Re: [asa] True Scotsman fallacy - was Of m....

*You're being disingenuous aren't you?
*
No. The discussion was about Christianity, not specifically about the OT.
I didn't shift it there; that's where it was.

*and mistakenly assumed anyone who was a Christian would know that love was
not universal in the old but confined to the "chosen." I thought the
difference between the old and the new testaments was common knowledge, yet
you don't seem to appreciate the very core of supercession.*

I don't agree with what I perceive to be your understanding of God's love.
God's love is constant, as it is a basic attribute of His character, and it
was available to all prior to the coming of Christ.

We'd probably also disagree about the nature of the new covenant in relation
to the old covenant. Certainly the coming of Christ made it possible for
everyone to relate to God in a fresh way, fulfilling the old covenant and
superceding certain aspects of the Mosaic Law. But the basis for how people
relate to God has always been by grace through faith, as Romans 4 makes
clear.

Concerning the relationship of gentiles and Jews to God prior to the coming
of Christ, that's an incredibly complicated question that I don't pretend to
be able to suss out in full. As Romans 2 makes clear, however, those who
lacked the Mosaic Law (those who were not, as you say, the "chosen") had the
natural law, which they rejected and thereby earned judgment. And as Romans
7 makes clear, the "chosen" who received the Mosaic Law were also under
judgment under that Law. Finally, as Romans 4 makes clear, some were
justified by faith prior to the coming of Christ. Personally, I believe
that some gentiles may have had saving faith under the law available to them
prior to Christ's coming, but I don't pretend to have any real answers about
that.

On 7/31/06, RFaussette@aol.com <RFaussette@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 7/31/2006 12:41:45 PM Eastern Standard Time,
dopderbeck@gmail.com writes:
>
> If Christians have used the bible to support apartheid, it is not because
they took anything out of context.
>
> Wrong, unless you cut the teachings of Jesus out of Christianity.
>
> Judaism is a tribal religion. It promotes racial purity. It really is an
"old covenant," and Christianity really has superceded it.
>
> If this is true -- I don't think it is -- it contradicts your first
statement.
>
> You're being disingenuous aren't you? The only place you could take
remarks that supported apartheid is out of the old testament, but you retort
referring to the new - you are wrong.
>
> I meant the old testament - and mistakenly assumed anyone who was a
Christian would know that love was not universal in the old but confined to
the "chosen." I thought the difference between the old and the new
testaments was common knowledge, yet you don't seem to appreciate the very
core of supercession.
>
> rich faussette

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jul 31 14:02:35 2006