Why do heretics seem more earnest than sound Christians?

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson





The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from "God’s Cure for Man’s Weakness," a sermon preached on Sunday Morning, June 24th, 1866, at the Met Tab in London.


oth ministers and private members of the church are very generally weakly in one way or other. They are living, but they are sickly. They are working for God, but they are working in a feeble, inefficient manner.

If I look upon the camps of the Lord's enemies . . . I see intelligence and vigor so apparent that I am apt to think that never was error more earnest, more active, more intense than just now; there is a reality about the efforts of our opponents which may well alarm us: but when I look to the camp of the Lord Jesus Christ I lament a predominant luke-warmness, a want of enthusiasm, and deficiency in force, which, if it does not betoken a departure from God in heart, certainly indicates very great feebleness in the vital parts, producing comparative weakness in all the parts.

I desire this morning to speak to those who are weak—weak where they ought not to be—and who feel a growing tendency to rest content in that weakness; I would stir up those who are beginning to imagine that weakness is the normal and proper state of a Christian; that to be unbelieving, desponding, nervous, timid, cowardly, inactive, heartless, is at worst a very excusable thing. I want, if God wills, to show to the sinfully weak ones that their condition is not proper at all, and that it is the work of faith to lift us right out of it; not to help us in our evil weakness, but to deliver us out of it and to make us strong, reversing our present condition by enabling us to be mighty in the work of God.

---

Is this the central issue in Christian thought, life and ministry? — 2

by Dan Phillips

2 Timothy 3:14-16

In this post, I will use Paul's words to Timothy as my springboard:

But you — you remain in the things you learned and became convinced of, because you know from whom you learned, and because from infancy you knew the sacred letters, which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and beneficial for teaching, for reproof, for restoration, for training in righteousness, in order that the man of God might be equipped, for every good work fully-equipped. (2 Timothy 3:14-16)

It is as if Paul deliberately words himself in a way calculated to drive restless and discontented folks nuts. They'll want to get as far away from these words as fast as they can. But let's linger.

The backdrop of this is Paul's word to Timothy in light of the difficult days that he will face (3:1-9). It seems certain to the apostle that Timothy will not have Paul personally present, to lead and guide him (4:6-9). He'll be on his own, and the church will be under the care of such as he.

So what would Timothy have to guide him?

1. Timothy would have the teaching Paul gave him, and the life which underscored that teaching (3:10-13).
2. Timothy would have the grounding in Scripture that his believing grandmother and mother had given him from infancy (3:14-17)

And that, Paul insists, would be sufficient.

Now, break it down with me.

Timothy had learned the Old Testament since he was an infant. Paul speaks of the hiera grammata, which are literally as I render them: sacred letters. This may well allude to the fact that Timothy's Jewish mother taught him to read, not from "The Further Adventures of Dick and Jane," but from the Old Testament. Lenski envisions it:

Little Timothy learned his ABC’s from the Bible, learned to read from the Bible, and thus from earliest childhood spelled out “sacred letters.” As he spelled out this and that word, mother and grandmother told the story. Soon he could read a little, ask questions, hear more. A lovely picture indeed! I like it better than our method of today which supplies secular matter for the primers and holds back the sacred letters until later years (R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon, 839 [Columbus, O.: Lutheran Book Concern, 1937]).

The Old Testament continues to have the power (ta dunamena) to produce the wisdom of saving faith in Jesus Christ. From it, Timothy would learn the vital categories of the Creator/creature distinction, the attributes and works of God, man's creation and fall, and blood redemption. He would learn of the coming Messiah, so that when Jesus came he could see in Jesus the fulfillment of all the longings, aspirations, and predictions of the Torah. OT Scripture would prepare him for the knowledge and service of Christ.

The Paul shifts gears and speaks, not of the sacred writings of Timothy's childhood, but of all Scripture. Here the apostle uses the term he'd employed earlier in 1 Timothy 5:18 to denote both Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7. Later, Peter will apply the same word to Paul's writing as on a par with the Old Testament (2 Peter 3:16-17). What Paul is about to say applies to Scripture as Scripture, thus proleptically taking in the whole of the NT.

He says that all Scripture is God-breathed, it is theopneustos. John Frame rightly says that

... Scripture is “breathed out by God,” which is the correct translation of a word sometimes translated “inspired.” The word means not that God breathed something into the Bible but that God breathed it out, or, in other words, that he spoke it. The written Word is God’s personal speech. It is nothing less than the divine voice. (John M. Frame, Salvation Belongs to the Lord: An Introduction to Systematic Theology, 63 [Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2006])

Because Scripture is God-breathed, it is the very word of God. More than that, it is the words of God. You can quote Scripture appropriately and say that you are quoting God. In fact, none has yet even come close to demonstrating Biblical authority for attaching "God said" or "The Lord said" or "The Lord told me" to anything other than Scripture, unless he is claiming direct and inerrant prophetic revelation.

Because Scripture is God-breathed, it is also profitable. It is inherently profitable by its very nature, of course. But the apostle details four ways in which Scripture is profitable:

1. Teaching (didaskalian). This is the impartation of information meant to inform and control both what we think, and how we think. Scripture lays both the premise and the template for thought. It lays out the lines for us to color in.
2. Reproof (elegmon). Flowing naturally from the first is specific information showing where we are in the wrong in how we think and behave. It shows where we have crossed the line, exposes our sin as sin — heinous, indefensible, and always with God as the primary injured party.
3. Restoration (epanorthōsin). This noun means to make something straight and right again. God breaks us with the reproof of His Word; then with His Word, He restores us, sets us straight, heals us and puts our feet on His path. It means... reformation! (Da da daaaaa!)
4. Training in righteousness (paideian tēn en dikaiosunē[i]). The Word provides divine pedagogy, giving sole authoritative and comprehensive instruction in God-centered living. It is, itself, an entire course of study in that life which serves, pleases, honors and glorifies God.

Given the all-embracing nature of these four benefits combined, a thoughtful reader is forced to ask: what does that that leave out?

The net effect (and design) of all this is as the apostle himself says: "that the man of God might be equipped, for every good work fully-equipped." There is a play on words that, rather to my bafflement, most English versions (including CSB, ESV, NAS, NIV, TNIV, NKJ) do not even try to bring out. Equipped renders the adjective artios, and fully-equipped translates the participle exērtismenos, which is etymologically related to artios.

