Sermon Video: Righteousness by Faith, not Law - Romans 9:27-33

Since the Law was given by God to his people, and he rewarded them for keeping it and punished them for breaking it, why couldn't righteousness come through obeying it?  Simple, that was never its intent.  God knew that humanity could never follow his commands perfectly, that all would sin, all would be lawbreakers.  The Law made God's people conscious of their sin, it did not offer them the solution to it.  The answer to that dilemma was always grace.  God's forgiveness and mercy given to his people, and his people's need to trust in that grace by faith.  Ultimately Jesus came to be the solution, to be the sacrifice for sin, and our faith became in/through him.

FFOZ (Torah Clubs) admit they are sharing a another/new/different Gospel

 

It really isn't a big deal if FFOZ (Torah Clubs) reinterprets the Gospel message in a way unknown throughout Church History, is it?  If that's what you think, you may not be familiar with the Apostle Paul's dire warning to the churches in Galatia.  

Galatians 1:6-9 (NIV)

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

This is indeed a big deal, to those of us who claim Jesus Christ as Savior, its everything.  Listen, I know that in Church History there have been plenty of examples where would-be reformers were falsely labeled as heretics preaching a 'different Gospel', these steep overreactions from the Church have been deeply tragic.  That caution lest we repeat the mistakes of our ancestors in the faith in mind, we cannot allow a new version of the Gospel to go unchallenged, we cannot ere so far on the side of caution that we ignore false teaching.

How do I know that FFOZ (Torah Clubs) is teaching a new Gospel?  They readily admit it.  They know what they are teaching is new to the Church, the radical nature of what they are trying to convince others of is a big part of their motivation.  Let their own words bear witness...

{All quotes below comes from the video recordings of the Malchut 2022 Conference, a gathering of Torah Club leaders and financial backers, in other words, this is what they tell the insiders, the true believers.}

Direct quotes will be in italics, added emphasis in bold is mine, my commentary in {brackets}.

I mean, as this evangelical I did not understand the full scope of the gospel message. That is for sure. Especially as it pertained to Israel. But I would say as it pertained to any human being, but especially as it pertained to Israel. Instead, I learn to divide the world, as I’m sure many of you did, into two types of people: the saved and the unsaved, right? Those who have been born again by accepting Jesus into their hearts for a personal relationship went into a category we called the saved, that is the Christians. And those without Jesus, the unsaved, the non-Christians. And so the onus was on those of us who are the saved, that we have a responsibility and a mission to save the unsaved and persuade them to become Christians.  Which seems reasonable. In this respect this approach to evangelism, you know from what I’m looking at it now, was a little naïve and largely a misunderstanding of the gospel message. I mean, this is just not what Yeshua taught. We thought the gospel message was believe in Jesus so that you will go to heaven when you die. I mean, really, that was it. So believing the right things about Jesus. That was our sacrament. Having the right things in your head about Jesus, that was the thing that saved you. But that’s not what Yeshua said and that’s not what he taught. When I started to learn the New Testament from a Jewish perspective and to study the teachings of the Jewish Yeshua, I discovered a totally different gospel message. In fact, it used to trouble me that he never said anything about becoming Christians. Didn’t it trouble anyone else? I mean, it really troubled me. I mean, I’m talking as a teenager reading. I remember throwing the Bible across the room because it just seemed like everything contradicted, everything in the Bible contradicted everything I was learning in church. (Daniel Lancaster - Missionaries, 24:10ff)

{Daniel Lancaster, who grew up as an Evangelical Baptist, admits that he rejects the Church’s understanding that the people of the world can be divided into the saved (those who trust in Jesus) and the unsaved (those who do not trust in Jesus).  Lancaster then goes on to describe a very poor Straw Man version of what the Church has always taught about the Gospel, rejects this, and proclaims that he "discovered a totally different gospel message." through Judaism.}

His message had nothing to do with consenting to a creed. He didn’t introduce a new religion. Instead, he called for repentance within the religion that he was already in. (Daniel Lancaster - Missionaries, 26:37ff) 

{Again, Lancaster proclaims that FFOZ’s version of the Gospel has nothing to do with what you believe about Jesus, is NOT a new religion, but only a reform movement that was intended to and must remain within Judaism.}

Going to heaven and escaping from hell, in other words, dealing with the world of souls, these are corollaries. They’re related ideas. But not at all the focus, and never presented as the measure by which humanity can be divided into two categories, or that we could divide humanity into two categories, saved and unsaved. Wow! You know for somebody who grew up as an old Evangelical like me, that’s a big shift. It’s taken most of a lifetime for me to absorb the implications there, and I am still to this day trying to process it. I mean, it’s another one of those complete reshuffling of the cards, right? The Jewish gospel as I just described it is far more nuanced and at the same time far more robust, far more sweeping than rescuing a few fortunate souls from the fires of perdition. But, if you’re like me, and I’m assuming a lot of you are, coming from an evangelical background like me and accustomed to a simple formula message that divides the world into black-and-white, saved and lost, who is in and who is out, then this broader, deeper, wider message of the gospel actually leaves you feeling a little tongue-tied when it comes to evangelism and articulating the mission. (Daniel Lancaster - Missionaries, 30:13ff) 

