"Distinguished as a deviant who is really bizarre."
These insults came from the last comment of a certain Mac Chaine who was commenting on my Facebook ad which showed this video: Critiquing the St Helenite "gospel" in Rom2: Judgment according to Works is not hypothetical
The comments ran like this.
Rom2v1-16: https://youtu.be/B7dGUa9RjG8
Rom2v17-29: https://youtu.be/2VWyIzXtT1o
1. “... people want to be assured you aren’t cultic or some weirdo savior.”
I am not a cult leader who requires people to worship me. I am not God the Father or Jesus the Son or the Holy Spirit who are worthy of exclusive worship. Jesus only promised that the Holy Spirit would teach the apostles all things and cause the apostles to remember all that Jesus had taught them while on earth (John14v26) and also lead the apostles into all truth (John16v13). Only the apostles, and by implication their teaching and tradition, form the foundation of the God’s church (Eph2v20). The apostolic tradition has been preserved in written Scripture. No one (including myself) has the authority to add, subtract or modify in any way the Scripture, the written deposit of the faith, that has been once and for all delivered for the holy-ones (2Tim1v13-14; Jude3). I am not cultic. My words (just like everybody’s words) are to be tested against the Scripture to see if what I say is true or false (Acts17v11). I can make a wrong interpretation of Scripture. Let the one who thinks I have wrongly interpreted Scripture explain where I made the mistake and why it is a mistake. I will reflect on feedback and critique substantiated by Scripture. I am not an apostle, I am just a Christian doing my part to maintain the apostle’s traditions (1Cor11v2; 2Thess3v6) and guard the apostles’ Good News from distortion (2Tim1v14). I am not a savior. God sent Jesus to be the savior of the world. I am not Jesus. I only want people to hear the true Good News taught so that they can know the true Jesus who came to save us from our sins (Matt1v21). The way the true Jesus saves us from our sins is not the way I was taught as a Protestant. The Protestant understanding of how Jesus saves us from our sins is only half true. Many Protestants are taught a different “Good News” about a different “Jesus”, a “Jesus” who apparently lived a 100% sinless righteous life (true) so that what a Protestant does or does not do has no impact on whether they are declared righteous by God or not (false). This different “Good News” is what I am critiquing and contending against because it is not the Good News written in Scripture and those who believe a different “Good News” do not in fact know the true Jesus and cannot be saved by Jesus the true savior. I repeat, I am not Jesus the true savior nor “some weirdo savior”. I am just a Christian.
2. “And once you say no one living teaches accurately as you do, you have distinguished yourself as a deviant.”
The Apostle Paul was willing to anathemize his colleagues, himself, and even angels from heaven if they ever deviated from the true Good News (Gal1v8). He dropped hints that he was willing to reject the authority of the earlier apostles like James, Peter and John if they should deviate from the true Good News (Gal2v2, 6, 9). He even outright opposed Apostle Peter to his face when Apostle Peter stood condemned for acting out of step of the true Good News (Gal2v11-14). Even if Barnabas, Apostle Paul’s close colleague, behaved hypocritically, Apostle Paul did not follow the crowd. He stood alone. He opposed his fellow colleagues, even Apostle Peter, the apostle whom Jesus appointed the rock of the church (Matt16v18). So had the Apostle Paul “distinguished (himself) as a deviant”? He stood alone.
Now I oppose men who, like me, rightly acknowledge that they are not apostles and that they can err and who tell their church members to test what they say against the Scriptures. Now I am putting their words to the test against Scripture. I am merely pointing out the points where their teaching contradicts the Scripture. So what if I am severely outnumbered and perhaps stand all alone? Apostle Paul rightly opposed Apostle Peter, and was willing to oppose all the other apostles if they all deviated. Apostle Paul stood alone. Note that I am opposing mere Christians, not apostles. My attempts to guard the true “Good News” are in line with Apostle Paul’s example and in fact, much more modest, since I merely oppose non-apostles. As mentioned above, I am not an apostle, I am just a Christian doing my part to guard the Good News from the deviants who “trouble you and want to distort the Good News of Anointed-One” (Gal1v7). These men have been troubling the church for 500+ years with their false “Good News”. I will do my part to bring that to an end even if that means refusing to follow the crowd headed in the wrong direction and standing alone for a while.
Gal1v10: For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a slave of Anointed-One.
3. “You stand against this English and Singaporean churches. You stand against Protestants. You are against Catholics. Like you are the only right person who can interpret the Bible texts. Goodness. You’re really bizarre.”