Paul is saying that the Word of God, including the Old Testament retrospectively and the New Testament prospectively, represents the very words of God, and thus tells us everything we need to understand in order to know and serve God.

Red light

Impatient and discontented Scripture-denigrators, infected with Eve's bug of never finding God's provision quite adequate, will be eager to change the subject, or to look for (or invent) a loophole. I predict that this meta, like the last, will be subjected to attempts to shoot it off in a dozen different directions.

But we mustn't hurry on too hastily. Stop. Wait. Slow down. Think! Learn something!

The apostle is about to die, and he knows it. This possibility looms over all the Pastorals, most especially in 2 Timothy. Paul has loved the church, served the church, suffered for the church, and bled for the church. "No, for the Gospel," one will say. Right; but specifically the Gospel which united Jews and Gentiles in Christ — that is what got him arrested (cf. Acts 22:21-22; Ephesians 3:1; 2 Timothy 2:10).

So, thus loving the church, and thus seeing clearly the gut-wrenchingly dangerous times ahead — to what does Paul turn his apprentices' attention? What will guide them, steady them, equip them for the future? To what should the church cling, to keep it on God's path?

Does Paul speak of listening for the Spirit's voice within? Does Paul urge Timothy or Titus to seek, expect, or even be open to a word from God for themselves? Does he assure them that the Spirit will communicate to them directly what they must say and do? Does he set them to expect experiences, feelings, urgings, movings, burdens, whisperings, still small voices, big loud voices, or any such thing?

No. Not once. Not remotely. Quite the opposite.

Paul gives them his authoritative apostolic instruction, and points them to Scripture. They must stay with that, stick to that, think in terms of that, believe that, guard that, proclaim that (cf. also (2 Timothy 1:13; 2:2. 7, 15; 4:1-2). It will fully equip them.

That, I shall try to argue still more fully in the next posts, is the Biblical position.

Any other view, even if held by Christians, is a view that is defective, deficient, dangerous, and damaging.

The real question to us is: does that matter? To vast hordes of professed evangelicals, whatever their formal answer, the de facto answer very clearly is "No."

Which is the point and focus of this series.

UPDATE:

Part One

Part Three

---

Classic: Jesus and Losers

by Frank Turk

I admit that this is a recycled post from 2005, but I love this post. I loved it especially for the graphic which originally accompanied it, but somehow that picture is now lost to the internet. It's a fact for which all of you should weep.

You should also weep for the loss of the blog once known as "parents behaving badly", which in spite of its lack of credible discernment regarding parenting was good for the occasional laugh-and-wince combo.

Anyway, at some point they poked some innocent and clean fun at me for reading and posting at a salty blog called "Dad Gone Mad" (aka "DGM")(which I'm not linking to; it's enough to say that nobody reading this blog is ready for Danny Evans).

Here's the set-up: DGM blogged about his son's soccer game in which the goalie for the other team started crying because he was getting sieved, and his Dad then went down onto the field and started blocking shots on goal with him/for him.

To which, I admit I commented something to do with them needing a pair of "big girl panties", which was probably not the most charitable thing I ever said, so point made and taken.

Before I talk about what Jesus thought about poor losers, let me say that I am pretty sure Jesus never told anybody to "put on their big girl panties and deal with it." Not even in the Message by Eugene Peterson. Is that a fair disclaimer? That turn of phrase, said to a stranger, prolly would begin a fight; said to Pecadillo or Zach Bartels, it would be met with the commensurate degree of dogged-faced shame. It's not so much how you say it, but to whom you say it, and the joke's not funny if nobody gets it.

On the other hand, Jesus didn't think much of people who got their nose out of joint for no reason. For example, He didn't think much of people who asked Him too many questions in order to trip Him up and make themselves look good. He didn't think much of people who thought they were morally perfect and deserved a prize. He didn't think much of people who sold pidgeons in the temple, or who made a big show out of how much they gave to the poor.

But did Jesus ever say anything about being a sore loser? He did say this:

You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet. You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. [Mt 5:13-16]

And admittedly, He was speaking to those who have faith, so maybe it doesn't matter if you're a crybaby if you're not a Christian. But if you are, what is it you are showing others when you cry because you didn't practice, or you didn't prepare to compete, or maybe you have have just met somebody who's better than you are?

Are you the light of the world except when you get your face handed to you?

Readers coming here from Parents Behaving Badly might be thinking, "yeah, but cent: we're talking about a kid here -- maybe 8 or 9. It's a little much to get in some kid's face about being a crybaby." Walking in the mall, or in the grocery store, or maybe on the playground, you might be right. I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't start heckling some kid who was being a brat. But on the field of play, that's another story.

If I were his coach, he'd come out of the game. Being a crybaby doesn't make you a better goalie -- period. Out. Or man up. There's nothing in the rules that says the other team has to take it easy on you because you're a "sensitive" kid, and asking them to do so is really just telling them that you're an emotional bully: my tears trump your superior ballhandling.

If I were his Dad, I'd take him out of the game. We play sports to enjoy it, and if it makes you cry you aren't ready to play sports. Sports are for big boys who can behave like big boys even when they are getting man-handled. Crying over sports is for bookies who are losing real money when the Cubs somehow muster a winning streak.

That's the advice I give to the parents of the kids we coach: no crybabies -- not on the field, and not on the sidelines. And I have coached the little kids who might be playing sports for the first time ever. Your kids are going to get hit by the ball; they are going to fall down; we want them to win, but sometimes they will lose. None of it is the worst thing that will ever happen to them, so use a little perspective and don't abide drama.

For those of us who are Christians, and will probably die daily either to sin or because of our Lord, we are always supposed to be an example of the kind of savior we have. Jesus didn't tell us to be good when it was easy, and He didn't say that we should never expect to lose. He said we should expect to demonstrate that losing is not the end of the world.

That's a good lesson as we get into the summer months and kids sports.

---

Is this the central issue in Christian thought, life and ministry? — 1

by Dan Phillips

Introductory

Of course, the central issue is the Lordship of Christ. But there is an issue that I see coming in direct descent from that question: Is the Bible the one fully-sufficient source for all we need to know as Christians?

