my home for a brief visit every few years on his way to fishing expeditions. Because any contact with my extended family creates a great deal of stress for my mother (and as a only child), I no longer have any contact with my godparents or my extended family. To what other ends would you suggest that I go to oppose this?

    That brings us to evangelism. Do we crush these people with information and history and logic that they do not understand? Be my guest and try. You’re talking about philosophies and theoretical concepts and things that are nearly completely foreign to them. I love them, set my boundaries and persevere in my own faith.

    Dealing with Doug is a bit different. As a whole, the Christians who show affection to Jews are not saying that everyone who does not agree with them is sinful, non-normative or a Canaanite. They will agree to disagree with us (not using my Mother as an example!) and call us brethren. Doug proports to be an intellectual and logician. One can reasonably expect that he will respond to debate and that his followers will hold him accountable. Doug will not agree with anyone on anything, it seems. I hope that I am wrong.

    So again, let me state that I argue that these perceptions that give you gooseflesh exist. How you esteem them is another matter.

  68. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Attidude? “and for them it is an attidude.” as I typed above. Of course, this is attitude.

    Although I think I know a few or may be an attidude!

  69. Morgan Farmer Says:

    Cindy…you sizzle.

  70. K. Theodore Jenkins Says:

    Kevin, I’m not following which article you are referring to.

    The one written by Midwest Christian Outreach. Different thread though.

    Not exactly, Kevin. I follow God’s Law and I know you claim to follow God’s Law, but I think we follow two very different laws.

    I agree.

    The question really is, “What is God’s Law?” I do not follow theonomy or autonomy, and I know many of my commenters here do not either.

    You do not follow God’s Law or man’s law then? Maybe natural law? Pagan statist law? New Testament only? I’m confused, as I know you advocate keeping the Jewish feast of the Passover (and I believe Hanukkah too).

  71. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    K Theodore,

    Here is another point that I only hinted at subtly (I think): The fideists do not think of Jew and Judiaism as one and the same. Here is another distinction that I think that you read into this view that just is not there.

    My friend Ju (no pun intended) whose parents are Korean was born in America. She is 100% American, born of American citizens… But who would criticize her for wanting to visit Korea if she had the opportunity? Would that make her a Communist or a Buddist or Paul Cho-ist or whatever goes for popular religion there today? (I hope everyone would answer with “No.”)

    For most people, I don’t think that any of this extends beyond just general curiosity and affection.

  72. Corrie Says:

    “Many in the tin-foil hat crowd believe that the Ashkenazi Jews are the evil descendants of the Khazars, and are bent upon destroying both Christianity and the remnant of “true” Judaism; the nuttier ones, like Christian ID pastor Arnold Murray , claim that while a few Jews are true Hebrews, most are descendants of the Khazars and trace their line back to Cain, who, Murray maintains, is the offspring of Eve and Satan rather than Adam.”

    And just when I thought I had heard of everything….

    Eve had children with Satan? Of course!! Well, there you go, Cindy G. This is your answer to your question in the other thread. Eve was the devil’s whore/mistress thus conferring upon all women the state of whoredom by default.

    So, when you hear one man call another man a “S.O.B”, you will know what he is referring to- the mother of all the living, Eve. Or when you hear a man call another man a “mother f-worder”, then you know that it all goes back to the original Jezebel- Eve. She is the source of all derision against females and the only way females since her will be able to be saved from their shame of being born a woman is to give birth to children and redeem themselves by being useful. The one who wanted to be like God AND her husband because she knew that her husband was MORE like God than she was (ala Gothard et al), usurped his “authority” over her and ate the forbidden fruit in an effort to dominate her husband. That is why all things bad are considered to be “feminized” and all things good are considered to be “masculine”. Even the Church, who is the Bride of Christ, therefore FEMININE, is considered too “feminized” (Church for Men, check it out for all the ways women can be blamed for why men don’t want to go to church). Too many women in the church, more women than men, why would men want to go there. (And when has that ever been a problem? Men usually flock to bars on ‘Ladies Night’ for that exact same reason.)