I stand with the Protestant church in rejecting the over-extended authority of the Roman Catholic Magisterium and Roman Catholic Church Tradition. I stand with the Protestant church in holding Sola Scriptura that Scripture alone is our ultimate authority. Everyone’s words, including mine, need to be tested against Scripture (Acts17v11). I stand with the Protestant church on other points, too tedious to list.
But I stand against the Protestant church because the Protestant Reformers introduced man-made traditions that cannot be found in Scripture and indeed contradict Scripture. Sola Gratia. Sola Fide. Solus Christus. Justification by grace alone (not works), through faith alone (not works) depending on Christ’s (imputed righteousness) alone (not including the righteousness that the Holy Spirit works in and through the Christian). I reject all these man-made traditions that contradict Scripture.
I stand with the Roman Catholic church in rejecting the Protestant man-made traditions stated above: Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus; because these Protestant traditions contradict Scripture.
But I stand against the Roman Catholic church because the Popes introduced man-made traditions that cannot be found in Scripture and indeed contradict Scripture. https://tinyurl.com/Church-Idolatry I stand with the Protestant church in rejecting Roman Catholic Tradition which permits idolatry. I stand with most of the Protestant church who reject the Roman Catholic Tradition’s distortion of the meaning of the bread and wine. I stand with a large number of Protestants who reject the unbiblical practice of baptising babies, begun under the Roman Catholic and (Un)Orthodox Church and then wrongly maintained in many Protestant churches. Etc…
The point is this. There are Protestant interpreters who rightly interpret Bible texts on certain points and I agree with them on those points. There are Roman Catholic interpreters who rightly interpret Bible texts on certain points and I agree with them on those points. However, I don’t follow Protestant, Roman Catholic, (Un)Orthodox, Mormon, Jehovah Witness or Seventh-Day-Adventist interpreters on those points where they wrongly interpret Bible texts.
It just happens that I don’t follow any of these major churches’ teachings entirely 100% because none of them interpret the entire Bible’s teachings 100% rightly. It is my desire to do so myself. That is the desire of everyone of them too. The question is: Who is telling the truth?
This question is not answered by simply counting followers. This question is not answered by simply stating the obvious: I don’t agree 100% with interpreters from these other major churches. Go and ask a Protestant teacher whether he even agrees 100% with his fellow Protestants, not to mention the other churches, and your answer will most likely be “no, I agree with Pastor so & so on this and that, but not this or that”. This is exactly what I am saying! I agree with interpreters from other churches on this point or that point but I don’t agree 100% with them on every single point!
The question, “who is telling the truth?” can only be answered by presenting interpretations of Scripture backed up by explanation of why this is the right interpretation or why that was the wrong interpretation.
Up to this point, I have not read anything from other interpreters that have given me sufficient reason to change my interpretation of these things any further. In this video, it has to do with Romans 2. I am now critiquing the interpretation I myself used to teach! I change my mind when I read better interpretations, yes, even interpretations by other Protestants when they do better than interpretations by some other Protestants I used to read previously!
I find it bizarre when I meet people who confess to be disciples of Jesus, the one who bore the title “The Truth” (John14v6); yet these same disciples of The Truth will put up with teachings that are less than 100% true. That’s absolutely bizarre. Peter wrote, “Like newborn infants, long for the PURE spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation..” (1Pet2v2). Any fathers and mothers able to accept a little poison inside your infant’s milk? 99% milk but just 1% poison? Ok? Obviously not. But when it comes to spiritual milk, you’re ok with “just a little” error? If you can even call their errors “little”… How many will perish instead of growing up into salvation because their spiritual milk is tainted with poisonous snake lies in one form or another and thus not 100% pure. To accept anything less than 100% pure teaching is unbelievably bizarre when considering that the salvation of your soul is at stake.
As mentioned again and again, let those who think I have made a mistake in my interpretations put forth their interpretation of Romans 2 and I will reflect on feedback and critique that is substantiated by Scripture.
Video link here: https://youtu.be/oeaoO6yghCA
3 men had these to say...
From Ivan Hong, a "Christian".
As usual, the "Christian" feminist ripping Gal3v28 out of context.
Let's put Gal3v28 back into its immediate context.
Gal3 (ESV): 23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
All Jews & all non-Jews (represented by the term "Greek"), all slaves & free, all males & all females who have faith in the Good News and are baptised receive these blessings:
- They are declared righteous in God's sight;
- they are all one in unity with each other and all in a spiritual relationship with Jesus;
- they are Abraham's spiritual offspring...
and so
- they are heirs with an inheritance.