Note the careful wording. It doesn't deny that other resources can be helpful, be they creeds or commentaries or books or sermons. Nor does it assert that everything that can be known or that needs to be known on other subjects, is in the Bible. It simply asks whether the Bible is the one genuinely and truly sufficient source to teach us all we need to know, as Christians.

I want to think that all Christians would answer "Yes." Formally, surely Christians would answer "Yes." But I am coming to see that the rubber meets the road just at the point where practice parts from theory.

Charismatic leader Pat Robertson answered "No," for instance. On page 114 of his book The Plan (Nashville: Nelson, 1989), Robertson writes: “Probably 95 per cent of all the guidance we need as Christians is found in the clearly understood principles of the Holy Bible.” I have no doubt Robertson thought that he was exalting God's Word by according it such a large number: ninety-five per cent. Why, that's almost 100%!

Almost, but not quite. Math isn't my best subject, but I'm pretty sure that if you take away 95 from 100, you're left with 5. So five per cent of "all the guidance we need as Christians" is not "found in the clearly understood principles of the Holy Bible." Now, notice: Robertson says "clearly understood principles." So even legitimate extrapolation won't get us there. We simply must look someplace else for the guidance we "need as Christians."

Turning from what some might try to style extremist Charismaticism to doctrine accepted broadly within the good ol' Southern Baptist Convention, we have the Blackaby doctrine.

Once I attended an SB church where the pastor suddenly paused in his sermon, announced that the Holy Spirit had "told" him to stop preaching, and if he continued it would be in his own power — so he stopped. One wonders why the Spirit had not told him where to stop when he prepared his sermon. It leaves the impression that the Spirit changed His mind, which I'm confident this good brother would not affirm. Why would he do such a thing? On a hunch prompted by a thought from my dear wife, I asked him if he were an admirer of Blackaby's teaching.

"Oh yes," came the enthusiastic response. "We've taught that material here!"

A newcomer might well wonder, "What's the problem with the Blackabys?" I went into that at great length in a pair of posts titled "Non Sola Scriptura: the Blackaby view of God's will." The Blackabys sound very like Robertson when père et fils write that the Bible is "the primary way God communicates with His people" (How Then Should We Choose? [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2009; 55). There it is again: "the primary way" — 95%? more? less? — but far from the only way.

Of course, the whole unique contribution of the Blackabys is devoted to filling that gap. As I argue in the posts to which I linked, it is a massive chasm. Most of what we do (viewed one way) is not directly touched on by Scripture. Should I read Pyromaniacs? Using which browser? Which version of that browser? On what brand computer? What size monitor? At what resolution? With which OS? Accepting which security patches? Using which antivirus software — or should I "trust God" to protect my pc? And on and on and on and on.

That being the case, the Blackabys helpfully tell us how to listen to that non-inscripturated never-promised voice of God, to fill in the immense, continental gaps their view finds in Scripture. Since the Bible is absolutely silent on the subject, they must be (and are) very creative. Clearly what they are selling has resonated broadly within evangelicalism.

But let us return to the broad landscape of Charismaticism. I critiqued the language and thinking in Francis Chan's note about his decision to leave the church he pastors.  The critique was very upsetting to a couple of Tim Challies' readers. Yet here is maybe the central issue of my critique: I am simply asking the question, "Are you really saying that you are experiencing the inerrant prophetic revelation we see in the Bible as your language implies, or are you saying something else? If something else, where is the Biblical authority for it?"

As to Chan himself, I do not pretend to know. Perhaps he is "saying something else." If so, he is one in a vast company. Many Christians today are "saying something else." Not only are many Christians "saying something else," but they are passionately and insistently "saying something else." Touch that sacred cow, and you might as well have caught a rock with the same hand on the Sabbath in Jesus' day.

You will note in all the discussion that, like a modern Charismatic trying to instruct someone in how to get tongues (against the complete silence of the NT), the absence of data doesn't even slow the view's advocates. They'll appeal to Biblical stories of direct, verbal, inerrant revelation as analogous to their feelings and hunches and leadings. But they're not analogous. Are they saying that they're experiencing the same thing, or not? I observe that they will appeal to the Biblical story, then back off from it when confronted — but still insistently cling to it as analogous.

We should require honesty and candor, though, if nothing else.

If they are claiming the exact same experience we see in Scripture, then they must be called to say so explicitly. They need to tell Christians: "I hear God speaking to me in inerrant, binding, prophetic words."

For instance, a fellow on FreeRepublic (I don't want to send traffic to his blog) regularly posts words written in the personna of Jesus Christ. Written words of Jesus. Inerrant? Universally-binding on the conscience? I don't know if he thinks so. He should say so.

If they are not claiming the exact same experience we see in Scripture, they need to tell Christians: "I have a model of spirituality whose core premises I cannot directly demonstrate from the Bible. I do not see the Bible as fully-sufficient for all we need to know as Christians."

Believe it or not, all that was introductory. I plan to develop what I mean and make my point more specifically, in the next post.

UPDATE:

Part Two

Part Three

---

A Word about Evan-jellyfish

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson






The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from "The Broken Fence," a sermon preached near the end of Spurgeon's ministry but first published in 1913, two decades after his death.



    religion which is all excitement, and has little instruction in it, may serve for transient use; but for permanent life-purposes there must be a knowledge of those great doctrines which are fundamental to the gospel system.

I tremble when I hear of a man's giving up, one by one, the vital principles of the gospel and boasting of his liberality.

I hear him say, "These are my views, but others have a right to their views also." That is a very proper expression in reference to mere "views," but we may not thus speak of truth itself as revealed by God. That is one and unalterable, and all are bound to receive it.

It is not your view of truth, for that is a dim thing; but the very truth itself which will save you if your faith embraces it.

I will readily yield my way of stating a doctrine, but not the doctrine itself. One man may put it in this way, and one in another; but the truth itself must never be given up.

The spirit of the Broad School robs us of everything like certainty. I should like to ask some great men of that order whether they believe that anything is taught in the Scriptures which it would be worth while for a person to die for, and whether the martyrs were not great fools for laying down their lives for mere opinions which might be right or might be wrong?