{Here Lancaster fully develops the Straw Man version of the Gospel, one that only cares about souls and Heaven and has nothing to say about repentance and how we live this life (Who is preaching this nonsense?  Virtually nobody).  By creating the deficient Straw Man, now Lancaster can reject the traditional Gospel in favor of what FFOZ intends to replace it with.}  

I hope tonight to communicate clearly that the message that all of us have heard, the gospel message that all of us have heard, is not the message of the gospel of the kingdom. It’s a gospel in fact devoid of the kingdom, a gospel that has in fact obscured the kingdom. (Boaz Michael - And Then the End Will Come, 8:27ff) 

{The Founder and President of FFOZ proclaiming that the Gospel message taught by the Church is NOT what God intended.}

We’ve seen something that most Christians haven’t. Most followers of Yeshua have accepted him as their Savior, maybe as their Lord, but they have yet to see him as a humble rabbi from Nazareth, a teacher of Judaism who upheld the Torah and the Jewish way of life. Missing these critical aspects of Yeshua’s life and ministry doesn’t just mean missing out on Shabbat or Passover. It means we are missing the very corner stone of his message, the gospel of the kingdom. In fact the biggest difference, the biggest tension between post-supersessionist Christianity and Christianity, mainstream Christianity, isn’t what holidays we keep or the kind of food we eat. It’s not the biggest difference. It’s our understanding of what Yeshua ultimately came to teach and accomplish. The church’s gospel, the church’s interpretation of Yeshua‘s core message, has been incomplete for nearly 2000 years. (Boaz Michael - And Then the End Will Come, 8:27ff) 

{FFOZ believes they are the first ones in Church History to teach the “complete” Gospel, the hubris involved and the blanket condemnation of the entire Church is astounding.}

Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand. It’s a message to Israel and it’s a message that doesn’t make sense without Torah, without Judaism, without Jewish people, and without Jewish, like, identity. It’s a promise of restored monarchy, restored Sanhedrin, restored nation of Israel. (Boaz Michael - And Then the End Will Come, 8:27ff) 

{A Gospel without obeying Torah, practicing Judaism, and adopting Jewish identity doesn’t make any sense??  It is clear where FFOZ stands.}

Every house needs a firm foundation. The church has built its entire mission on an incomplete foundation on a partial gospel. This process began early, early, early when church theologians intentionally, intentionally stripped away the Jewish context of the New Testament. (Boaz Michael - And Then the End Will Come, 8:27ff) 

{According to FFOZ, the Early Church intentionally warped the Gospel message.}

The church today is floundering in the waves of cultural change with no Torah to guide them, no clear direction, and no concrete moral compass. Like shattered glass, thousands of denominations and independent churches fight each other over theology and practice because their core message is missing something. The gospel of the kingdom has been replace with an oversimplified distortion of Yeshua‘s message. (Boaz Michael - And Then the End Will Come, 16:53ff) 

{Boaz blames a non-unified Church on a delinquent Gospel message.}

The same Christians who propagated this incomplete gospel also translated the Bible into languages all of us can understand. The whole world knows about the Messiah of Israel because of missionaries and their efforts. But they were only telling a small part of a much larger story. Perhaps HaShem has ordered that for a time, let’s consider this. It’s temporary. The gospel of the kingdom needed to be watered down. It needed to be simplified so that at least some part of Yeshua’s message, his name, would travel as far as possible. And reach as many people as possible...But I believe that gospel and that time is coming to an end. I believe that the missionary efforts of the church have paved the way for the original gospel of the kingdom, repent for the kingdom of God is at hand. (Boaz Michael - And Then the End Will Come, 16:53ff) 

{Why did God allow the Church to “flounder” with a “watered down” Gospel for 2,000 years, and why were missionaries so successful in spreading it?  Boaz thinks that it made evangelism easier, so God allowed it, but now the world is finally ready for the “real Gospel”.  FYI, God doesn’t operate like this, how could this be the Church that Jesus promised was coming and the Spirit came at Pentecost to empower?}

This gospel that has gone forth is only a tiny sliver of an idea but yet it was able to spread like wildfire and drew billions of people into the church. But, without Torah, without Israel, without repentance, it’s not the gospel of the kingdom. The whole world knows at this point, from my perspective, the whole world has heard or seen, knows the name Jesus, perhaps even Yeshua. They know the classic formula for what it means to believe or to go to heaven. Everyone has heard it. But the work isn’t finished. It’s just beginning. (Boaz Michael - And Then the End Will Come, 19:10ff)

{Is it sufficiently clear yet that FFOZ firmly believes that what the Church has taught for 2,000 years is NOT the true Gospel, and that they alone have the wisdom to replace it?}

Bringing Yeshua’s message to Gentiles is the whole purpose of the Torah Club. If you’re a Torah Club leader or student you’re part of this prophetic movement to proclaim the gospel of the kingdom to all nations. Even if it’s not happening at pulpits and churches or in theological textbooks or in alter calls, it’s happening in your living room. Gentile Christians are finally discovering Yeshua’s message (Boaz Michael - And Then the End Will Come, 33:19ff) 

{According to FFOZ, The Church is not bringing the message of Jesus to the world, only FFOZ is, for this first time, in this generation.}

I believe that there is a seed already planted by the gospel message that has been sent out, that is ready to be watered, ready to be nurtured so that it blossoms into the gospel of the kingdom. And as kingdom goes from something that looks dry and dead to something that is green, plush and beautiful. (Boaz Michael - And Then the End Will Come, 46:21ff) 