Non-Jews do not need to become Jews first in order to receive those blessings.
Slaves do not need to become free first in order to receive those blessings.
Females do not need to become males first in order to receive those blessings.
Gal3v28 when read in context has got nothing to do with whether females are permitted to teach men the Scripture or not.
Consider these quotes.
Harmon:
The final pair contrasted is “male and female” (ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ). This phrase appears to be drawn from Genesis 1:27, where God creates humanity “in the image of God; he created them male and female.” The distinction between male and female was another fundamental division within Greco-Roman society, accompanied with expectations for appropriate behavior and roles for each gender. Again, the context here is important. Paul is not asserting that there are no differences between men and women when it comes to every sphere of life. In several other texts Paul gives instruction on what roles are appropriate for men and women in both the church (1 Cor 11:2–16; 14:33–35; 1 Tim 2:8–15) and in the home (Eph 5:22–33; Col 3:18–19). Paul’s point is that when it comes to an individual’s status as a justified son of God and heir of the promises to Abraham, gender makes no difference. Now that Christ has come, the new creation has dawned in which neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matters (Gal 6:15), and by extension then, there are no distinctions between men and women regarding the requirements for full participation in the new covenant.
Matthew S. Harmon, Galatians, ed. T. Desmond Alexander, Thomas R. Schreiner, and Andreas J. Köstenberger, Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2021), 209–210.
Hamilton:
Gen. 1:27 and Gal. 3:28
Addressing himself to the issue of unity and equality in Christ, Paul lists three categories of opposites which may not serve as discriminatory criteria for admission to or exclusion from the church of Jesus Christ: Jew/Greek (ethnic), slave/free (cultural), and male/female (sexuality).
The last one is a phrase that Paul takes from Gen. 1:27. It seems to us a severe misunderstanding and an unfortunate interpretation to play off against each other the enlightened, progressive Paul when he applies Gen. 1:27 to husband-wife relationships, and the rabbinic, regressive Paul when he applies material from Gen. 2–3 to husband-wife relationships.
Paul appropriates Gen. 1:27 in the midst of his exhortation on soteriology to the Galatians without the slightest interest in establishing or denying a chain of authority. Egalitarianism versus hierarchicalism is just not the issue. The issue is the identity of the irreducible minimum for becoming and being Christian.
Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1–17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 148.
Let's clarify the meaning of "one in Christ Jesus" in Gal3v28.
All baptised believers are "one in Christ Jesus".
"One" means "united". Just like in John 17.
I will insert the clarification (united) next to the word "one" so it is clearer.
John17 (ESV): 20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one (united), just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one (united) even as we are one (united), 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one (united), so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.
In v23, most English translations translate the Greek word heis as "one".
Some translations don't want their readers to be in any doubt that "one" in this context means "unity" and translate the Greek word heis as "unity". See the NASB, NIV, NLT, TLV, GW, MEV, NOG.
In John17v20-23, "one" cannot possibly mean "equal".
Otherwise, John17v20-23 means that Christians are not just one-in-equality with each other but also equal to Jesus and equal to the Father. Which genuine Christian dares to claim to be equal to Jesus or God the Father?
It only makes sense to say that Christians are one-in-unity with each other and also united with Jesus and united with the Father. This spiritual unity and spiritual union is emphasized by the "in" each other phrases:
V21: The Father in the Son. The Son in the Father. Christians in the Father and Son.
V23: Jesus in Christians. Father in Jesus.
In John17, "one" means "one-in-unity" not "one-in-equality".
That is the same meaning in Gal3v28: 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Being "one in Christ Jesus" means that Jews & non-Jews, slaves & free, male & female are:
a) one-in-unity: we are all spiritually united
b) in Christ Jesus: we are all in a spiritual union with Christ Jesus himself.
No believer needs to change race, class or gender in order to be in a spiritual relationship with Jesus. All believers already share the same spiritual relationship with Jesus and will enjoy all his spiritual blessings. This is why we can enjoy spiritual unity and full Christian fellowship with one another without any need to change one's race, class or gender. This is what Gal3v28 means.
Don't believe the false teachers who rip Gal3v28 out of context and distort "one in Christ Jesus" to mean "one-in-equality" where the false teacher applies "equality" like this:
- if men can teach the Scripture to men,
- it necessarily follows that women must be allowed to teach the Scripture to men also or else we are contradicting Gal3v28.
That is not what Gal3v28 means.
Comments