This broad-churchism is a breaking down of stone walls, and it will let in the devil and all his crew, and do infinite harm to the church of God, if it be not stopped. A loose state of belief does great damage to any man's mind.

We are not bigots, but we should be none the worse if we so lived that men called us so. I met a man the other day who was accused of bigotry, and I said, "Give me your hand, old fellow. I like to meet with bigots now and then, for the fine old creatures are getting scarce, and the stuff they are made of is so good that if there were more of it, we might see a few men among us again and fewer mollusks."

Lately we have seen few men with backbone; the most have been of the jelly-fish order. I have lived in times in which I should have said, "Be liberal, and shake off all narrowness ; but now I am obliged to alter my tone and cry, "Be steadfast in the truth."

The faith once delivered to the saints is now all the more attractive to me, because it is called narrow, for I am weary of that breadth which comes of broken hedges. There are fixed points of truth, and definite certainties of creed, and woe to you if you allow these stone walls to crumble down.

I fear me that the slothful are a numerous band, and that ages to come may have to deplore the laxity which has been applauded by this negligent generation.

---

Angels of light

by Phil Johnson



he gospel's most dangerous earthly adversaries are not raving atheists who stand outside the door shouting threats and insults. They are church leaders who cultivate a gentle, friendly, pious demeanor but hack away at the foundations of faith under the guise of keeping in step with a changing world.

No Christian should naively imagine that heresy is always conspicuous or that every purveyor of theological mischief will lay out his agenda in plain and honest terms. The enemy prefers to sow tares secretly for obvious reasons. Thus Scripture expressly warns us to be on guard against false teachers who creep into the church unnoticed (Jude 4); wolves who sneak into the flock wearing sheep's clothing (Matthew 7:15); and servants of Satan who disguise themselves as angels of light (2 Corinthians 11:13-15).

Theological liberalism is particularly dependent on the stealth offensive. A spiritually healthy church is simply not susceptible to the arrogant skepticism that underlies a liberal's rejection of biblical authority. A church that is sound in the faith won't abandon the gospel in order to embrace humanist values. Liberalism must therefore take root covertly and gain strength and influence gradually. The success or failure of the whole liberal agenda hinges on a patient public-relations campaign.

That is precisely how neo-liberals have managed to get a foothold in the contemporary evangelical movement.



(Excerpted from an article published earlier this year in the 9Marks eJournal. Read the whole thing HERE.)

---

Women must preach in church

by Dan Phillips



...on one occasion.

---

Kinda Christianity

by Frank Turk

My friend Zach Bartels and his friend Ted Kluck have published a new book, which is available for the first time in history at Amazon.com: Kinda Christianity. I bring it up because I wrote the foreward, and because we get more readers here at TeamPyro on Wednesday than Zach gets at his blog in any given year, and because Ted and Zach need your help. They want this thing to go completely viral, completely "The Shack". Except in a wholly-orthodox and Gospel-centered way. And maybe as Oprah's book of the month.

They want you to buy it and get your friends to buy it. It's like a portable version of Phil's PoMotivators. And just to sample it for you, here's the foreward I wrote for them in its "red-band" version (the one which names names, not the limp-wristed version with tepid references to nameless people which Ted and Zach wanted to avoid any problems) because you people are that tough.

I recently received that as a tweet from a friend of mine. It’s a great quote, and of course it doesn’t apply to you personally at all – it applies to everyone else except you.

I point that out because Ted and Zach wrote a little handbook here which, even if it doesn’t go The Shack for them and blow up the world of self-publication, is going to get the criticism, “they’re just a bunch of jerks, dude.” Ted will be called a hater or maybe some kind of misogynist homophobe jock, and Zach will be named as infamous in spite of his ubiquitous use of Hebrew to spell his first name. (Poser)

But here’s the thing: Are they the haters? It seems to me that they are not the haters – they are simply the ones who are not jealous. They are not the ones calling each other John Bunyan and Martin Luther, naming their movement a “new reformation” in the midst of also lowering moral standards, eliminating the things which are distinctive about the Christian faith, and dressing in a shabby way rather than a way which says, “I am in the image of my creator, so I want to keep the place looking nice.”

That is, of course, not to say that the objects of the bright lights and shiny sharp objects in this book are the only ones who flub the Christian life. It is to say, though, that these people have made an art of it. Under the guise of doing something indispensible with a 2000-year tradition of philosophical, political, economic, social and spiritual wins they have simply done what George Costanza would do – they have done the opposite.

What to do if there are glaring moral issues in our day – speak in a prophetic voice echoing Isaiah and Elijah and Moses? Oh heck no – do the opposite: embrace the moral failings of our day and say that this is who we are. Don’t hate me because I’m fabulous and famous like Perez Hilton or Spencer and Heidi.

What to do when worship is itself something everyone finds somewhat unconscionable and unfit for our daytimers – dress up our time together and inform it so that we cannot forget that we’re talking about the creator of all things, thinking about how Paul spoke to the folks at Corinth or maybe how the writer of Hebrews puts together a vision of our savior and our faith? Oh please – do the opposite: paint the place black, light a few candles, and sit on ratty sofas and talk about ourselves and the story we find ourselves in. Don’t ask more of me, but less.

And while we’re talking about us, how do we know who “we” are – how do we know what the church itself is, here and now? Do we raise up leaders who are kind and discerning men who are leaning on Scripture and on the promise of Christ, who are using baptism as a gate to bring disciples to Christ and who are admonishing the people of God to believe in Christ and live as if his resurrection is true the way your DVR schedule is true and your paycheck is true? C’mon now: do the opposite! We should be looking up to guys like Donald Miller who can’t be bothered to join with other believers for worship, and Rob Bell who won’t tell people about the life after life after death when he’s interviewed by the national press, and Brian McLaren who must have a New Kind of Christianity rather than the one the rest of us have inherited, and Doug Pagitt who shames people with passive-aggressive zingers and stops talking to them when they ask him what he specifically means by that – and as for baptism and a solid hope in the return of Christ, who cares? What’s that got to do with my favorite treat at Starbucks?

There’s nothing to be jealous of there, to get back to my point. There’s nothing to be jealous of in a movement that is exactly like what you find in Spencer’s at the Mall or maybe what’s in the used record joint across the street -- people who might in some sense like the smell of what they are selling, but they only like you if you are buying.