{The Gospel of the Church is “dry and dead”, FFOZ believes they will bring forth something new to replace it.}

Don’t think of this as a Bible study. Don’t burden yourself with the idea that, “You’re just, you know, each week…” You’re proclaiming the kingdom. You’re bringing Israel’s redemption. What we are doing is so much bigger than a Bible study. (Boaz Michael - And Then the End Will Come, 50:01ff)

{Just a Bible study?  They don’t think so.}

We teach that Jesus and his disciples were all Jewish, that their religion was Judaism, that Jesus did not cancel the law, Christians don’t replace the Jewish people, and Yeshua and the Apostles didn’t start a new religion to replace an old one. (Boaz Michael - What is your IQ? p. 2) 

{They believe Christianity should never have existed, only Judaism is God’s true plan.}

Because we are on a mission from God to transmit this good news unencumbered with the distractions that have beset it, the distractions of theology and supersessionism and misconstrued dogmatisms about eternal destinies. (Daniel Lancaster - Band of Survivors, 7:47ff) 

{The Gospel that the Church preaches needs to be stripped of its false dogmas according to FFOZ.}

Until then, however, there’s a small remnant, right. It’s a pretty small remnant of the kingdom on earth. There’s a few of us. There’s a few of us clinging to the Commandments in the testimony of Yeshua as it says in the Book of Revelation. (Daniel Lancaster - Band of Survivors, 7:47ff) 

{Any Gospel that supposedly only saves a tiny minority of those who claim Jesus as Savior is warped and twisted.}

Only a few proclaim an unencumbered gospel message like this. (Daniel Lancaster - Band of Survivors, 9:23ff)

{FFOZ knows that their version of the Gospel represents only a tiny minority, that it is NOT the same as that of the Church.}

Too often the good news of the gospel has been presented as bad news, as you know. I mean, It’s bad news for Israel, I tell you that. According to the bad news of the gospel, you know and I’m just gonna be a little facetious for a little bit, just forgive me because that’s just the way I am. It’s just part of my yetzer hara. But we need to harness the yetzer hara for the service of the kingdom. So that’s what I’m doing. According to the bad news of the gospel that missionaries ordinarily offer to Israel, Jews who don’t believe in Jesus, you know, suffer in hell for eternity. So that’s a good opening line. Along with the vast majority of humanity, so at least they won’t be lonely. But if you consent to believe in Jesus you can escape that fate in hell wherein, of course, almost all of Israel parishes but the only catch is you need to quit being Jewish because in Jesus there is no such thing as such thing as Jew and Gentile. I’m not kidding. I said I’m going to be a little facetious. But that is the message. That is the implicit message anyway that Jesus does away with Judaism and Jewish identity. (Daniel Lancaster - Band of Survivors, 17:43ff) 

{Daniel Lancaster, writer of the Torah Clubs materials, speaks with disdain about the idea that believing in Jesus or not affects a person’s eternal destiny.}

Likewise, the traditional message to the world doesn’t sound like good news for the nations either. It sounds, you know, something like this. God created you to be a worthless sinner. From the moment you were conceived, God destined you to suffer in hell forever. And if you’ve ever broken a single commandment, well it doesn’t really matter because Adam did for you, but you’ve broken them all and of course you know “all have sinned and fallen short” of his impossibly high expectations and the wages of that is eternal torment along with the Jews. So, therefore, you’re consigned under God‘s eternal wrath unless you consent to a certain set of theological propositions according to one side of the church or to a specific sacramental series of rituals according to the other side of the church. (Daniel Lancaster - Band of Survivors, 19:25ff) 

{Utilizing a poor Straw Man presentation of the Gospel, Lancaster again mocks the traditional message of the Gospel as “bad news.”}

OK, I’m done being facetious now. And again, I apologize. I’m just trying to make a point. When you put it like that the Gospel does, you know, it sounds pretty bleak. And it sounds a little absurd. That’s not good news for anyone. That would be bad news. And that particular formulation of the message probably did work pretty well in the Middle Ages when you could frighten people with dogmas that dangle them over hell only inches above, you know, a host of horn demons with pitchforks. It might have sold well in the Reformation when people were willing to except anything that could liberate them from the authority of Rome. But it just does not have a lot of traction with the average thinking person today. Who wants a religion like that? Who needs it? (Daniel Lancaster - Band of Survivors, 20:31ff)

{While the traditional Gospel could be sold to the less educated people of the Middle Ages and Reformation, according to FFOZ, thinking people today want no part of it.  The disdain for, and mockery of, the Gospel as it has been believed since the Apostles is very thick.}

Now, again, I’m not just trying to be controversial or irreverent. I’m just explaining to you why we need to reassess this. Why we at First Fruits of Zion and in Messianic Judaism, why we are putting the time and the effort into recovering the original good news message proclaimed by Yeshua and the Apostles. And this is why we need to understand the Gospels from a Jewish perspective (Daniel Lancaster - Band of Survivors, 21:34ff) 

{FFOZ is leading  a conscious ‘reassessment’ of the Gospel, replacing it with what they claim to be the original version.}

