Who We Are
Blog (reguarly updated)
Podcast (link) (new)
Bookstore (link) (new)
Bugg's Closing Statement
First, let me say that it has been a real pleasure to have this debate with Myles. He is an extraordinary young man who is to be commended for his faith and dedication to the Lord, and I’m proud to know him and to play some small part in his growth as a Christian.
In his closing statement, Myles attempts to close his case on the following points:
“Is it not true that the Jews rebelled agents God by not
accepting Jesus there for God added the Gentiles to salvation through the New
Myles attempts to claim that Deu. 6:4ff, which commands
us to love God with our whole being is for Israel only! Some Christians claim
that faith that does not produce any works can save them (cf. Jas.
2:14ff)—apparently Myles is arguing that he doesn’t even need to love God.
Well, certainly that is the end result of ripping Acts 15 out of context, but by
now it is obvious that Myles doesn’t actually believe that. He is simply
grasping at straws.
3) Back to metathesis again. Myles confuses translation with interpretation: It is possible to translate a text correctly from one language to another and still misinterpret it. In this case, the translation is not in doubt: meta- signifies a movement, while thesis means “position.” Hence, the Torah “changed positions”—it was not abolished or replaced. In what sense did the Torah change positions? In the same sense that the high priesthood did: It was moved to the true Tabernacle in Heaven, where Yeshua officiates and intercedes every hour of every day. Therefore, we can still keep the Feasts of the Lord, because Yeshua has seen to the requisite sacrifices in His own flesh and officiates in the Temple that the earthly structures were only the type of.
In answer to Myles’ question re: Col. 2:16f, no, I do not
pass judgment. I have never condemned a Christian on the basis of whether he
keeps the Feasts, kosher, ritual purity, etc. I do invite Christians to
join us at the Feast table, because I believe that the Church has passed up a
great blessing by casting such things aside, but I have never judged a person’s
salvation, spiritual walk, or worthiness to have fellowship with on the basis of
these disputed areas of Scripture.
In regards to Gal. 5:3, Paul clearly states that Jews—the
circumcised—were obligated to keep “the whole Law.” Obviously, this means that
there cannot be a “new law” or that keeping the Torah is opposed to Grace, or
else one must conclude that there are either two laws or else that Jews
are still “under the law” while Gentiles are not. Neither position is Biblical,
since these would imply two ways of salvation.
And in regards to Gal. 3:28, what is there to explain?
There is no more Jew or Gentile in the same manner that there is no more male or
female—the distinctions in roles and responsibilities and culture remain, but
all are nevertheless saved as one Body in Messiah.
In the end, as one looks back on this debate, one simple question must be asked: Did Myles pose any question or argument that was not adequately answered? If not, then it follows that Myles has not been able to substantiate his resolution, and has lost the debate.
Thank you to everyone who has been following this debate. Both Myles and I apologize that it occasionally ran into repetitiveness, but we hope that all of our brothers and sisters in the Messiah found it to be both edifying and loving.
to help Restore the Hebrew Root?
All donations are Tax deductible