Ted and Zach aren’t buying it, and neither am I. However, I do have a really-cool on-line t-shirt shop where you can buy t-shirts that say “Spurgeon is my Homeboy” or “orthodox gangsta”, and I encourage you to indulge yourself since Ted and Zach cut me out of the commissions for this book. Kids these days …

Grace and Peace to you,

Frank Turk
http://teampyro.blogspot.com
The t-shirt shop
twitter: Frank_Turk
hatemail: jonestony@gmail.com

---

Colossians studies 14: thanking God — twofold reason (1:4)

by Dan Phillips

Last time we studied the timing and significance of the thanks Paul and Timothy gave for the Colossians. Now we begin to study why they thanked God, today focusing on Colossians 1:4 — "having heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and the love which you have for all the holy ones."

What in a congregation would bring Paul joy, and lead him to give thanks? Expressions of honest doubt, social programs, massive numbers, popularity with the world, artistic worship? Hardly. Paul gave thanks to God because of two signs of life he saw in the Colossian church, two particular species of spiritual fruit: faith and love.

First fruit: FAITH

The participial expression literally rendered "having heard of" is causal (= "because we heard of"), and it introduces the reasons why Paul and Timothy always thanked God for the Colossians. they thanked God, first, because they had heard of "your faith in Christ Jesus."

Faith is the indispensable element, the sine qua non, of the Christian life; and the word of God is the indispensable element in faith.

• The Word of God gives birth to faith (Romans 10:17)
• We are rescued from the power and penalty of sin through faith (John 3:16)
• We live by faith (2 Corinthians 5:7)
• We continue to please God by faith (Hebrews 11:6)

Thus, faith was a crucial sign of spiritual life in Paul's eyes. If a person has genuinely been saved, he will exhibit faith in Christ. If a person exhibits no faith in Christ, there is no indication that he has been genuinely saved. This truism was Christianity 101 to the apostles, but seems to have eluded their much better-educated (and much less wise) modern would-be successors.

What is faith? Faith is never just a free-floating quality, valuable in and of itself regardless of its object. Biblical faith is all about the object. Biblical faith, as I recently discussed in another connection, involves at least two fundamental elements:

1. A word from God
2. Personal embrace of that word, involving the whole man

What is the specific word from God that Paul has in mind? It is God's testimony to Christ. Paul says it is "faith in Christ Jesus," which is to say faith in God' Anointed and sole Savior. Now, that is the point. You see, Paul is not thanking God merely that they have faith of some sort. Paul is specifically thanking God that they have faith in Christ Jesus.

Nor can we imagine, in our most feverish hallucinations, that Paul meant anything like, "Faith in Christ Jesus — whatever you mean by those two words." Paul is concerned only with what God means by those two words. He would have no part in reinventing, or creating "another Jesus" (2 Corinthians 11:4). I don't think you'd ever catch him speaking of a resurrection-denier as having passionate faith in and love for Jesus.

As Paul will go on to teach, forgiveness, redemption, love, life, real wisdom ─ everything of spiritual value —  is in the real Christ Jesus. So Paul rejoices that they have come into possession of all that by believing in that Christ.

This, too, is why Paul can call them "faithful," as he did earlier. Clearly, they are being troubled and tempted by false teaching. But at present they as a church still hold to the real Christ Jesus in faith. If they lose that, they will have nothing.

Second fruit: LOVE

Paul speaks of thanking God for "the love which you have for all the holy ones." This is the second dimension of Christian living. The primary dimension is vertical: our relationship with God ("your faith in Christ Jesus"). The secondary dimension is horizontal: our relationship with others ("the love which you have for all the holy ones").

This is one of the thirty-seven times that he uses the Greek word for "all" in this letter. This is a significant fact. The false teaching was evidently splitting the Church up into the "haves" and the "have-nots." Paul rejoices that the Colossians, in their faithfulness, still embrace all their fellow-saints in love.


When Paul speaks of "all the holy ones," he lightly touches on the fact that all who have trusted in Christ, without exception, are holy. (For a study of the aspects of holiness, see part 11.) This is positional holiness, a holiness all Christians share by definition. Everyone who trusts in Christ is set apart to God's ownership and service in Christ, and is therefore positionally holy in Him.

The common translation "saint" is unfortunate. Nobody today understands it without specific instruction, and we have this utterly unbiblical idea (thanks to Rome) that there are special believers who deserve to be called saints, in distinction from all the other believers. Paul does not use the word to part believer from believer. Rather, in speaking of "all the holy ones" Paul underlines that which all believers have in common, as well as the love which binds us all together.

What is love? The word agapē is not a magic word. Its richness is not inherent, but comes from the ways it is used. Consider three passages of Scripture:

• Luke 10:29-37
• Galatians 5:13-16
• 1 John 3:17-18

What can we deduce from those passages?

1. Love is not primarily an emotion, a mood, friendship, or just a nice thing to say
2. Love is a personal commitment to pursuing the highest good of another, born of a mental attitude and expressed through action

This love may or may not affect our emotions at any given moment. It certainly will affect our words and our deeds. It is, after faith, a crucial Christian virtue (cf. Colossians 3:14; 1 Corinthians 13:13).

The health of any local church depends on Christians growing in love for one another. True, the local church is the place of learning. But it is also the place of practising what we learn. That practice must involve learning of and meeting the needs of our brothers and sisters in the assembly in love.

So the false teaching was troubling the Colossians, but it had not yet parted them as a church from Christ, and it had not yet parted them as believers from one another. Notice the rather emphatic phrasing: "which you have [i.e. which you still maintain] for all the holy ones." They were still fundamentally accepting one another, loyal to one another, and striving to meet each other's needs. The false teaching threatened this. In time, were it embraced, it would destroy it. But as of yet, the bond held sure, in real Christian unity.

For these two sure signs of spiritual life, Paul gave thanks to God.

---

Tom Wright, T4G, and "Unity": "Can We All Get Along?"

by Phil Johnson



hristianity Today has posted an opinion piece by Brett McCracken comparing this year's Together for the Gospel (T4G) sessions unfavorably with Wheaton College's recent Theology Conference: "Jesus, Paul and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N. T. Wright."