Outside of the Jewish context really, when you strip it back, doesn’t really make a lot of sense. It comes out convoluted. It comes out sideways like this which is—and it comes out in a way that really repels people rather than drawing them near to the kingdom and nearer to God. It’s rather than a message about God‘s love for Israel and his love for all of humanity. Even though that’s what we say it comes out—it sounds—when you really read between the lines of what we’re saying it sounds an awful lot like a message about God’s hatred for Israel and for human beings in general. And so, we’ve got something wrong here. (Daniel Lancaster- Band of Survivors, 21:34ff) 

{In Daniel Lancaster's opinion, the traditional Gospel is the message of God’s hatred for Israel and humanity.  This statement is beyond bold, it is deeply heretical, but also honest in that it reveals that FFOZ has no use for the Gospel of our ancestors in the faith.}

And when we clear the debris and uncover the truth, I don’t think it’s gonna take a lot of effort to sell the Good News, because it really is good news. But it does take a lot of effort to clear away the obstacles that are obscuring it. (Daniel Lancaster - Band of Survivors, 24:21ff) 

{The Gospel, as it is, is unacceptable to them.}

Sometimes you have to believe people when they repeatedly tell you who they are and what they're trying to do.  First Fruits of Zion, under the leadership of Michael Boaz and Daniel Lancaster, have gone much further in their denouncements of the Gospel and the Church when talking to the insiders at the Malchut Conference than they do in the published Torah Clubs materials.  Given that they're trying to win converts from those already attending church, it is wise (and deceptive) of them to hide their true disdain for, and rejection of, the traditional Gospel message.  In these direct quotations it comes through loud and clear.  This is why the Franklin Christian Ministerium unanimously decided to move forward with opposing this false teaching.  We may have differences on any number of other theological issues, but none of us are seeking to teach people a different Gospel than the one handed down to us.  That is what is at the heart of the mission and purpose of FFOZ, and it has no place in the Church.

** An important reminder: Our contention is not with Jews, Judaism, or Messianic Judaism.  FFOZ is a gentile led organization targeting gentiles, they are not associated with the Jewish people, the religion of Judaism, or the movement within Christianity known as Messianic Judaism. **

Rethinking the Five Solae - by Jacob Fronczak, First Fruits of Zion's failed attempt to label Protestantism as inherently anti-Semitic

 

Before I begin, an important reminder: The First Fruits of Zion (and the larger Hebrew Roots Movement) is NOT a part of Messianic Judaism, the book discussed below claims to speak on behalf of that perspective, but the author and the organization he represents do NOT belong to it {"FFOZ does not represent the messianic Jewish movement", a quotation from an email I received from a Messianic Jewish Rabbi serving in leadership with the International Alliance of Messianic Congregations and Synagogues (IAMCS) He also wrote, "Messianic Jewish leaders universally reject One Law theology. FFOZ is not a messianic Jewish organization or ministry."}

One of the primary defenses of those leading and participating in Torah Clubs here in Venango County has been, "it's just a Bible study."  As pastors, when attempting to do our duty before God of protecting the flock from dangerous theologies and attempts to divide our congregations and Christian community, it is important that we don't use hyperbole by claiming that bad ideas are heretical ones, or that things that we don't personally agree with are actually affronts to God.  That sort of foolishness happens all too often, and people are rightly wary when a religious leader warns those in his/her charge to completely avoid an idea, organization, or movement.  If you're familiar with my blog, you know how often I've warned against the all too common habit in America today of labeling those on the other side of an issue as evil or claiming their ideas would destroy the nation or church.  With that perspective in mind, and the, "Why are you calling a Bible study unorthodox?" question in firm view, continue reading.

When it comes to the First Fruits of Zion (Torah Clubs), the evidence continues to mount that the warning from the Franklin Christian Ministerium was both warranted and on target {The Franklin Christian Miniserium's warning against the Torah Clubs and the First Fruits of Zion}.  After learning about this book (I just came across it yesterday), the case has only grown that much stronger.

Should Christians really participate in a Bible study designed and created by an organization that believes that each of the churches that you belong to are founded on inherently anti-Semitic beliefs?  If FFOZ doesn't actually believe such a loaded charge, and few accusations could be as damning if they were proved to be true, why would they publish a book built upon that premise?

The following quotations and commentary from Jacob Fronczak's book are pulled from the review of it by Rich Robinson as published in the journal Mishkan in 2021, you can read the full review here: Book Review of Fronczak, Why Messianic Judaism is Incompatible with the Five Foundations of Protestantism - by Rich Robinson {The quotations from Fronczak's book will appear in italics, the commentary from Robinson in bold, and my comments on both in ordinary text following them.}

In the preface to Rethinking the Five Solae, author Jacob Fronczak proffers the thesis that the five solae (or as more often anglicized, solas) of the Reformation are “themselves the root of Protestant anti-Semitism” (p. 2) and that “as they are normally understood, are designed to exclude Jews as much as Catholics from any definition of true and biblical religion” (ibid). These are serious charges, and so the book’s aim is “to re-examine the Five Solae from a Messianic Jewish perspective” (p. 3). Fronczak is himself non-Jewish, though moving in Messianic Jewish circles.

