Where Is The Red Herring?
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Mon, 3 Nov 1997 21:50:00 -0600 (CST) (00878637000, 199711040350.VAA24076@cdale3.midwest.net)
ESPOSITO
>In responding to my claims that the law was considered perfect, Mr. Till
writes,
ESPOSITO
>> Psalm 19:7 claims "the Law of the Lord is perfect" and Proverbs 29:18 states
>>"Happy is he who keeps the Law".
>
>TILL
>Yes, Psalm 19:7 does say this, but Esposito may not understand that I do not
>believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures. My response to what he has said
>above is that he has merely pointed out a "grave error" in the scriptures.
>
ESPOSITO
>Here he commits the logical fallacy of irrelevant conclusion. One cannot
use the >Bible texts to bolster his point in one phase of an argument, but
then deny the >authoritative nature of the text in the next breath. If we
are discussing the Christian doctrine of salvation and how it is obtained,
we must operate on the Christian premise that the entire Bible is equally
authoritative. By asking us to dismiss the Old Testament scriptures, Mr.
Till has thrown us a red herring of "Is the Bible inerrant," which is not
the topic at all.
TILL
Mr. Esposito apparently didn't read my series of responses carefully,
because I explained in them why the place of baptism in the NT plan of
salvation is even being discussed on this list. Matt Bell had asserted
several times that what the Bible teaches about how to be saved is "crystal
clear." Since I had noticed in his postings statements that indicated he
did not believe that baptism was necessary, I undertook to prove to him that
the NT does teach the necessity of baptism. So the issue is whether the NT
teaches that baptism is an essential step in the plan of salvation, so I
assume that everyone on this list recognizes that I am certainly not arguing
that if one believes in Jesus, repents of his/her sins, publicly confesses
faith in Jesus, and is baptized that this person is then "saved." I would
hardly teach this, since I don't believe that there are any "sins" for
anyone to be saved from. Hence, we are debating whether the New Testament
TEACHES that baptism is essential to salvation. We are NOT "discussing the
Christian doctrine of salvation and how it is obtained" but rather what the
NT teaches on the subject. I can't see, then, that I was pitching out a red
herring in my comments on Psalm 19:7 when I pointed out that Esposito had
merely identified a serious error in the Bible. On the one hand, the Bible
claims that "the law of the Lord is perfect" but on the other hand teaches
that the very law that this statement referred to was flawed and had to be
replaced with another one.
To see the problem a little more clearly, let's look at the entire
statement: "The law of Yahweh is perfect, converting the soul. The
testimony of Yahweh is sure, making wise the simple. The precepts of Yahweh
are right, rejoicing the heart. The commandment of Yahweh is pure,
enlightening the eyes. The fear of Yahweh is clean, enduring forever"
(Psalm 19:7-9). This text states that the law of Yahweh is perfect, that
his precepts are right, and his commandments pure, but Paul referred to this
"perfect law" as a "bond written in ordinances that was against us, which
was contrary to us" and said that it had been blotted out and nailed to the
cross. The Hebrew writer said that this law had "faults" and had be
replaced with a second one: "For if that first covenant had been faultless,
then would no place have been sought for a second, for finding fault with
them, he said, Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new
covenant with the house of Israel" (Heb. 8:7-8). Therefore, he took away the
first and established the second (Heb. 10:9). A major fault in the old
covenant was that it could not remove the guilt of sin (Heb. 10:1-4). If
this discussion continues, I think Mr. Esposito is going to find that he
needs to steer clear of the book of Hebrews, which is very clear in stating
that the first covenant was so imperfect that it had to be replaced with a
new one.
ESPOSITO
Any conclusion based on the premise that one cannot trust the Old Testament
cannot be considered a "Christian doctrine", and being as this topic is on
the Christian idea of salvation, it does not belong in this discussion.
>
TILL
Who cares what may or may not be "Christian doctrine"? At this point, my
interest is in showing what the New Testament TEACHES on the subject of
baptism and salvation. This topic, then, is NOT on the "Christian idea of
salvation" but on what the NT teaches about salvation. Quite often,
Christian ideas of salvation aren't necessarily scriptural, because they do
not agree with what the NT teaches on the subject. Baptism is one of the
points on which most Christian denominations deviate from clear NT
teachings. The struggles that both Bell and Esposito are having in trying to
prove that baptism is NOT essential illustrates this.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net