The speakers at T4G, of course, firmly believe that "The Gospel" is what binds us "Together." All of them agree that the heart of gospel truth is summed up in the doctrine of justification by faith, and getting that doctrine correct is vital to sound, biblical Christianity. All of them also believe the atonement Christ rendered on the cross was a penal substitution—a propitiatory sacrifice offered to God by His Son on behalf of sinners. There is much more to the atoning work of Christ than that, of course, but the T4G speakers all are convinced that part is essential to a right and full-orbed understanding (and proclamation) of the gospel. In short, all of the T4G speakers hold the historic position on these matters that is spelled out in all the Protestant confessions of faith.

And the theme of the T4G conference this year was "The (Unadjusted) Gospel."



N. T. Wright, on the other hand, is controversial chiefly because he wants to make significant adjustments to the doctrine of justification by faith and our understanding of the atonement. He doesn't like the language of imputation. He's uncomfortable with the idea of penal substitution and the language of propitiation.

For Wright, justification is more about ecclesiology than about soteriology. Indeed, he says, "The doctrine of justification . . . is not merely a doctrine in which Catholic and Protestant might just be able to agree on, as a result of hard ecumenical endeavour. It is itself the ecumenical doctrine, the doctrine that rebukes all our petty and often culture-bound church groupings, and which declares that all who believe in Jesus belong together in the one family. . . . The doctrine of justification is in fact the great ecumenical doctrine" (What St. Paul Really Said [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], 158).

Between 2002 and '05 I did seminars at a couple of conferences on both sides of the Atlantic critiquing Wright's doctrine of justification (transcripts HERE and HERE). One of the things I keep trying to point out is that despite Wright's professed contempt for reading Reformed and Augustinian concerns back into the Pauline text, high on his own agenda is a determination to bring Paul's doctrine of justification into line with 21st-century standards of political correctness. Wright's whole hermeneutic seems driven by the credo of Rodney King. Wright seems to be looking for a new perspective on the gospel that would allow Catholics, Protestants, and all kinds of wayward Anglicans to set their "differences" aside and have a great group hug in the name of ecumenical unity.

It comes as no surprise, then, that in Wright's mind, "Nothing justifies schism."

Now: let's bear in mind that statement comes from an Anglican bishop who is currently in communion with this bishop, this bishop, this bishop, and a menagerie of other bishops including several agnostics, heretics, and theological miscreants of virtually every stripe.

That fact surely sheds light on what Bishop Wright might be aiming at in his radically ecumenical re-reading of the doctrine of justification. And the mess that we know as "The Anglican communion" also must be carefully borne in mind when we read this solemn assurance in the CT op-ed piece: "Wright, perhaps the world's leading Christian theologian/writer/intellectual, was calling for the church to prioritize unity and emphasize common ground, not at the expense of doctrine and not in a universalist way."

Really?

The shopworn not-at-the-expense-of-doctrine warrantee is of course standard language these days in everyone's ecumenical efforts—ranging from "Catholics and Evangelicals Together" to the early rhetoric of the Emergent fiasco (where, in fact, everything came at the expense of doctrine). Such assurances especially ring hollow when the people making such promises in the very same breath relegate a principle like sola fide to "the details of theological minutia."

"After all," Brett McCracken says, "[Paul] speaks of justification only in a few places (Romans, Galatians, etc.), while unity is a topic that shows up constantly in nearly everything he writes."

Yikes. Seriously?

That's about the worst summary of the Pauline perspective I have ever heard.

McCracken should have listened more closely to the T4G messages. His cynical description of T4G ("like a club patting each other on the back for their mutual buttressing of the 'unadjusted gospel' against threats from various corners") puts his yearning for "unity" in clear focus. If we're not willing to relegate all our differences with everyone who claims to "love Jesus" to the category of "theological minutia," we are the "schismatic" ones—not the Anglicans (and their ilk) who have winked at (and even given their benediction to) virtually every kind of sin and apostasy, as long as their own bishops are involved.

The cost of that kind of cosmetic unity is simply too high. Far from being "a sign to the world" and "a message to the would-be rulers of the world," it dishonors Christ. The artificial peace of compromise and mandatory-cease-fire solidarity isn't authentic unity anyway. It is nothing like the kind of unity Paul called for. It certainly is not the kind of unity Christ prayed for.

Of course some points of doctrine are theological minutiae, and we don't need to argue endlessly about them. Most of us don't. But justification by faith is not one of those peripheral points. Luther and the other Reformers were driven by the unshakable conviction that the doctrine of justification by faith is the primary soteriological essential, the article by which the church stands or falls. Unless we're willing to declare the Reformation a mistake (something Bishop Wright needs to do—and may yet do—in order to be consistent with his own rhetoric), we should resist these incessant pleas from so many quarters to see "church unity" through postmodern eyes. Instead, we need to keep striving for the kind of unity Scripture describes—a unity that is possible only when we are walking in the light (1 John 1:6-7).

---

Should we velvetize the Bible's hard truths to suit a culture that hates moral clarity?

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson



The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from "Mongrel Religion," a sermon preached Sunday morning, 2 October 1881, at the Met Tab in London.



    know of no surer way of a people's perishing than by being led by one who does not speak out straight, and honestly denounce evil. If the minister halts between two opinions, do you wonder that the congregation is undecided? If the preacher trims and twists to please all parties, can you expect his people to be honest? If I wink at your inconsistencies will you not soon be hardened in them?

Like priest, like people. A cowardly preacher suits hardened sinners. Those who are afraid to rebuke sin, or to probe the conscience, will have much to answer for. May God save you from being led into the ditch by a blind guide.

And yet is not a mingle-mangle of Christ and Belial the common religion of the day? Is not worldly piety, or pious worldliness, the current religion of England? They live among godly people, and God chastens them, and they therefore fear him, but not enough to give their hearts to him. They seek out a trimming teacher who is not too precise and plain-spoken, and they settle down comfortably to a mongrel faith, half truth, half error, and a mongrel worship half dead form, and half orthodoxy.

God have mercy upon men, and bring them out from the world; for he will not have a compound of world and grace. "Come ye out from among them," saith he, "be ye separate: touch not the unclean thing." "If God be God, serve him: if Baal be God, serve him." There can be no alliance between the two. Jehovah and Baal can never be friends. "Ye cannot serve God and Mammon." "No man can serve two masters." All attempts at compromise or comprehensiveness in matters of truth and purity are founded on falsehood, and falsehood is all that can come of them. May God save us from such hateful doublemindedness.