My comment: Is that not a serious charge!  That the very foundations of Protestant thought are the cause of Protestant anti-Semitism!  Let me be clear, the Church as a whole, Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant alike, has a horrific and evil history of anti-Semitism, I will not minimize nor excuse an ounce of it, and have on numerous occasions called out and denounced its modern manifestations.  Each and every cause of Christian anti-Semitism should be examined and reckoned with.  But to say that the theology of the five solas are themselves the cause of the sinful anti-Semitism in Protestant history is to label the entire movement's premise as evil.  Again, hard to say that the Torah Clubs (FFOZ) are just organizing and leading Bible studies meant to enhance the Church, when this is what they are willing to publish about Protestantism.

For those who need a refresher on the Five Solas (or Solae), here they are: sola scriptura (according to Scripture alone), sola fide (by faith alone), sola gratia (by grace alone), solus Christus (by Christ alone), and soli Deo Gloria (to the glory of God alone).

So, what powerful evidence of inherent anti-Semitism does Fronczak follow-up his explosive claim with?

Unfortunately, what the author really ends up addressing is misunderstandings, or misuses, of the solas rather than the way they are understood and utilized by responsible interpreters.

My comment: If all you have are examples of the ideas of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and the rest being twisted and used in ways they themselves would have rejected, it becomes rather ludicrous to say that their ideas are the problem.

"I aim to show here that when a proponent of sola scriptura studies the Bible, he is relying on something other than the inspired Word of God, whether he realizes it or not. Furthermore, I seek to show that those who malign the investigation and examination of traditional Jewish literature to illuminate the text of the Scripture are themselves ignorant of their own reliance on tradition and the usefulness of extra-biblical literature." (p. 8) In these examples I find the author to be tilting at windmills. Who denies that we should look to extra-biblical sources (Jewish, Greco-Roman, ancient Near Eastern) to arrive at an understanding of Scripture? Sola scriptura teaches that the Scripture is the final, not the only, authority.  And who are these people who “malign” using Jewish sources? They are not scholars, and I’m not sure that I know of any pastors or lay people who would argue that way.

My comment: Tilting at windmills (nice literary reference there), indeed.  It is a rare Protestant who thinks that a high view of the authority of Scripture negates the role of scholarship, archeology, history, and a host of other disciplines that help the Church fully understand what God was trying to say to his people when the Word was given to its original audience, and how that truth can in turn be applied in our world.  Each an every week I lead two Bible studies where we go verse by verse through the Word of God.  Those who have attended (and you can listen to the audio of them here: Bible Study Podcasts) will tell you that we spend an awful lot of time talking about historical context, cultural settings, textual and translational issues, and more, all in the pursuit of that very Protestant belief in sola scriptura.  Like Rich Robinson, I am at a loss as to who Fronczak is thinking of when he claims that Protestants don't utilize or malign extra-biblical Jewish sources as potential insights into the text of Scripture.

Furthermore, Fronczak repeatedly insists that because the solas distinguished Protestantism from Catholicism, they were designed to draw circles and exclude others. Defining boundaries, however, is a part of life. If you are some things, then you are also not other things. This is just a statement of fact. It has precious little to do with denigrating Judaism or Catholicism or anything else.

My comment: From 1517 onward, it was pretty important to offer explanations of why Lutheranism differed with Catholicism, why the Reformed differed from Lutheranism and Catholicism, and for fun, why the Anabaptists disagreed with them all.  Can you differentiate your belief system and or group from similar ones with malice?  Absolutely, but that isn't inherent in the process, to claim that the five solae do this toward both Catholics and Jews could equally be said (and equally foolishly) of every effort that any movement in Church history has made to define itself.

In his conclusion, the author writes that, “In considering the Five Solae from a Messianic Jewish perspective, we have at times questioned their usefulness—at least as they seem to be understood by today’s evangelical Protestants” (p. 131). This however, is a far cry from showing that they are at the root of anti-Semitism (they aren’t) and far from showing that as properly understood, as opposed to popularly (mis)understood, they are not useful (they are).

My comment: Again, Fronczak uses a 'we' there that doesn't belong.  He is himself a non-Jew, the organization he represents, and the movement that it belongs to, have been categorically rejected by the largest Messianic Jewish organizations.  That they think they have become Jews, spiritually or otherwise, by following this theological path, is part of the reason why the Franklin Christian Ministerium has chosen to oppose them.

Robinson's review concludes that Fronczak has failed, entirely, to demonstrate at all his explosive premise.  

"It is contradictory to claim to live a Jewish life in Messiah and at the same time deprecate Jewish tradition (sola scriptura), minimize the importance of good works (sola fide), claim that traditional Judaism is legalistic (sola gratia), distance oneself from organizational Messianic Judaism (solus Christus), and refrain from giving honor to those who have gone before one, those on whose shoulders we all stand (soli Deo gloria)." (p. 134) This is simply put, a raw caricature of what the solas stand for.

My comment: To destroy a strawman is not that difficult, but it doesn't help anyone, and it proves nothing.  It is hardly worth explaining why each of Fronczak's charges against each sola is nonsense, it should be obvious to anyone who has studied Protestant theology.  In brief only, then: (1) Sola scriptura puts tradition in a secondary place, it does not depreciate it or ignore it. (2) Sola fide is a summation of the NT's emphasis on faith, neither Paul nor any other NT author diminishes the need for confirming good works to follow it (see for example: Ephesians 2:8-10, where vs. 8-9 declare the supremacy of faith and grace, AND vs. 10 proclaims that God has good works set aside for each of us to do). (3) The theology of sola gratia does not call the Law of Moses legalistic in the way that Fronczak is using the word, but would indeed take issues with the same abuses of 2nd Temple Judaism that Jesus repeatedly crushed the Pharisees for upholding. (4) Solus Christus in no way is aimed at organizational Messianic Judaism, how could it be?  For those who believe that Jesus is the Messiah, Christ alone makes all the sense in the world. (5) Lastly, Soli Deo Gloria directs all worship and honor to God, as it should be, it doesn't dishonor our ancestors in the faith.  The author of Hebrews was more than capable of lauding the heroes of the faith who had gone before him without taking an ounce of God's ultimate glory, displayed in even the triumphs of those men and women, away from God.

When you set out to prove that the heart of Protestantism is inherently anti-Semitic, but only end up trashing Straw Men that we don't even believe, why would an organization publish and promote such a baseless attack?  

In denigrating the five solas, he both fails to understand them and fails to allow Protestants to speak for themselves as to their meaning...I simply fail to grasp his rationale for choosing the solas as his whipping boy.

For the record, I am a Messianic Jew; I’ve been part of both messianic congregations and mainstream churches. I have studied at a Reformed seminary, I learned my basic New Testament as a young believer from a Catholic priest, and I have had many conversations at Hillel in college and over the years during my studies of Judaism and Jewish literature. I have no Protestant grist in my mill to grind about the solas. 

My comment: Why do I see danger signs blaring loudly when I read material published by the First Fruits of Zion (Torah Clubs)?  If you we a pastor, and learned about a 'Bible study group' from an organization that believes these things about the Church, wouldn't you be?  

Beware of the Political Church: John MacArthur declares, "any real true believer" can only vote one way.

This trend has been a long time coming within American Evangelicalism, and we have seen similar claims before, but Pastor John MacArthur, one of Evangelicalism's most noteworthy leaders, has declared that in 2020, in order to be a "real true believer" you can only vote for one political party. {John MacArthur interview, quote at 5:44 mark} {John MacArthur says 'true believers' will vote for Trump, can't affirm abortion and trans activism - by Michael Gryboski, the Christian Post}

The question, as John MacArthur is framing it is not, "Which candidate/party more closely adheres to Biblical principles and Christian ethics?"  But rather, "Are you a real Christian or not?"  These are monumentally different questions revealing a significant difference in Christian Worldview.  The first is a position of Grace that realizes that in this world we have no perfect choices, that every vote taken by a committed Christian is an act of compromise, for no candidate, and no party, can truly represent the leadership ideal embodied by Jesus, nor the fullness of his command to us, John 15:12 (NIV) "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you."  In other words, a position influence by Grace and Christian Liberty will recognize the anguish felt by many Christians, both now and in generations past, when choosing between two imperfect choices, and would even recognize the possibility that a Christian might, in obedience to his/her own conscience and with principled understanding, choose to vote on the basis of other moral issues than the three or four MacArthur considers to be primary, might vote for a third party candidate, or even to NOT vote at all.  The second position reflects a binary (only two choices) position of Law: "either you're with us or against us."  There is no room here for discussion, debate, or nuance.  The choices are light and dark, good and evil, only a fake Christian (still then, presumably NOT redeemed and still headed toward Hell) could think otherwise.
This is not the first such binary choice that John MacArthur has embraced recently.  Following the controversial reopening of Grace Community Church for in-person worship {links to my two responses below}, Pastor MacArthur declared that churches that obeyed government mandates were not real churches, their leaders not real shepherds. {Excerpt from 1st sermon after reopening: “There has never been a time when the world didn’t need the message of the true church,” he said. “I have to say, ‘true church.’ I hate to think of that, but there’s so many false forms of the church. Let them shut down.” Evangelical pastor John MacArthur suggests churches that remain closed during COVID-19 are not “true” churches}.  A pattern of adding to the list of things that differentiate, in John MacArthur's opinion, true Christians/churches/pastors from false one is growing.
1. How any Christian votes is NOT a test of faith.
I know that John MacArthur takes Martin Luther's Five Solae seriously, in this case Sola Fide and Sola Gratia, so why is he (inadvertently?) adding to the Reformation's declaration the need for 'real true' Christians to vote the way he believes they must?  Instead of judging John MacArthur's intentions, let me simply observe that it has becoming increasing evident that he believes that the Church is on the precipice of a cliff, that America is lurching toward oblivion, and that these increased stakes have seemingly resulted in increasingly politically partisan stances. 
Here's the thing, even if everything John MacArthur believes about the Democrat Party is true, even if the Republican Party are the saviors of America, even if there is only one morally acceptable way for Christians who respect the authority of the Bible to vote, that would still fall far, far, far short of being a way to determine who is a genuine Christian and who isn't.  One of John MacArthur's regular emphases is (rightly) the sufficiency of Scripture {Sola Scriptura}, but where in Holy Scripture does it tell us that we can judge the sheep and the goats by how they vote?  Matthew 25:31-16 contains a dire warning from Jesus that God will separate the true believers from the frauds on the basis of acts of charity toward those in need, for these actions (or lack thereof) will be sufficient to demonstrate who is living by faith and who is not.  What Jesus doesn't mention, nor does any other NT writer, is a civic test of faith.  The reason for this is pretty straightforward:
2. Our citizenship is in Heaven.
One of the inconsistencies of John MacArthur's very public, and very partisan insistence upon opening up his church's 3,000 seat sanctuary without any social distancing and without masks {John MacArthur fails to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary risk, plus End Times anti-government speculation} {John MacArthur jumps the shark with COVID-19 response} is his very clear repudiation of the idea that Church and State have overlapping jurisdictions.  He even went so far as to write, "the church does not in any sense rule the state."  And yet, at the exact same time that he is fighting the state of California in court, and doing interview after interview in support of that fight, John MacArthur is also declaring that every "real true believer" in America is required to vote for one particular political party.  You can't have it both ways, either there is separation of Church and State or there isn't.  You cannot posit simultaneously time that Christians must be allowed by the government to do their own thing, without any restrictions, and that Christians should be intimately involved in the way in which government is run.  How can we be on the outside, and in charge, too?
In the end, whoever wins in November will have ZERO impact upon whether or not you, me, or John MacArthur is welcomed into heaven with the phrase, "Well done, good and faithful servant!" (Matthew 25:23). 
Why can't our civic responsibilities be the basis of judging our faith?  Philippians 3:20 (NIV) But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ.  That I was born an American has nothing to do with my standing before Almighty God.  It doesn't help me or hurt me in any way.  That 95% of the world's population was not given this blessing at birth, has nothing to do with their standing before Almighty God.  Each and every genuine follower of Jesus Christ has a superseding citizenship, has been adopted into a heavenly family.  The Word of God has chosen to define its own tests of faith, to tell us how we can judge ourselves, and how we can evaluate others.  We have no right to add to that list.

A Vatican approved journal denounces the Prosperity Gospel, and rightly so.

The portions below in italics are from the article by Antonio Spadaro, SJ - Marcelo Figueroa, published on July 18th, 2018 in the Vatican approved journal: La Civilta Cattolica  To read the full article, click on the following link: The Prosperity Gospel: Dangerous and Different   

To view my previous blog post related to the Prosperity Gospel, or both of the sermons from Malachi that relate to this topic, click on the following link: What I've written/said previously about the Prosperity Gospel.

As the Prosperity Gospel grows in its influence and numbers, it become more and more necessary for those who preach the Gospel as given to us by the Word of God to refute this man-centered perversion that replaces our call to be servants with a promise of material blessings.

The “prosperity gospel” is a well-known theological current emerging from the neo-Pentecostal evangelical movements. At its heart is the belief that God wants his followers to have a prosperous life, that is, to be rich, healthy and happy. This type of Christianity places the well-being of the believer at the center of prayer, and turns God the Creator into someone who makes the thoughts and desires of believers come true.

The lifeblood of everything positive and valid that has come out of Martin Luther's call for Reformation has been the reliance upon the "five solas" {Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone"), Sola fide ("by faith alone"), Sola gratia ("by grace alone"), Solus Christus or Solo Christo ("Christ alone" or "through Christ alone"), Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")}  The rise of the Prosperity Gospel challenges, if not outright rejects, four of them when it takes scripture out of its original context and historic meaning in order to give it a individualistic/materialistic spin, devalues faith and grace by making people responsible for their own well being, and downplays the glory that belongs to God by moving the focus of the Gospel from God's amazing love and grace to our own wants.

What is absolutely clear is that the economic, media and political power of these groups – which we generically call “evangelicals of the American Dream” – makes them more visible than the other evangelical churches, even those of the classical Pentecostal variety. In addition, their growth is exponential and directly proportional to the economic, physical and spiritual benefits they promise their followers: all these blessings are far removed from the life of conversion usually taught by the traditional evangelical movements.

The Scripture passages that have been warped by advocates of the Prosperity Gospel are too numerous to briefly interact with, but common threads involve viewing the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant as belonging to the Church, downplaying the cost of discipleship and emphasizing the blessings for those who follow Christ, particularly the material ones here and now.

The pillars of the prosperity gospel, as we have mentioned, are essentially two: economic well-being and health. This accentuation is the fruit of a literalist exegesis of some biblical texts that are taken within a reductionist hermeneutic. The Holy Spirit is limited to a power placed at the service of individual well-being. Jesus Christ has abandoned his role as Lord and transformed into being a debtor to each one of his words. The Father is reduced to being “a sort of cosmic bellhop that responds to the needs and desires of his creatures.”

"Name it and claim it", what a warped reality.  Where is it written in the Scriptures that God is intent upon fulfilling our will?  Are we not called to serve the kingdom of God?  Are we not called to sacrifice of ourselves for others?

A refrain that many of these pastors use is “There is a miracle in your mouth.” The miraculous process is the following: visualize in detail what you want, declare it expressly with your mouth, claim it with the faith and authority of God and consider it already received. Effectively, “claiming” the promises of God, which have been extracted from the biblical texts or the prophetic word of the pastor, places the believer in a dominant position with respect to a God who is imprisoned by his own word, as perceived and believed by the faithful.

When you turn prosperity into a test of faith, you automatically devalue morality (who cares what sins you commit, if you're rich God must be blessing you) and mortally wound compassion.  What will the affect upon the Church be of such a movement?  Disaster, pure and simple.  Without a servant's heart, the Church is doomed, without compassion for others, the Church is doomed.  The Gospel cannot survive without them.