    These things we know to be true from the 2nd book of Hezekiah in the 35th chapter.

    And all God’s people said “Whaaaaaatttt??????”

  73. K. Theodore Jenkins Says:

    Jesus was most certainly Jewish, as were the Apostles. Again (as I’ve explained in a few posts since this one from which you quote), I am not defending the perceptions of people as responsible or logical or accurate. It is my experience from within a number of Baptist (non-Reformed) groups and many Charismatic/Pentecostal groups (many Charistmatics think that Pentecost is something different; people that I believe are truly Christian but have many and serious intermural issues) hold to an affectionate view towards Jews. Eschatology feeds into this view for them (and I’m qualified to make that statement since I was very much a part of this group before embracing a Reformed view). I meant to distinguish this group from “all Christians” when I responded to you with : “I agree with your statement if you make it less inclusive. “ I stated so in response to your use of “all Christians” when you originally stated: “Mrs. Kunsman, the unanimous consent of all Christians for thousands of years is not that Christianity did ‘develop from Judaism’.” If Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, etal and our Savior Jesus was Jewish, then in that sense, Christianity did develop from Jewish roots.

    I don’t think it developed from Judaism though, and that was my main point of contention with you. It was certainly Hebrew, not Greek or Oriental. But Judaism is something else entirely.

    I think most of those other groups affection for Jews is due to a racist/racialist (whatever you want to call it) interpretation of the covenants. I think you’d probably agree.

    Consider also that many of these within the group of Christians (whether you consider them Christian is another issue), that they operate under fideism and anti-intellectualism. Though it is not “forensically defensible” from the New Covenant, when many hear “Jew,” they think of Jesus within the New Testament. They do not think of today’s Judaism or what very little church history they may have picked up.

    And saying Christianity is an off-shoot of Judaism doesn’t help. That’s not a true statement, and confuses people and leads them in to error. I’ve seen many people go down all sorts of heretical paths operating under this faulty assumption. Christianity is either true, or Judaism is true. Christianity did not spring off of Judaism, but was God’s plan and covenant with His People from the beginning of time.

    “Jew” in the New Testament sense does not translate to Judaism and legalism. If it does to most people, that’s something we need to fix.

    (Many of these do not know anything about Luther and would deny that their church, in it’s history, ever had anything to do with Catholicism or a pope. Their understanding goes from John on Patamos, believing that it was the last written book because it is against the binder, to Whitfield or Billy Sunday or Finney or Kenyon. What went on in between for them, I have no idea.)

    That’s sad. And that’s the type of stuff that leads people into Federal Vision/New Perspective on Paul theology, or to Rome/Byzantium. I don’t blame those people nearly as much as I blame the ignorance of most Protestants as to their roots.

    Many of these people have hearts of gold and live justly with some of the most godly characters I know. They love Jesus with their whole hearts (but many are neither encouraged nor want to engage their minds to learn anything other than the Word, as if learning church history would detract from their devotion). In our sound-bite society and seeker-friendly churches, I would bet that this group grows daily. This is deeply disturbing, but these people are our brethren IMO.

    I’m not saying many of them aren’t our brethren. Certainly I believe in the sufficiency of the Word of God to lead one to saving knowledge of God. But I don’t think this translates into Campbellism or hostility toward tradition. Apostolic tradition itself is commanded to be followed in Scripture (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

    I see this group as part and parcel of the mindset that breeds evangelical mega-churches; an over-emphasis on the subjective and “religious affections”, a reactionary hostility toward the sacraments and clerical authority. But they’ve yet to purge themselves of priests (presbyters) or sacraments, as Aaron Wolf pointed out, “The new sacraments—conduits of grace—in the Age of Willow are the yuppie pastor, the Praise Team, and the Sacred Video Projector.” Fundamentalists, even the more conservative ones, breed this stuff.

    I think what you perceive as syncretism is their evangelistic missionary effort. How do we oppose this missionary effort then? You speak in terms of doctrine, and for them it is an attidude.

