Stone Choir and the LXX

Status
Not open for further replies.
This Michael Spangler?

View attachment 12077

Free Church Continuing? "...their Christianity is counterfeit." See here.

Guys who believe Hitler is in heaven: "Most of us do love Corey Mahler, but most don’t agree with him on everything. We’re not all Lutherans, nor do we all believe that Hitler is in heaven. But we will not join the crowd of his denouncers..."

Straining at gnats (I don't even grant that much) and then swallowing camels.

Mark and avoid.
 
Free Church Continuing? "...their Christianity is counterfeit." See here.

I don't know what to call that piece of typing. Perhaps "rubbish." Accusations without substance. The things for which the FCC is denounced are things for which I am thankful. This is not "left-wing social doctrine,” but confessional Presbyterianism. There is no persecution of conservative Christians. True conservatives are at home there.

The Free Church is accused of "libertarianism." The 1843 Disruption was not a rejection of the establishment principle but a protest against state interference in spiritual matters. It affirms the Westminster Confession’s teaching on the duties of the civil magistrate. It does, however, recognise that modern states function with greater freedom than the past. Hence the statement against persecuting principles.

The claim that the FCS helped Scotland take a step towards secularism is simply bad history, especially after the author has recognised the Disruption. Secularism was on the rise since the Enlightenment. In separating from the State the FCS separated from a secular institution and secured the spiritual principles of the Reformation.

The opposition of the FCS to slavery is not a “left-wing” stance, though it is part of an historic view of liberty which is grounded in biblical ethics, not modern egalitarianism.

I cannot comment on the anecdotal cases of men allegedly being persecuted for “right-wing” views. But I will support a church that opposes all forms of racial superiority because Scripture teaches the unity of the human race in Adam and in Christ. The church looks forward to the restoration of the Jews in Christ and must condemn anti-Semitism. The FCC is to be commended for prioritising biblical values over culture wars.
 
Just going back to the original question, because sometimes you hear a version from Eastern Orthodox folk, so it's worth engaging with:

The right response is "What do you mean by LXX?" Because there is a ton of textual diversity in the Greek tradition. Whether you grab a copy of Rahlf's Septuagint or have a bookshelf with the Göttingen edition on it, the text is an eclectic reconstruction aiming at the earliest Greek translation. But that's not what Greek-speaking Christians were actually using for centuries. They were using a hodgepodge of different recensions and editions. Lucian's recension, as well as the versions by Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus are the most famous. But some scholars believe that the New Testament, as well as Greek texts discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls, give evidence that there were yet earlier recensions. This would explain the textual diversity of New Testament citations by positing that the apostles often had multiple Greek readings available to them. They do not always quote the same thing that we reconstruct textually as the earliest Greek translation.

Ironically, if there is a theme for these editions and recensions, they all tend to correct the text towards the Masoretic Text (MT). We reconstruct a rise to dominance for the MT from around 50 BC to the time of Jesus' birth (Dead Sea Scrolls written from this period conform closely to MT). Some influential group seems to be promoting it as the *correct* text type with a great degree of success. Still, neither Josephus nor Paul seems to be totally committed to the MT.

A helpful source here is Lange, "They Confirmed the Reading" (y. Ta 'an. 4.68a): The Textual Standardization of Jewish Scriptures in the Second Temple Period" in Lange et al., From Qumran to Aleppo.
 
The claim that the FCS helped Scotland take a step towards secularism is simply bad history, especially after the author has recognised the Disruption. Secularism was on the rise since the Enlightenment. In separating from the State the FCS separated from a secular institution and secured the spiritual principles of the Reformation.
The author is a poor historical scholar. I'm not convinced he even does any historical research for these things (see his history article in his "race realism" series) but just goes off the things he thinks he knows without any checking or critical thought. He seemed surprised to read about Samuel Miller's views against slavery and racial inferiority just last month when someone posted them and just said something like "sad to see he was an egalitarian compromiser."
 
Thread temporarily closed to prevent cascading floods of reported posts.

Thread reopened; there should be no further promotion of wickedness.


To the admins: I'm late to the game and because my Greek never did get very good, I wouldn't have jumped into almost any discussion of the LXX.

I will compliment those in charge of the Puritan Board for quickly shutting the door on advocacy of anti-Semitic men and racists who have been formally excommunicated by conservative churches.

I've been dismayed by the number of conservative Reformed people who are tolerating anti-Semitism and "race realism." Good for those in charge here for shutting that down right away.

It's so far a small movement, and mostly online. But it's doing real damage in the real world and I'm having to explain to non-Reformed people that no, that is NOT what Reformed people believe.

Citing Cromwell's fight to allow Jewish people to live openly as Jews in the Puritan Commonwealth, and the widely known Dutch Reformed reputation for providing a place of refuge for persecuted Jewish people in the Netherlands, usually proves that anti-Semitism has no root in conservative Calvinism. The simple fact is that the most conservative Reformed people in the 1600s were helping Jewish people. The Russian Orthodox have a history of pogroms, the Lutherans were known for Luther's horrific writings against the Jewish people, and the Catholics were (often but not always) known for the role of the Inquisition in dealing with Jews. On that latter point, important exceptions exist; the Catholic attitude toward Jewish people different significantly from region to region.

While other denominational traditions have significant problems in their past, antisemitism is not part of our history as Reformed people -- not at all. The most conservative and most confessional of the Reformed churches have historically been the ones most willing to come to the defense of Jewish people, and the exceptions usually happened in places where Reformed churches were in theological decline.

While there are many reasons for that, I've said for decades that one of the biggest is that a high view of the Old Testament, and applying it to family and church and cultural life, will produce a church that places a high value on work ethics, family structure and stability, frugality and thrift, and covenantal faithfulness through the generations. Also, an emphasis on literacy to be able to read the Scriptures will transfer into other areas of life. A church that focuses mostly on claiming Christ without emphasizing the need for Christianity to transform the family, the church, and the culture may take a different attitude toward Jewish people than a church which emphasizes a multigenerational covenant and the need to apply faith to ALL of life.

There might be reasons why many of the ethnic stereotypes of Dutch people and Jewish people are quite similar -- and the same could be said, in an earlier era, about Scotsmen and about Puritan New England.

Read the Old Testament, apply it, and you'll get results. Focus on a one-time "decision for Christ" in an altar call, teaching "once saved, always saved" with no emphasis on discipleship and sanctification, and you'll also get results of that focus on a human decision -- but they're not good ones.

I'll go a step further -- Reformed people too often are embarrassed about our views on the Second Commandment. I've had discussions with observant Jewish people who assume all Christians are image-worshippers, and when I show them Reformed teachings on the Second Commandment, they are sometimes amazed. "We didn't think any Christians actually took G-d's warnings about images seriously!" Well... maybe there are reasons why Reformed people have a long history of trying to proclaim the Messiah to the Jewish people?

Obviously, we need to proclaim Christ as Messiah to Jewish people. Salvation through Christ alone is non-negotiable. But if broadly evangelical churches claim Christ without applying the Scriptures to the lives of the members and their families, they don't give Jewish people good reason to consider the Messiah. Being consistently Reformed is a much better witness.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top