There can be no compassion for those who are not prosperous, for clearly they have not followed the rules and thus live in failure and are not loved by God.

Generally, the fact that there are riches and material benefits fall once again on the exclusive responsibility of the believer, and consequently so too their poverty or lack of goods. Material victory places the believer in a position of pride due to the power of their “faith.” On the contrary, poverty hits them with a blow that is unbearable for two reasons: first, the person thinks their faith is unable to move the providential hands of God; second, their miserable situation is a divine imposition, a relentless punishment to be accepted in submission.

The quote in the final paragraph from the article is from Pope Francis.  Whether you like him or not, whether you agree with him or not, whether you consider the Catholic Church to be a partner or a rival regarding the Gospel, those who adhere to the tenants of the Reformation ought to be encouraged to have an ally denouncing "justification by their own efforts" on the part of those who preach and follow the Prosperity Gospel.  The Gospel is not about me, its about God.  The Church doesn't exist to serve me, it exists to guide people to God (by grace through faith) and increase the worship of God by those he created.  When man is at the center, the Gospel fails.

As he wrote in his apostolic exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate, there are Christians who are committed to following the path of “justification by their own efforts, the worship of the human will and their own abilities. The result is a self-centered and elitist complacency, bereft of true love. This finds expression in a variety of apparently unconnected ways of thinking and acting,” among them “an excessive concern with programs of self-help and personal fulfillment” (No. 57).

Our Christmas Gift from God

Christmas is the time that we give gifts to others, our children in particular, more than any other time of the year.  At Christmas many of us give gifts to people beyond our family, and devote more to charity as well.  This enthusiasm for giving gits is appropriate at Christmas, for it was at the original advent that our Heavenly Father gave to humanity the beginning of a gift that would surpass all others, even our gifts of life.  That gift was the redemption of our souls, and the renewal of our relationship with Almighty God, given to humanity by grace through faith in the person of the child born of the Virgin Mary, the God-Man Jesus Christ.

Having recently passed the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation, it is also appropriate for us to remember that God's gift was given to humanity: Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone"), Sola fide ("by faith alone"), Sola gratia ("by grace alone"), Solus Christus or Solo Christo ("Christ alone" or "through Christ alone"), and Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")  What God gave to us, beginning at Bethlehem and culminating at Calvary and the Empty Tomb, is a truly free gift.  It can be no other, for it was a work solely of the trinity, with God the Father planning/directing it, the Holy Spirit assisting in it, and Jesus carrying it out in the flesh.

A gift is not a gift if you pay for it, nor is it a gift if you earn it.  Our salvation in Jesus Christ, is and always will be, a gift from God.  As Paul explains in Ephesians 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, though faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast."

This Christmas, as you give and receive gifts, remember to thank God not only for the material blessings which we have received, but primarily for the far more important spiritual redemption which has been offered to all who put their faith in Jesus Christ.  The gift of God is available to all, may the Spirit of God call those who have not yet received it to accept this one of a kind gift, and may those who have already received it always remain grateful for the bountiful love of God.

What is your authority? A historical parallel to the Protestant - Catholic/Orthodox divide

I love the way teaching my two Bible studies each week sometimes causes new ideas or connections to pop into my head in the middle of trying to explain a particular text of Scripture.  That phenomenon happened today allowing me to see for the first time what I think is a useful analogy for understanding the divide between Protestants and Catholic/Orthodox Christians over the issue of authority.

In the first century, Jesus confronted two of the groups of religious leaders within Judaism who had radically different approaches to the way in which they defined authority: The Sadducees and the Pharisees.  The Sadducees believed in the authority of the written text of Scripture alone (minus any oral tradition) and preferred to focus upon the Pentateuch (the five books of Moses) within the Tanakh (the 24 books of the Hebrew Scriptures).  The Pharisees, by contrast, accepted the authority of the Tanakh and also that of the Talmud and Midrash (the many generations worth of rabbinic commentary upon, and interpretation of, the Tanakh).

Is the parallel obvious yet?  Protestantism was founded upon the principle of Sola Scriptura (along with Sola Fide and Sola Gratia, "Faith alone" and "Grace alone"), that is the idea that Christian theology must rest solely upon the Scriptures themselves.  The Catholic and Orthodox traditions accept the authority of Scripture, but in conjunction with the teachings developed over time by the Church (through the various councils, synods, etc.)

Is it any wonder that Protestants and Catholics/Orthodox Christians have a hard time finding agreement upon a host of issues?  If the authority to which we must appeal is not the same, how can the answers derived from it be consistent?

That we have a different viewpoint of authority is no new observation, Martin Luther himself realized five hundred years ago that he was rejecting the authority of the Church in favor of that of Scripture alone.  I'm sure somebody has previously noticed the parallel between the Sadducees/Protestants and Pharisees/Catholic/Orthodox in the realm of authority, but the connection was new to my brain today, so I thought I'd share it.

Just as a reminder, Jesus had plenty of criticism for both the Sadducees and the Pharisees, something to keep in mind when we're tempted to climb up onto a high horse.  Both groups appealed to a different authority, and both were wrong in their conclusions/attitudes, both were in need of reform to reclaim the heart which God requires of his people.