    I don’t know that I actually think one a syncretist for reading extra-biblical philosophy/sociology. Certainly much can be gained from reading John Locke or Thomas Jefferson. I was just pointing out the irony I find when I think about the fundamentalist crowd, as that’s similar to their objections to Rome or Wittenberg (too much Aristotle). But they’re hardly free from extra-biblical influence either. Pot calling the kettle…you know.

    I do oppose it. I’ve opposed it to the extent that my mother has shunned me and my father stops in at my home for a brief visit every few years on his way to fishing expeditions. Because any contact with my extended family creates a great deal of stress for my mother (and as a only child), I no longer have any contact with my godparents or my extended family. To what other ends would you suggest that I go to oppose this?

    They’ve shunned you because you think Christianity did not come from Judaism? I’m so confused.

    That brings us to evangelism. Do we crush these people with information and history and logic that they do not understand? Be my guest and try. You’re talking about philosophies and theoretical concepts and things that are nearly completely foreign to them. I love them, set my boundaries and persevere in my own faith.

    I’m not crushing anyone with anything. I’m commenting on a blog filled with conservative Reformed Baptist women (and others) that are disillusioned with patriarchy and neo-Puritanism (or Reconstructionism). I’m trying to show that there’s another angle to this, and that I’m coming to similar opposition to Phillips and legalism but from an entirely different direction. One that does not throw the baby out with the bathwater, and could offer some societal stability to boot. One that others are beginning to see, which could actually lead to Semper Reformanda.

    I’m not sure what evangelism has to do with this at all.

    Dealing with Doug is a bit different. As a whole, the Christians who show affection to Jews are not saying that everyone who does not agree with them is sinful, non-normative or a Canaanite. They will agree to disagree with us (not using my Mother as an example!) and call us brethren. Doug proports to be an intellectual and logician. One can reasonably expect that he will respond to debate and that his followers will hold him accountable. Doug will not agree with anyone on anything, it seems. I hope that I am wrong.

    The reason the former cannot say the others are non-normative is because the universal belief of all of Christendom was that Judaism is at odds with Christianity, and its followers blasphemers and worse than pagans.

  74. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Morgan Farmer: Cindy…you sizzle.

    I take this as a Martha Stewart good thing? If so, then it takes one sizzle to know another. Actually, you’re all pretty sizzlin’. Plenty of heat to make it happen, eh?

    I love you guys!

  75. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    K. Theodore wrote: They’ve shunned you because you think Christianity did not come from Judaism? I’m so confused.

    They’ve shunned me for rejecting the whole package of their view with my rejection of the Jewish stuff as a major component of the whole package, although this figures very strongly. Shortly before things ended with Mom, I attended a meeting of “The Endtime Handmaidens” (a very Zionist-type group) with her at her request. It was at that time I was first accused of rejecting the Jews among other things and called a heretic. I went to another gathering of this type with Mom and did not carry my olivewood Solomon Seal tamborine or my shofar with me. On the way home, I expressed my anger that the message included a quote from one of the Kansas City Prophets that called for us to be baptized with “strange fire” (clearly evil in the two references in the OT). I even submitted to a session of “delieverance” with this group the year before to rid me of demonic oppression, but I guess that Mom felt that it didn’t take. Or I picked up new sin cooties from somewhere else. Like “loosing a healing” (another Pentecostal boondoggle). I guess with my house swept clean, seven more strongmen came in to overtake me. Why else would I believe such heretical ideas about eschatology and predestination?

    I rejected the whole package, but my family interpreted the change in my behavior (tamborine and shofar) as a major negative sign which created much anxiety for them for they interpreted this to be demonic. Over the course of the following two years (I only visited and lived out of state), my mother’s discontent escalated. When I finally decided that I would not discuss religion with her (mine was heresy and I needed “deliverence” to be released from demon possession or whatever), it was then that she told me to have a nice life. My loss of love for the Jews was also mentioned in this last conversation with her. So yes, the issue of “affection for the Jews” which was very much like Zionism played a significant role in their shunning me.

    Hard to believe, isn’t it?


What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: