Calvinism's Achilles Heel

In a brief discussion I had with James White, we discussed how people come from a state of being in sin to a state of being saved.

Classical Christian doctrine states that all people have sinned against God, and therefore are bound to spend eternity in hell. Jesus then provided grace so that some people might repent of their sins, confess that Jesus is Lord, and receive forgiveness for their sins as well as salvation.

One of the distinctive doctrines of the Calvinist TULIP is Irresistible Grace. This is the doctrine that God acts first in the process of salvation. He gives his grace to certain people, and those people are irresistibly compelled to repent and believe, and as a result, receive salvation. Here is the doctrine as described by the Reformed web site Theopedia:

Irresistible Grace (or efficacious grace) is a doctrine in Christian theology particularly associated with Calvinism which teaches that the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (the elect), whereby in God's timing, he overcomes their resistance to the call of the gospel and irresistibly brings them to a saving faith in Christ.

Those who obtain the new birth do so, not because they wanted to obtain it, but because of the sovereign discriminating grace of God. That is, men are overcome by grace, not finally because their consciences were more tender or their faith more tenacious than that of other men. Rather, the willingness and ability to do God's will are evidence of God's own faithfulness to save men from the power and the penalty of sin, and since man is so corrupt that he will not decide and cannot be wooed to follow after God, sovereign efficacious grace is required to convert him. This is done by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit whereby a fallen man who has heard the gospel is made willing and necessarily turns to Christ in God-given faith.

The problem with this doctrine is that humans are considered responsible for their decision whether to believe or not. This is still considered a free act. Calvinists will respond by holding to the doctrine of compatibilism, which is the belief that an act can be causally determined and still free.

The traditional problem with compatibilism is that it is vulnerable to manipulation arguments. No compatibilist has been able to come up with a definition of a free act that can distinguish between a free choice and a compelled choice. Behavior that is manipulated by a psychiatrist with the right combination of drugs is generally not considered free behavior.

The problem is worse with Calvinism. On the Calvinist view, not only is behavior both free and determined, but it is also manipulated by God. God's irresistible grace compels cooperation, and yet any choices it produces are still considered free human choices.

Here is the kicker: If God can compel a human choice and it is still considered free, what if another human compels the choice of another human? Is it considered free? Suppose that Jill, a psychiatrist, puts a kleptomania drug into Jack's cup of lemonade. Suppose that this is done without Jack's consent. Suppose also, that Jack is compelled by an irresistible urge to steal someone's car, attempts to do so and is caught. Was Jack's attempt to steal the car a free choice, and is Jack responsible for it? It would seem not, and any court that could prove Jill's actions would absolve Jack of his behavior and hold Jill accountable for Jack's attempt to steal the car.

Suppose that God has elected Jack unto salvation from before the beginning of the world. Suppose that this was done without Jack's prior permission or consent. Suppose that God then irresistibly compels Jack to repent and believe, and Jack is compelled by an irresistible urge to repent and believe. He does so and receives salvation. Was Jack's choice a free choice? It seems not.

And so compatibilism is simply not an option for any Christian.

Why Calvinism Cannot Solve the Problem of Evil

The problem of evil is a long standing problem in philosophy of religion. If God is perfectly powerful and good, how is it that evil can exist in this world? Since Calvinist theology affirms what is called theistic determinism (that God not only allows evil to exist, but causes evil to exist), the Calvinist is committed not only to the existence of evil, but also to God being the direct cause of it. Hence, a Calvinist cannot argue that the existence of free will removes any guarantee that an omnipotent God will be able to prevent creatures from disobeying. According to Calvinism, God actively determines everything, including acts such as child molestation.

 The Calvinist will then try to defend this by resorting to a defense called instrumentalism.

Instrumentalism: The denial of evil's ultimate character as evil, and the assertion that it is an instrument of good.

James White, a Calvinist, argues that there is no libertarian free will for humans. That is to say that there are no choices made my humans that are not already determined by God. Hence, when challenged on issues of human wickedness, he said that evil needs to exist in this world in order to maximize God's glory and so that we can have an appreciation for the good.

The question then becomes: Do the benefits of these actions outweigh the costs? If not, then the problem remains as to why a perfect God would ordain them. If they do, then instrumentalism collapses into what is called illusionism.

Illusionism: The denial of evil's existence.

Here is how instrumentalism is reducible to illusionism.

Evil, if it is defined in any meaningful sense, is a violation of a moral ought. If someone ought to tell the truth about why he is late to an event, but instead lies about it, then he is saying something other that he ought to be saying. There is a difference between what he is doing and what he ought to do, and therefore the act is evil.

Instrumentalism states that evil is really an instrument for realizing the ultimate good. For example, one needs to see evil in order to appreciate the good. If this is the case, then evil (what ought not to be) is necessary for achieving the good (what ought to be).

This is the same as saying that the instruments for achieving the ultimate good ought not to be.

This is the same as saying that the good ought not to be.

Unless we deny the reality of good itself, then evil, as an instrument for the good, must be good itself. But this is to say that evil is good, and therefore evil is illusory. This is the same as denying the existence of evil.

What about the Calvinist who bites the bullet and states that there is no such thing as evil, so defined?

That is to go out of the frying pan and into the fire. First, we seem to have this belief that evil (what ought not to be) exists. If we have this belief, and it is not true, then that belief is mistaken, and ought not to be. Furthermore, if no evil exists, then why is this explanation offered in the first place? If there is not evil, then no explanation is required. If it does not exist, then it is not illusory, for even the illusion of evil is itself evil.

The problem is that the illusion of evil is just as problematic as the existence of evil itself. Evil then possesses at least an illusory reality, just as the mirage on the road is real as a mirage. And just as the mirage is not explained by calling it a mirage, neither is evil explained by calling itself an illusion.

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 20

    It shall come to pass in the latter days
        that the mountain of the house of the LORD
    shall be established as the highest of the mountains,
        and shall be lifted up above the hills;
    and all the nations shall flow to it,
        and many peoples shall come, and say:
    “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
        to the house of the God of Jacob,
    that he may teach us his ways
        and that we may walk in his paths.”
    For out of Zion shall go the law,
        and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
(Isaiah 2:2-3 ESV)

    “Give attention to me, my people,
        and give ear to me, my nation;
    for a law will go out from me,
        and I will set my justice for a light to the peoples.
(Isaiah 51:4 ESV)

These two sections are used by Christians to argue that the New Testament law will replace the laws of Moses. I myself am not convinced by these prooftexts. Unbelieving Jews will then use their own prooftexts to argue that a new covenant will not arrive, and that the law of Moses will be enforced forever. This is also not true, as the video of J. Immanuel Schochet showed in my last post.

Troki also argues that King Messiah will come and bring peace, judgment, and the like upon the world. While I do not disagree with the prooftexts that eventually, the nations will beat their swords into plowshares. I disagree with the idea that this has to happen immediately when Messiah arrives. There is no independent warrant for that. Troki continues to read his own assumptions into the Bible, and continues to wonder why we keep disagreeing.

Troki also argues that the word "torah" does not always mean law, but means instruction in the book of Proverbs. Troki concludes that no second law will arise. However, Jesus did not come to bring a second law. In fact, the idea of a different kind of Torah existing in the world to come is thoroughly consistent with Rabbinical Judaism.


I think the problem with Troki is that he thinks that Messiah can only be a nationalistic figure. The problem here is that the word "Messiah" is rarely used to describe King Messiah, and so the question as to whether something is a Messianic text is itself highly speculative.

My opinion is that the covenant between God and national Israel is a permanent covenant. There is no biblical reason to think otherwise. However, there is no guarantee that the nation itself is guaranteed to be preserved permanently. This was the purpose of Isaiah's calling, to let the people know that the death which happened to the Northern Kingdom would also happen to Judah, if that kingdom did not repent. That did not work completely, and in the year 70, the rest of national Israel was annihilated as well.

This is not to say that the church is the New Israel. It is Israel in a metaphorical sense, not a literal one. Paul mentioned in the book of Romans that the methods God wants to use to bring his law to the Gentile nations is God's sovereign choice. That, and not individual salvation, is the purpose of Romans 9.

I, and many others, hope that one day Jesus will bring about the resurrection of the nation of Ancient Israel. It has not been accomplished yet. Modern Israel is not a theocracy, and therefore cannot be the same nation as Ancient Israel. Hence, Modern Israel is not the nation of the covenant, but perhaps a precursor to it.

Dr. Michael Brown Debates Tovia Singer

This is probably the best of the audio debates between a believer in Jesus and an anti-missionary. Tovia Singer debates quite well at the popular level. He is well-prepared for engaging objections by laypeople. As this debate shows, he is not quite as skilled at debating real scholars. One of my goals in the next few years is to get anti-missionaries into debate against high-level Christian scholars in order to show that the anti-missionary arguments, which look so great on the surface, are actually quite weak.

Ger Does Not Mean Convert

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1616&t=ESV
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1481&t=ESV

In Rabbinical Judaism, the term "ger"(גָּר) is generally used to designate a convert to Judaism. This is why those who want to convert to Orthodox Judaism. However, a simple word study of how the term was used in the Hebrew Bible shows that the word means no such thing. It is a derivative of "gur" (גּוּר) which means to sojourn. It is a term to designate foreigners who live in the land. It is never used for conversion. Here is a list of references where the word clearly does not mean convert. Even the Artscroll translation does not use the term "convert" or "proselyte" in these verses. I have highlighted in bold all instances of "ger" in these verses.

    Then the LORD said to Abram, “Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years.
(Genesis 15:13 ESV)

    “I am a sojourner and foreigner among you; give me property among you for a burying place, that I may bury my dead out of my sight.”
(Genesis 23:4 ESV)

    She gave birth to a son, and he called his name Gershom, for he said, “I have been a sojourner in a foreign land.”   
(Exodus 2:22 ESV)

    “You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.
(Exodus 22:21 ESV)

    “You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.
(Exodus 23:9 ESV)

    These were the cities designated for all the people of Israel and for the stranger sojourning among them, that anyone who killed a person without intent could flee there, so that he might not die by the hand of the avenger of blood, till he stood before the congregation.
(Joshua 20:9 ESV)

    (the sojourner has not lodged in the street;
        I have opened my doors to the traveler),
(Job 31:32 ESV)

    “Hear my prayer, O LORD,
        and give ear to my cry;
        hold not your peace at my tears!
    For I am a sojourner with you,
        a guest, like all my fathers.
(Psalm 39:12 ESV, verse 13 in the Artscroll)

    They kill the widow and the sojourner,
        and murder the fatherless;
(Psalm 94:6 ESV)

    I am a sojourner on the earth;
        hide not your commandments from me!
(Psalm 119:19 ESV)

    The LORD watches over the sojourners;
        he upholds the widow and the fatherless,
        but the way of the wicked he brings to ruin.
(Psalm 146:9 ESV)

    O you hope of Israel,
        its savior in time of trouble,
    why should you be like a stranger in the land,
        like a traveler who turns aside to tarry for a night?
(Jeremiah 14:8 ESV)

    For any one of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn in Israel, who separates himself from me, taking his idols into his heart and putting the stumbling block of his iniquity before his face, and yet comes to a prophet to consult me through him, I the LORD will answer him myself.
(Ezekiel 14:7 ESV)

    You shall allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the sojourners who reside among you and have had children among you. They shall be to you as native-born children of Israel. With you they shall be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. In whatever tribe the sojourner resides, there you shall assign him his inheritance, declares the Lord GOD.
(Ezekiel 47:22-23 ESV)

    “Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the LORD of hosts.
(Malachi 3:5 ESV)

Furthermore, there are many verses where the term "ger" is contrasted with a native of the land. It makes more sense to translate the term "stranger" and not "convert" even though Artscroll insists on using "convert."

    For seven days no leaven is to be found in your houses. If anyone eats what is leavened, that person will be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is a sojourner or a native of the land.
(Exodus 12:19 ESV)

    There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.”
(Exodus 12:49 ESV)

    but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates.
(Exodus 20:10 ESV)

    “Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your servant woman, and the alien, may be refreshed.
(Exodus 23:12 ESV)

    “And it shall be a statute to you forever that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict yourselves and shall do no work, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you.   
(Leviticus 16:29 ESV)

    “And you shall say to them, Any one of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice and does not bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to offer it to the LORD, that man shall be cut off from his people.
(Leviticus 17:8-9 ESV)

Why is this important? Ezekiel has already established that sojourners get an inheritance of the land. They are not converts, and they are not of Israelite blood. Furthermore, the Israelites were "gerim" in the land of Egypt. I hope this does not mean that they were converts. Abraham was a "ger"and the word "Gershon" means not convert but stranger.

There will be one law for both the born Israelite and for the stranger. This stranger does not need to convert in order to be bound by the law. Strangers who live in Israel are as bound by the Sabbath laws as anyone else. They must observe the festivals, and can offer sacrifices.

The system of the rabbis denies this. They believe that even in Israel a non-Jew has to convert to be bound by the law. This is why there is such a thing as a "Shabbos Goy" a non-Jew who can do forbidden activities on the Sabbath and on holidays. The Bible provides no such support for such a system.

This simply provides further evidence that Rabbinical Judaism is not the system of Moses, but is an unbiblical, man-made system that violates the Law of Moses and dishonors God.

Immortality Entails Presentism

One of the issues in contemporary metaphysics is whether temporal becoming is an objective feature of reality. J.M.E. McTaggart identified two competing theories of time, the dynamic theory, which he calls the A-theory, and the static theory, which he calls the B-theory. On the A-theory, the "now" or present is an objective feature of reality. On the B-theory, time is more like space. Just as there is no objective "here," on the B-theory, there is no objective "now." All time travel literature assumes a B-theory of time. On the A-theory, there is nowhere to go.

Secondly, any attempt to mix the A and B theories of time will result in paradox. If I imagine time as a growing block or a train moving along the tracks, then we can pick a point on the tracks and say "is this point past, present, or future?" Before the train arrives, it is future. When the train is there, it is present. When the train has left, it is past. But wait, this is supposed to be a single point in time. So it cannot be present, and then past. This shows that theories like the train on the tracks or growing block really contain two time dimensions, and then the problem reappears in a different form for each time dimension. So time is either like the tracks, in which case there is no objective present or temporal becoming, or it is like the train, in which case only the present exists. The latter view is also known as presentism. No other options are viable.

Christianity teaches a doctrine of immortality. Daniel 12:2 states that "Those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awaken; some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting contempt." Matthew 25:46 states: "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." Psalm 23 ends will "I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever." Hebrews 7:21 states that Jesus holds his priesthood forever because he continues forever. Revelation 14:11 states that the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they will have no rest day or night.

Dr. Craig has helped to develop the argument against the existence of an actual infinity.. Mathematics has two ideas of infinity, a potential infinity and an actual infinity. A potential infinity is represented by the lazy eight. It is used to express the idea that something is finite, but increasing without limit. An actual infinity is represented by the letter Aleph in mathematics, and it is used to represent an infinity that has been fully and completely actualized. If an actual infinity could exist in real life, it would violate the laws of set theory, and hence the laws of mathematics. Inverse operations such as subtraction and division are prohibited in mathematics. Yet, if I had an actual infinite number of things, I could do impossible operations, like dividing the thing in half. This is why David Hilbert said the actual infinity is purely an idea that cannot be imported into the real world.

Let's put these three insights together. If immortality and the B-theory of time are true, then the timeline is fully actualized and infinitely long. This means that the number of minutes is an actual infinity. Furthermore, if there are objects existing in this realm, then there would be an actualized infinity regarding them, too. Since an actualized infinite is impossible in the real world, then the B-theory cannot be true. This leaves us with one of two options: either deny the doctrine of immortality, or accept presentism as the appropriate theory of time.

Necessary Synthetic Truths

A few years ago, I posted an article called The Ontological Argument for the Triune God. Basically, I stated that:

1. If it is possible (metaphysically) that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great beings exists.

2. It is possible (metaphysically) that a maximally great being exists.

Conclusion: A maximally great being exists.

One of the objectors argued that possibility and necessity only applies to the definitions of words rather than to the properties of objects. The definitions of words are what we call analytic truths. The fact that a bachelor is an umarried male is an analytic truth. Once you know what a bachelor is, you realize that "bachelor" is simply defined as an umarried male.

Another kind of truth is a synthetic truth. Synthetic truths deal with the way reality is configured. The fact that I have a keyboard in front of me is a synthetic truth.

The question then becomes: are there necessary synthetic truths? Let me resort to the tactic of the rabbis by answering a question with a question.

Could reality have been configured differently than it is configured? Or to put it another ways: could the state of affairs be different than it it?

If the answer is no, then all synthetic truths are necessary truths.

If the answer is yes, then:

Necessarily, reality could not have been configured differently.

Synthetic truths deal with the way reality is configured, and therefore either answer is a necessary synthetic truth.

The Impossibility of Regeneration before Jesus

Christian exegetes will often take passages such as Romans 8, which states that those who live according to the flesh set their minds on things according to the flesh, and cannot submit to God's law, nor can it seek after God. I propose that whatever this passage means, it does not mean that the unregenerate cannot submit to God's law, or please God, or seek after God. In fact, the unregenerate have done all of these things, and the proof is in our Bible.

The key to this puzzle is the issue of backward causation, meaning the ability to cause right now something to have happened in the past. Time travel would be one kind of backward causation. The problem with all forms of time travel and backward causation is that they are vulnerable to the bilking paradoxes proposed by Max Black and Antony Flew. An example of a bilking paradox is this.

Let's say I have a light switch that can turn the lights on and off, but when I flick the switch the signal turns the lights on or off 5 minutes in the past. We know that the lights have been on for at least 5 minutes, and have not been turned off. What if I were to flick this light switch. It would create a contradictory state of affairs. The lights, for the past five minutes, would be both on and off. or if I had a gun that killed someone 5 minutes in the past. If I point it at myself and fire, it would kill me, but then I would not be alive to pull the trigger.

No one has ever come up with a refutation of these arguments. Philosophers have argued that one might be able to affect things in the past, so long as they do not create paradoxes, but there has never been any justification of that. What is so special about this backward killing gun that it would work when I pointed it at others, but not if I pointed it at myself? Or what if there were a poison that could kill the victim 5 minutes in the past?

To say that backward causation is possible but the paradoxes are impossible is to say that such a poison could exist but that nobody could take that poison. If I asked for a reason as to why someone could not take that poison, it will not do to say: "because it will create a paradox." We agree on that. It will also not do to say that some contingent cause will swoop in and stop me. For example, I am about to take the poison and it slips from my hand and crashes on the floor. The reason is that the poison slipping from my hand does not explain the impossibility of me taking the poison.

The whole process of me obtaining the poison, putting it in a vial, drinking it, swallowing it, it sending a lethal cause 5 minutes into the past, and my body receiving the signal, and me dying is a chain of causation. We need to know which point in the chain is impossible in order to explain why the chain is impossible. If we deny that backward causation is impossible, then we have an explanation that gets rid of all bilking paradoxes. Otherwise, we we are left with unresolved contradictions.

Therefore if backward causation is possible, then these bilking paradoxes would be possible. But they are not possible, so backward causation is not possible, even for an omnipotent being. God cannot perform backward causation any more than he can create a square circle.

Secondly, the doctrine of regeneration is the doctrine of how we are saved. Titus 3:5-6 states "he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior." 2 Corinthians 5:17 states "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come." As Jesus said in John 3:6-7 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.  Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again." There would be little to no purpose to the cross of Christ if we could receive regeneration without it.

Given those two points that the cross is necessary for regeneration, and that the cross of Christ is essential to regeneration, it follows that before the cross of Christ, nobody was regenerate.

Yet, over and over again, the Old Testament states that there were righteous people who sought after God. David was a man after God's own heart. Joseph trusted in the Lord during his captivity and never lost hope. Abel pleased God with his sacrifice. The Holy Spirit even dwelt in people in Old Testament times. Othniel had the indwelling, as did Gideon, and Saul, and David, and many, many others. Hebrews 11 gives a long list of Old Testament saints who through faith became noble, righteous, and powerful servants of God.

And all of them acted without regeneration.

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 19

In Chapter 19, Isaac Troki accuses Christians of violating the Mosaic law, believing that it is now null and void, having been superseded by Jesus. Troki quotes Matthew 5:17-20 which states:

    “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
(Matthew 5:17-20 ESV)

The apostles of Jesus were circumcised, including Timothy. The Sabbath was observed on Saturday until one of the Popes instituted it on the first day of the week about 500 years after Jesus.

God gave Moses a double portion of Manna on Friday in order to show that God himself sanctified the Sabbath. As a result, says Troki, the Sabbath cannot ever be abrogated. Paul did not believe that the Law was totally dead. Did not Paul order the death of one who marries his father's wife?

    It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
(1 Corinthians 5:1-2 ESV)

Christians seem to have abandoned the foundation of the law. Jesus seems to have abrogated omse laws and enacted others, such as the prohibition of divorce.Malachi 4 states:

    “Remember the law of my servant Moses, the statutes and rules that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel. 
(Malachi 4:4 ESV)

While Jesus kept the Sabbath, he kept it in a way differently than did the Pharisees. Jesus allowed his disciples to pluck heads of grain on the Sabbath. He also healed people of non-life-threatening illnesses, such as a withered hand on the Sabbath as well. This was in violation of Rabbinical prohibitions.

Daniel Boyarin thinks differently. In his book The Jewish Gospels he makes the case that Jesus was not trying to reform the Pharisaic law, but that the Pharisees were the innovators who were trying to alter the Mosaic laws. He believes that the Pharisaic movement was one that came from the Babylonian exile. During that period, the Pharisees developed the traditions of the Elders, which is a systems to which they were trying to convert Israelite Jews. The justification for these reforms is that God passed down an oral tradition, and would have been offensive to Jews who had lived in the land during the period of the exile. Jesus' Judaism was a conservative reaction against that.

The followers of Jesus did observe the Saturday sabbath, but they also observed the Lord's Day on Sunday as well. Since the Sabbath is meant for Israel and her children only.

    You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever. It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.’”
(Exodus 31:14-17 ESV)

The Sabbath was meant for Israelites only. The Lord's Day was meant for followers of Jesus. Jewish followers of Jesus observed both. Gentiles need not observe the Saturday Sabbath.

    On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight.
(Acts 20:7 ESV)

If God could end his covenant with national Israel for any reason, he can do it with the church as well. There can be no biblical case that the church is the new Israel or new Jerusalem.

Ignatius recognized that Gentile Christians observe the Lord's Day and not the Sabbath.  "No longer keeping the Sabbath, but living according to the Lord's Day, in which too our life sprang up by Him and His death."

The reason that Christian Jews need not follow the Rabbinical Law is that this law is an apostate and twisted interpretation of Moses. Secondly, the law of faith, if kept, prevents one from being subject to the curses of God.

An example of Rabbinical perversion is the practice of Prosbul undermines the very intent of Deuteronomy 15. It violates the plain sense of Scripture and is simply a man-made invention to get out of the freedom that comes at the seventh year.

    “At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release. And this is the manner of the release: every creditor shall release what he has lent to his neighbor. He shall not exact it of his neighbor, his brother, because the LORD's release has been proclaimed. Of a foreigner you may exact it, but whatever of yours is with your brother your hand shall release.
(Deuteronomy 15:1-3 ESV)

    Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
(Romans 3:27-31 ESV)

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 18

In Chapter 18, Troki responds to a Christian objection that the Mosaic code does not address life after death, but delivers earthly rewards and punishments. Troki notes that humanity is not material, but composed of matter and spirit. He also argues that the bodies of the righteous will be free of disease, indicating life after death. He quotes Leviticus 18:5, 26:11-12, Genesis 17:7-8, and Genesis 28:21.

     You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the LORD.
(Leviticus 18:5 ESV)

     I will make my dwelling among you, and my soul shall not abhor you. And I will walk among you and will be your God, and you shall be my people.
(Leviticus 26:11-12 ESV)

    And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.”
(Genesis 17:7-8 ESV)

     so that I come again to my father's house in peace, then the LORD shall be my God,
(Genesis 28:21 ESV)

The excision of the soul to which Troki refers may refer to spiritual death under Karaite tradition. I will admit that I do not know Karaism well enough to say one way or the other. The Rabbis have a technical term for this excision of the soul called karet. Rabbinical Jewish law explains karet as premature death (Sifra, Emor, 14:4).  There are traditions that include post-mortem punishment as part of karet, but this is controversial, even within Rabbinical Judaism.

Troki also argues that Christians believe that the threat that God gave to Adam "you will surely die" meant spiritual death. Troki takes issue with this, as do I. The same term is used in 1 Kings 2.

    Then the king sent and summoned Shimei and said to him, “Build yourself a house in Jerusalem and dwell there, and do not go out from there to any place whatever. For on the day you go out and cross the brook Kidron, know for certain that you shall die. Your blood shall be on your own head.”
(1 Kings 2:36-37 ESV)

Shimei did not die that day. As Nachmanides writes, that term is generally used to indicate when someone will incur the death penalty, not when they will actually die.

Paul affirms this in Romans and 1 Corinthians.

Just as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin, death. So death spread to all men, because of which all sinned.
(Romans 5:12, my translation)

Some may think this is spiritual death, but it ignores Paul's use of the term in his earlier letter to the Corinthians.

    But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
(1 Corinthians 15:20-22 ESV)

Here, the context is resurrection of the body, which parallels the death of the body. Spiritual death and spiritual life are not part of the context of 1 Corinthians 15.

Troki also argues that the law will be in force forever. Immanuel Schochet  takes issue with this:
Also, when I was with the Orthodox, one Modern Orthodox Rabbi with a Harvard PhD in Jewish history complained quite a bit about this "reward in the hereafter" business.  Artscroll Judaism heavily emphasizes life after death as authentically Jewish. Generally, the Modern Orthodox, and especially the followers of Maimonedes, heavily de-emphasize or eliminate this aspect. Following the mitzvot is supposed to give reward and punishment in this life. To emphasize reward and punishment in the afterlife is to Christianize Judaism.

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 17

Some Christians have said that the curses in Leviticus 26:42 relate to the first temple. The curses in Deuteronomy 28 refer to the second temple, and claim that Israel is to have no restoration from exile.

Troki argues first that this is false, a claim with which I agree. He also argues that the inferiority of the second temple can be judged by teh lack of the ark, mercy seat, cherubim, urim and thummim, and the glory of God.

He also argues that the evil consequences of the original captivity still exist to this day. Israel had never been fully released from its original captivity.

I am not even sure exactly how to respond. I believe that Israel is to have restoration from exile. To this day, the secular state of Israel shows that God is ready to fulfill his prophecies. The people of Israel need only believe in Jesus for the Messianic age to become fully manifest.

Troki is mistaken about the second temple being inferior.

    The latter glory of this house shall be greater than the former, says the LORD of hosts. And in this place I will give peace, declares the LORD of hosts.’”
(Haggai 2:9 ESV)

The Talmud confirms this in Bava Batra 3a. The second temple was supposed to be greater. This is difficult for the rabbis to explain, but easy for Christians to explain. The second temple was greater because Jesus himself stood in it. God visited the temple in person.

Troki's objection that Numbers 24, Obadiah 21, Ezekiel 25:14, and Joel 3:19 refer to the destruction of Christianity and Islam. Edom may have meant Rome in Rabbinical literature, but it is anachronistic to push this definition into the Bible. There is no literal mention of either group in these passages, as they are declarations of destruction for those who disobey God. However, this is hardly an argument against Christianity, since it assumes the falsehood of these religions in order to establish their falsehood. This is circular reasoning, and Troki should have known as much.

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 16

    “‘Cursed be anyone who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’
(Deuteronomy 27:26 ESV)

Troki himself admits that it is literally impossible to fulfill all commandments. He denies that Jews are cursed for failing to practice these commandments, however. Troki argues that King David violated the covenant with the judicial murder or Uriah the Hittite, yet was not cursed. He then gives two more verses in support of his position.

    “Thus says the LORD: If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night will not come at their appointed time, then also my covenant with David my servant may be broken, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and my covenant with the Levitical priests my ministers.
(Jeremiah 33:20-21 ESV)

    For I will defend this city to save it, for my own sake and for the sake of my servant David.”
(Isaiah 37:35 ESV)

Instead, Troki argues that it is the people who refuse to believe in the will of God that are cursed. It does not curse people who merely neglect to fulfill every single commandment. Troki believes that the commandments exist in order to increase our claim of divine reward and to shape the human soul for heavenly bliss.

Troki argues that Moses wanted to enter the Holy Land in order to fulfill the commandments and obtain merit in the sight of God. The curses of Deuteronomy 27 are for secret sins, not for public sins, which are dealt with by human tribunal.

The issue here is that some of the sins in Deuteronomy 27 are secret, and some open. Misleading a blind man down the road, for example, cannot be done in secret. it is an open offense. Paul's interpretation of this passage.

    For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”
(Galatians 3:10 ESV)

Paul adds "all" because Deuteronomy 6:25 and 28:1 imply it.

    And it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to do all this commandment before the LORD our God, as he has commanded us.’
(Deuteronomy 6:25 ESV)

    “And if you faithfully obey the voice of the LORD your God, being careful to do all his commandments that I command you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth.
(Deuteronomy 28:1 ESV)

The Rabbis have an opposite idea of the Law, seeing it as an opportunity to win merit points with God, rather than as a source for cursing. Paul sees things differently.

    I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.
(Romans 7:9 ESV)

Paul's interpretation also has support from the Psalms.

    If you, O LORD, should mark iniquities,
        O Lord, who could stand?
(Psalm 130:3 ESV)

    Enter not into judgment with your servant,
        for no one living is righteous before you.
(Psalm 143:2 ESV)

But also, Paul's interpretation best fits the context of the passage. The entire passage lists a whole bunch of sins, one by one, and pronounces a curse after each one. The last one wraps up the whole passage, and concludes that one who fails any one of these commandments, or any commandment, is under a curse.

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 15

"You shall not eat any abomination."
(Deuteronomy 14:3)

Troki uses this verse to attack Matthew 15:11 "It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person."

Troki argues that Christians must consider themselves unholy and unclean for eating of non-kosher foods. If the founders of Christianity wanted to abolish all food laws, why did they prohibit Gentile Christians from eating meat from strangled animals, and from foods like blood sausage. Adam incurred the wrath of God for eating forbidden food once. How much more do Christians defile themselves by eating of forbidden food over and over again. Zechariah 9:7 speaks of the age of Messiah, where even Gentiles will avoid non-kosher foods.

    I will take away its blood from its mouth,
        and its abominations from between its teeth;
    it too shall be a remnant for our God;
        it shall be like a clan in Judah,
        and Ekron shall be like the Jebusites.
(Zechariah 9:7 ESV)

First, the Seventh-Day Adventists do follow basically the same dietary restrictions as the Karaites. This argument, therefore, cannot apply to them.

Not all Jewish authorities agree with Troki's arguments as well. Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 146:7 states "The LORD looses the prisoners or the forbidden. What is this? Some say that every beast which was made unclean in this world the LORD, blessed be He, makes clean in the world to come."
Midrash Kohelet on Ecclesiastes 11:8 states :"The Law which man learns in this world is vanity compared with the Law of Messiah."

Hence, Rabbinical Judaism does allow for the law to change in different eras. This is similar to the Christian notion of dispensationalism. When Messiah comes, the laws will be either changed or reinterpreted.

Rabbi J. Immanuel Schochet even agrees with this:


 The objection only works if Jesus is not Messiah. But since that's the case, this verse cannot be uses to establish that Jesus is not Messiah, for that would be circular reasoning.

 Secondly, most Christians are Gentiles, and are therefore not bound by the Laws of Moses in any case. Troki objects to Jesus and his statement of food not defiling a man. I will get to that objection later. Probably the best response is from Daniel Boyarin. In ancient Judaism, clean does not equal kosher. The difference between permitted vs prohibited food is kosher vs. treif. Jesus was not talking about that. He wast talking about ritually clean vs. ritually unclean, or tahor vs. tamei. Jesus declared all foods tahor, overriding rabbinical, but not biblical, prohibitions.

Zechariah 9:7 states not that Gentiles will keep kosher, but that they will cease from observing pagan festivals.

The issue with the injunction against eating blood in Acts 15 does not imply that Gentile Christians are bound by the Mosaic Law. This injunction is more like a rabbinical restriction, where the apostles lay out these rules to keep the peace in the early church.

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 14

    The scepter shall not depart from Judah,
        nor the ruler's staff from between his feet,
    until tribute comes to him;
        and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.
(Genesis 49:10 ESV)

Troki argues against the idea that this is a reference to Jesus. He says that this verse, if it did apply to Jesus, would be impossible to reconcile with the fact that Judah lost its kingship with the second exile, and Herod was of low blood.

In his interpretation, Troki argues that the verse gives Judah supremacy over the other tribes through David and to Zedekiah. There were princes during the second temple period through Zerubbabel. Even during the time of Saul, Judah still had the scepter, since it was David who conducted Israel to battle. The scepter indicates that Judah will always have a place among the leadership, not necessarily that there will always be a king of Judah on the throne.

Instead, the lawgivers will not depart until Shiloh comes. Shiloh indicates the youngest child, the Messiah. The verse, according to Troki, does not mean that the scepter will depart after the coming of Messiah, but instead that the scepter will never depart from Judah.

Indeed, the following verse (49:11) is considered a messianic passage in Berachot 57a of the Talmud. Also, Targum Onkelos translates Shiloh as Messiah, as does Pseudo-Jonathan, as does the translation in Sanhedrin 98b.

But this is not a problem for the Christian worldview. It is a problem for unbelieving Jews. Any sovereignty that Judah had was obliterated by the year 135, when Jews were finally kicked out of the land. While there were kings over Judah in the late second temple period, and Judeans were in power during that time, Israel lost the right to capital punishment in the year 6, when it became a province of Rome. At that point, there was no sovereign state of Israel, and there were no Judeans in charge.

Israel then lost the Temple during the year 70, and was scattered after the failed Bar Kochba revolt of 135. After that point, there definitely were no kings and the scepter was nowhere to be found. The nation was decimated and scattered into communities, none of which had sovereignty, and therefore there was no Judean ruler. The year 135 is our cutoff point for the coming of Messiah. If Messiah did not come by then, your faith is in vain.

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 13

And in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you [Abraham] have obeyed my voice.
(Genesis 22:18)

Troki believes that this cannot refer to Jesus, since Troki takes the term "seed" as a collective term which cannot apply to any individual. Troki gives numerous prooftexts for this, including Genesis 28:14, 18:18, and 12:3. God raised the patriarchs to spiritual bliss for their obedience, and will do so to the children of Israel as well. I completely agree did appoint the reward of bliss to the children of Israel for following the commands of God. That is the whole point of Deuteronomy 28.

Troki says "Christians generally argue in favor of their religion from detached portions of the prophecies, without going deeply into the sacred subject and studying the context." This is one of my many points of agreement with Troki. Modern Christianity often engages in bad prooftexting, plucking verses out of context and stringing them together. An example is arguments for the pre-tribulation rapture. Proponents will do a word search for phrases like "day of the Lord" and simply assume that all verses that include the term speak of the same event. This is far from obvious.

Troki then goes on to commit the exact same error for which he chastizes [sic] modern Christians. 

It is true that the plain literal meaning of the verse is that it refers to Abraham's offspring generally. Rabbinical Judaism, Reform Judaism, and Karaite Judaism have failed to make any significant impact on the non-Jewish world. While the Jewish people themselves have done a great deal of good for the world, these religious denominations have done next to nothing to spread the knowledge of God to the Gentiles.

Instead, it has been Christian Jews, and later, Gentile Christians who have systematically spread the knowledge of the God of Israel to the whole world.

Troki indirectly attacks Paul's interpretation of the promise in Galatians 3:16. "Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say, 'And to seeds,' referring to many, but referring to one, 'And to your seed,' who is Christ."
  
Jews who give this objection forget that Rabbinical interpretations of the Scriptures take greater creative liberties than this. Sanhedrin 37a where Tana Kama states that the term "bloods" in Genesis 4:10 has a special and different meaning and therefore refers to the blood of Cain's descendants. Did the rabbis not know that the term "bloods" is used all the time to indicate blood shed by violence?

Or what about Ketubot 37a? In this passage, the rabbis make the same kind of argument that Paul makes in Galatians. They make an inference from the fact that the term "wickedness" is used in Deuteronomy 25:2, rather than "wickednesses" even though "wickedness" does not have a plural in ancient Hebrew.
http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/7564.htm

Or how about the Mishnah Sabbath 9.3 which states:

"How do we know of a garden bed, six handbreadths square that five different kinds of seed may be sown into it, four on the sides and one in the middle?
Since it says 'For as the earth brings forth her bud and as the garden causes seeds sown in it to spring forth.' Its seed is not said, but seeds."

Paul's homiletic use of the term "seed" is no different than that of the rabbis, who had a literal interpretation of the verses, but also recognized that verses could be interpreted homiletically to make additional points.

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 12

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”
(Genesis 3:15, ESV)

Troki argues that this "protoevangelion" is not a type of Jesus crushing the head of Satan, since how can Satan bruise the heel of Jesus if Satan's head has already been crushed? Satan seems to play a role in the entire New Testament, even up to Revelation.

This objection is pretty easy to refute.

    Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,
(Revelation 20:1-2 ESV)

    And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
(Revelation 20:7-10 ESV)

It is here that Satan is completely destroyed. As for the death and resurrection of Jesus, that is the time where Jesus first crushed the head of the Serpent, yet no Christian tradition states that the crushing of Satan's head meant that Satan would die. Satan bruies the heel of Jesus due to the crucifixion, but Jesus triumphed over Satan through his resurrection, bringing hope of forgiveness and eternal life to all of humanity.

To say that Genesis 3:15 is a prophecy that people will hate snakes is to misunderstand the social context of the book of Genesis. In ancient religions, particularly in the near east, there was not an effort to explain human relations to animals. Instead, the animals in those stories represented spiritual forces. These were not like, nor were they related to, the "just-so" stories of other mythological traditions.

A second interpretation is that humanity and sin would be at war with one another. with this interpretation, though, one can include Jesus as the focus of the prophecy. Indeed, he is the one who ultimately pays the price for our sins and defeats sin. Jesus, as our representative, will plant his foot on the head of sin, and crush it.

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 11

Genesis 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

Troki notes the standard Christian prooftexing of this verse. Christian authorities argue that Adam's sin damned Adam to eternity in hell, and also damned all of Adam's descendants. Troki responds that in this verse, God only meant that Adam would die physically. However, Adam did not die physically on that day. Troki brings up 1 Kings 2:37 "For on the day you go out and cross the brook Kidron, know for certain that you shall die. Your blood shall be on your own head." Shimei was not punished with death on that exact day. Hence, Genesis 2:17 means that Adam would only be subject to death, not that he would be damned. Death, therefore, refers to the state of the body, not of the soul.

Troki also objects to the idea that Jesus, through his own death, saved the souls of others from damnation in hell. Troki quotes Leviticus 18:5 "You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the Lord." He then argues that this verse shows that by keeping God's commandments, people can earn everlasting life. Troki then quotes Luke 16:19 to argue that the beggar Lazarus was at Abraham's side after his death. Lazarus was not in hell.

Troki says that the commandments are a tree of life for those who take hold of it, implying that life means salvation. On the other hand, Sheol often means grave and not damnation.

 Troki's assertion that the people who died before Jesus must have gone to hell is refuted by Romans 3.

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
(Romans 3:23-26 ESV)

God had withheld judgment from his followers during the times before Jesus. Their faith was counted to them as righteousness, and their faith in the God of Israel and in the sacrifices was counted to them as faith in Jesus. This withholding of judgment does not apply to Jews today, who, unlike their ancestors, explicitly reject Jesus.

 Troki also forgets that an act which is a sin for those who commit it can also be a glorious act of self-sacrifice and redemption for the sufferer. Otherwise, there would be no merit attached to the suffering of the Jews, or the suffering of the Rebbes. The sin of executing Jesus cannot remove the nobility of his death.

 The claim that the Torah is a tree of life is from Proverbs. The full context is as follows.

    Blessed is the one who finds wisdom,
        and the one who gets understanding,
    for the gain from her is better than gain from silver
        and her profit better than gold.
    She is more precious than jewels,
        and nothing you desire can compare with her.
    Long life is in her right hand;
        in her left hand are riches and honor.
    Her ways are ways of pleasantness,
        and all her paths are peace.
    She is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her;
        those who hold her fast are called blessed.
(Proverbs 3:13-18 ESV)

It is more than a stretch to think that the Torah is God's means of salvation from this passage. It addresses wisdom, giving a poetic account of the benefits of this personified wisdom.

Troki needs to make up his mind as to whether "life" means spiritual life or not. If so, then one can make a case that Adam's sin brought spiritual death. If not, then the appeal to Leviticus 18:5 is fallacious. I agree that the traditional Christian doctrine of original sin is unbiblical and false. We do not inherit Adam's guilt, nor do we inherit a sin nature. Instead, we all sin, and are damned for it. 

God is so perfect that he can have no sin in his presence. One sin, and you are damned. The sin has to be removed somehow, and it is through the offer of Jesus to take our place that we can repent and believe. As King David said:

     Enter not into judgment with your servant,
        for no one living is righteous before you.
(Psalm 143:2 ESV)

And Paul responds in his letter to the Romans.

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
(Romans 10:9-13 ESV)