---

Pyro: the next generation?

by Dan Phillips

Find out who Grandma's holding, more pix, and the full story, here.

---

Trifecta

by Phil Johnson



Since we have featured two posts about Calvinism already this week, why not a third? I've always liked the symmetrics of three-point sermons anyway.

What follows is an excerpt from one of my Shepherds' Conference seminars in 2007. You can download the entire message for free HERE. In that seminar I argued that everyone who truly believes the gospel has already embraced the core principles of Calvinist truth. Even the most ardent Arminian, if he is truly evangelical, is a Calvinist when it really counts. Here's an excerpt:


y trek from Arminianism to Calvinism took more than ten years. Every time one of my arguments against Calvinist doctrines would fall, I would be forced to embrace some doctrine that I had heretofore been desperately trying to argue against.

But I never had any sense of defeat. It was more like I was resolving nagging conflicts in my own mind. Because I kept discovering that the truths at the heart of Calvinism truly are the doctrines of grace—principles that I had always affirmed: God is sovereign, Christ died for me, God loved me before I loved Him, He sought me and drew me and initiated my reconciliation while I was still His enemy. Those are all biblical truths, and I believed them even when I was a gung-ho Arminian.

So embracing Calvinism was natural—and inevitable—because all I was doing was ridding my mind of wrong ideas and faulty assumptions about human free will and other notions like that, which are not even taught in the Bible—so that I could wholeheartedly affirm what I really believed anyway: That God is God, and He does all His good pleasure, and no one can make Him do otherwise, and He is in control and in charge no matter how much noise evildoers try to make.

And not only is He in charge, He is working all things out for my good and His glory.

That's Calvinism. And if you believe those things, you have affirmed the heart of Calvinist doctrine, even if you call yourself an Arminian. Those are the basic truths of Calvinism, and if you already believe those things, you are functioning with Calvinist presuppositions.

There's more. If you are an authentic Christian, you know in your heart of hearts that you weren't born again because you were morally superior to your unbelieving neighbors. You were worthy of God's wrath just like them (Ephesians 2:1-3). According to Ephesians 2:4-6, it was God who quickened you and showed you a special mercy—and that is why you are a believer. You already know that in your heart. You don't really believe you summoned faith and came to Christ in your own power and by your own unaided free will. You don't actually believe you are morally superior to unbelievers. You therefore must see, somewhere in your soul, that God has given you special grace that He has not shown everyone.

You also believe God is absolutely sovereign over all things. I know you do, because you lean on the promise of Romans 8:28. And that promise would mean nothing if God were not in control of every detail of everything that happens. If He is not in control of all things, how could He work all things together for good?

Furthermore, you pray for the lost, which means in your heart, you believe God is sovereign over their salvation. If you didn't really believe He was sovereign in saving sinners, you'd quit praying for the lost and start doing everything you could to buttonhole people into the kingdom by hook or by crook, instead. But you know that would be folly.

And you pray about other things, too, don't you? You pray that God will change this person's heart, or alter the circumstances of that problem. That's pure Calvinism. When we go to God in prayer, we're expressing faith in His sovereignty over the circumstances of our lives.

You believe God operates sovereignly in the administration of all His providence. You say things like, "If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that" (James 4:15)—because you believe that God works all things after the counsel of His own will (Eph. 1:11), and nothing happens apart from his will.

Nothing is more biblical than these doctrines that are commonly labeled Calvinism. In a way, it is a shame they have been given an extrabiblical name. Because these truths are the very essence of what Scripture teaches.

---

Selfish requests

by Frank Turk

Short, sweet, and bumpable today.

[1] I'm making my first-ever trip to Europe this weekend to return next week, on business. It's to Amsterdam, which I understand is beautiful, historic and, um, let's say "liberal" to avoid any unnecessary shouting, so please pray for me as I fly through the volcano plume to meet with my Viking overlords to discuss things Viking overlords want to discuss.

[2] In that, if there's any Pyro readers in Amsterdam who want to get together on Sunday afternoon to find out how short and fat I am in person, make a list here in the comments and we can figure out a place to meet. Someplace close to the airport would be best for me. The rest of my week is fully booked, though maybe Thursday afternoon might also work.

[3] I'm also looking for suggestions regarding a power coverter for my trip. Obviously it can't be mail-order, but if you know something really good at Radio Shack or Best Buy, I'd appreciate it.

---

Must a Jew, by definition, disbelieve Jesus? — 2

by Dan Phillips

[Concluding a post begun here.]

Sharp cookies that you are, you may have noted that I am approaching this primarily from an Old Testament perspective. That is deliberate and purposeful. Refer back to the "I believe Jesus / I believe the OT" portion beginning to the first part. I don't grant that one self-appointed segment of Jews holds a copyright on the letters J, E and W. I think God does. The issue is how does He define being a Jew-in-good-standing, in His word. Even if one grants some role to tradition, one either accords ultimate veto-power to the Word, or he forfeits a voice.

Stay with me here, and let's ask....

Have Messiah-rejecting Jews the right to define
who is, and who is not, a Jew?

Three thought-experiments

Play a thought-experiment with me.

Put yourself in the picture in Numbers 13. You are a Jew, in Kadesh-Barnea, poised to enter Canaan. You knew Yahweh's will: He Himself had led you to this very point, and He had informed you that He was about to give you the land whose borders you were approaching. It is God's will for you to enter that land — at His word.

But then the spies bring back their report. Ten out of twelve Jewish spies reject the call to enter the land. That is, eighty-three percent of Jewish leaders say that Jews should not attempt to take Canaan. A paltry seventeen percent demur.

What is a faithful Jew, then, at that moment? Well, 83% of Jewish leadership defines a Jew as someone-who-does-not-enter-Canaan... even though Yahweh had said they should. Refusal to follow God's word defined them; not submission to it.

Read on, and you see that Yahweh's response in essence is "Fine. Don't enter. Die in the wilderness. I'll bring your children in, along with the 17% minority of Jewish spies who trusted My word." (What percent of the total population of Jewish adults would that be?)

So Yahweh's will for all Jews at this point is that they remain in the wilderness until all unbelieving adults had died off.

Does Israel accept God's word this time? Yet again, no. When God said "Enter," they said "We won't." Now God says "Don't enter," and they retort, "We will!"

So who is a Jew-in-good-standing now? Jews who try to take the land (as Yahweh had formerly said to do, but now said not to do)? Or Jews who stay in the wilderness (as Yahweh had formerly said not to do, but now said they should do)?

Put another way, who are the apostate Jews? Among the spies, the vast majority of Jews are apostate. Among the nation, the vast majority of Jews are apostate.

Who are the faithful Jews? The tiny minority who continues to take Yahweh at His word.

Play another thought-experiment. Without arguing about Jesus as such, imagine yourself in the days of fulfillment of Deuteronomy 18:15-19, whenever they might be. This Prophet has come. He has spoken. Some heed His words (which are the words of Yahweh); some do not.

Among that mass of Jewish population, who gets to define the Jew-in-good-standing-with-God? The number who do accept His words (which was a minority initially, in Moses' case)? Or the number who reject His words (which was a majority initially, in Moses' case)?

Who, then, are the apostate Jews? Those who accept the Prophet's words? Or those who reject them?

A third and final experiment. Consider Jeremiah's prophecy:

"Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jeremiah 31:31-14)

This OT prophet specifically and explicitly predicts in Yahweh's name that the Mosaic Covenant will one day be supplanted by a New Covenant.

From that, focus on just one consideration. Say that the covenant has come. Yahweh has acted to initiate this New Covenant. In so doing — according to His mouthpiece, Jeremiah — Yahweh has Himself set aside the Mosaic Covenant.

If we learn anything at all from Israel's history, we must assume that some Jews will accept this Covenant, and some will not. This has been true at every turn; there is no reason to suppose that suddenly the pattern will be broken.

That being the case then, in this experiment, riddle me this: who are the apostate Jews? The Jews who abandon the Mosaic Covenant to embrace the New? Or the Jews who adamantly stick with the Mosaic Covenant, no matter what their stated rationale?

According to the Torah, it would be the latter, not the former.

The issue, and the point

The factor that isolates and defines a Jew as a Jew-in-good-standing-with-God, in these narratives, is not whether or not he takes Canaan. It is not whether or not he stays in the wilderness. What defines a Jew-in-good-standing-with-God is whether or not He takes Yahweh at His word.

When the majority shifts, as it often did in Israelite history, that definition did not change. At some points, the remnant was very small (1 Kings 19:18). Prophecy said it would be small in the future (Isaiah 6:11-13; Zechariah 13:8). The majority per se never has the right to define faithful Judaism. God alone retains that right. It is faithfulness to God's Person and Word that defines faithful Jewishness.

Application to the question of "Jewish Christians"

Very broadly speaking, then, we have two kinds of Jews today, and only two:

1. Those who affirm Jesus as Messiah
2. Those who reject Jesus as Messiah

Does the latter have the right to deny the former the ability to call themselves "Jewish Christians"? If so, on what grounds? On the grounds that they are the majority? But there is no OT precedent for such a thought. In fact, the pattern of OT history is that the majority is usually apostate. The center of authority in the OT is never those who claim to be prophets, priests, or kings. The center is always the word of God.

I made a point about my blog-name and web-site name previously: Biblical Christianity. (Of course, I am far from alone in holding it as my desideratum to be faithful to the entire Canon.)

But note, I could find no blog nor any web site named "Biblical Judaism." Why? Though the Jew intent on rejecting Jesus will try to find Biblical reasons for doing so, he has nothing with God's authority to replace such faith with. How so? Well, there is no such thing as "Biblical Judaism" today. How can I say that? Simple: there is no Temple. There is no active priesthood. There are no (Mosaically-warranted) sacrifices being offered.

[UPDATE: weeks after this was posted, a friend pointed out that one does get hits searching for the phrase "Torah Judaism." If I revisit this, I'll need to surf those sites beforehand, see how they try to square that circle.]

Why not? In 70 AD, for the last time to date, Yahweh acted to dismantle the Temple utterly, and Israel became scattered to the four winds. Since that time, genealogy has been unprovable, and there has been no Levitical cultus. It's gone, finished, done-with at present.

Why? What national event had preceded this catastrophe? I have not read that Israel went into the sort of idolatry that had previously led to their expulsion from the land. What other event had occurred?

No point in being coy; you know exactly what climactic watershed event preceded 70 AD. Messiah came, the Prophet like Moses. He spoke God's words. As usual, the majority of Jews did not listen to Yahweh's words, words that He spoke in Yahweh's name. As promised, Yahweh Himself required it of the nation.

God Himself made it impossible for them to practice Biblical Judaism. The majority continues to see this as an unfortunate tragedy perhaps, or a coincidence (since so many have a low, un-Biblical view of God — or are atheists), or as signifying something else. But if one connects it with the decisive, critical rejection of Christ, all becomes clear.

We must conclude that it is necessary to say that there are such things as apostate Jews, even as there are such things as apostate Christians.

Beginning with the second, what is an apostate Christian? It is a professed Christian who rejects some fundamental truth of the whole Bible given today. A formal professor of Christian faith who denies the truth of the Gospel, of Christ, of God — he is an apostate Christian, Biblically defined.

So who is an apostate Jew? According to the OT as we have seen it, same answer, with slight verbal adjustment: it is a Jew who rejects some fundamental truth of the whole Bible given today. Since that Bible contains the promise of Messiah, since Jesus has fulfilled and will fulfill the promise of Messiah, since the NT contains the words Yahweh gave Messiah to speak in His own person and through His prophets and apostles, the definition is provided by 66 books rather than 39.

But to stick with the OT alone, an apostate Jew is a Jew who rejected the Prophet like Moses when He came. He is one who swerved aside from the progress of revelation to create his own religion, crafted selectively on a few bones from that portion of the Word of God which was supplanted by the New Covenant, who continues in the rebellion of unbelief rather than accepted God's whole word.

And that apostate does not have the right to deny the faithful their right to speak of themselves as Jews who believe Messiah, or Messianic Jews — or, put another way, Jewish Christians.

[Note: a few related thoughts can be found here.]

---