Over the years, I’ve had countless conversations with Christians who have become curious about the Torah-observant (or “Hebrew Roots”) movement. In most cases, that curiosity begins innocently, even admirably, with a sincere desire to understand the Jewish context of Scripture and to take the Bible seriously. At times, however, that interest is carried too far and gives way to something far more complicated and spiritually dangerous. Torahism is the umbrella term for the unbiblical belief that new covenant Christians are required to keep the old covenant rituals and that not doing so is sinful and disobedient.1
It is often at this point—when a curious believer has crossed that threshold—that our ministry is contacted. A family member, friend, or often a pastor, notices a change in someone they love: they’ve become contentious, critical of the modern church, and have begun challenging Christians on why they aren’t keeping the feasts or the diet commanded in the Torah. Confused and frustrated, they reach out to us for help for their loved one. Having walked this road with many families, I know firsthand how vexing this moment can be. They just want to understand what’s happened and, more importantly, how they should lovingly and wisely respond.
One hard lesson I’ve learned over the years is that no single verse or argument will snap someone out of this mindset. That doesn’t mean we stop speaking truth, but it does mean we need to adjust our expectations. These aren’t merely theological or intellectual issues; I am convinced there are deeper emotional and spiritual factors at play. For that reason, determining when and how to engage someone caught up in this belief system requires prayer, patience, and discernment.
My expertise lies in theology, not the social sciences; however, through years of walking alongside individuals and families affected by this movement, I’ve noticed a fairly consistent pattern that I believe can help us respond with both grace and truth. I’ve come to frame it as a five-stage progression, which I summarize with the acronym TORAH.2 Understanding where someone may fall within this progression can help us discern how best to engage them. Let’s briefly walk through each of these five stages.
1. Treasure
It begins with a believer discovering hidden treasure in the New Testament (NT)—namely, the Jewish roots of Christianity. Imagine someone carefully excavating an ancient site and uncovering the edge of something valuable beneath the soil. This is the excitement a Christian feels as they become aware of and are fascinated by the Jewish context of the Christian faith. As they continue “clearing away the dirt,” they discover the many Old Testament (OT) quotations, allusions, and assumptions woven throughout the NT, and begin to see Jesus and the apostles in their original historical and theological setting. This stage is not only harmless; it’s highly encouraged. The better we understand our OT—including the Torah—the better we will understand Jesus and His glorious gospel, and the critical role it plays in God’s grand story of redemption that began all the way back in the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:15).
2. Ownership
As fascination deepens, the believer begins to take greater ownership of their study. What started as curiosity becomes a more intentional and personal engagement with the living Word of God. Rather than passively receiving what they were taught, they actively engage with the text, seeking to understand it more fully. Why do Jesus and Paul so commonly say “as it was written”? Why does Matthew mention fulfillment so often in his gospel? What does Passover have to do with the crucifixion of Jesus?
They begin studying the OT more closely, exploring the history of God’s people and the foundations of the law, the temple, the priesthood, and the feasts. At this stage, many also begin to recognize how these institutions point forward to Jesus, and some even take up the study of Hebrew or explore Jewish customs more deeply. At this point, the process remains healthy and life-giving. For many believers—pastors and scholars included—this stage represents genuine growth and maturity in their faith and understanding.
3. Reorientation
This is where the tension begins. At this point, some believers start to wrestle with the idea that maybe they should be observing the OT rituals they’ve been studying. Their faith walk begins to feel more complicated, and questions arise: Is it okay to celebrate Easter? And if so, can I eat ham? Should I be keeping the Sabbath? This is a critical crossroads at which the believer is essentially deciding whether to follow Jesus or Moses. They would never see it that way, of course, but when viewed objectively from the outside—having seen so many cases—this is what it amounts to.
This is not to say that Jesus and Moses are rivals, as though one must be chosen over the other. Not at all. Rather, it’s to recognize the hierarchy between the two that Scripture itself imposes. In the Torah, Moses prophesied of Christ, “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen” (Deut 18:15, emphasis added). Jesus is the fulfillment of everything Moses pointed to. Christ confirms this Himself, saying, “If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (John 5:46–47). He even rebuked the Jewish religious leaders for looking to Moses rather than Him, saying, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life” (John 5:39–40).3
At this stage, some believers recognize the warning signs, sense that something is amiss, and wisely reorient themselves around Christ and His gospel. Others, however, press forward through the tension and uncertainty, persuaded—often quite sincerely—that they have uncovered a truth long overlooked or suppressed. It is here, perhaps more than at any other point, that conversation can still be fruitful, because hearts are not yet hardened and questions are still being contemplated.
4. Alienation
For those who continue down this path and adopt the OT rituals for themselves, their faith walk (and even their demeanor) begins to change at this stage. What was once outward-looking and life-giving can slowly turn inward, becoming increasingly rigid and insular. As their attention becomes fixed on ritual observance, their relationships often begin to fray, leading to growing alienation from family, other believers, and the Christian church.
And here’s what’s really interesting: Those walking this road frequently feel a deep sense of purpose and conviction, even enthusiasm, as they embrace what they believe to be a more authentic expression of their faith. From the outside, however, their friends and family are seeing something very different: the joy of the gospel begins giving way to anxiety over proper ritual observance, and grace starts to displace scrutiny as their loved one becomes increasingly judgmental and legalistic. As a result, relationships strain and conversations narrow. Fellowship is increasingly defined by shared ritual observance rather than by shared life in Christ. It’s here that walls are often erected, conversations become guarded, and distance begins to displace communion.4
5. Hostility
At this final stage, what began as curiosity has hardened into conviction, and conviction into open hostility toward historic Christianity. Those who reach this point are no longer merely exploring ideas; they have crossed into an entirely different theological allegiance. They’ve effectively become prodigal sons and daughters occupying an uneasy liminal space somewhere between Christianity and Judaism. And from here, a small percentage will drift into full apostasy. I have personally spoken with individuals who have gone all the way down this path, ultimately rejecting Jesus as Messiah and dismissing the NT as corrupted or irrelevant.
At this stage, conversation gives way to confrontation, and what was once a sincere search for truth hardens into an aggressive certainty that brooks no disagreement. Sadly, these individuals often feel compelled to legislate their new beliefs to those around them, rebuking fellow believers, dividing and fracturing faith communities, and labelling the Christian church corrupt and apostate.5 The tragedy is that the “mission field” for these Torah-keepers and their false gospel is the body of Christ. Rather than proclaiming Jesus to a lost and broken world that does not know Him, they spend their time and energy policing and disrupting the faith of those who do.
Why Torahism Is So Difficult to Address
I remember carefully looking for a silver bullet in my early years of engaging with Torahism. I searched high and low for that Bible passage that would take the legs out from under their theology once and for all. In the end, I found at least a dozen such passages. The NT unambiguously teaches that followers of Jesus are not required to keep the old covenant rituals.6 But it turns out I had completely misdiagnosed the problem. What I had assumed was a simple matter of theological error was in fact a much more complex emotional and spiritual issue deeply tied to identity.
I’ve now come to view Torahism as an intoxicating blend of modern Gnosticism (the pursuit of “hidden knowledge”) and the same spiritual elitism displayed by wayward Pharisees on the pages of the NT. Like them, modern Torah-keepers often begin with sincere motives: a genuine love for God and a desire to obey His word. When the Pharisees began “building a fence around the Torah” back in the 6th century BC, it wasn’t out of rebellion but out of a desire to avoid disobedience.7 Yet over time, those protective measures began to eclipse the law itself, and the traditions of men were elevated above the commandments of God, placing them squarely in the sights of Jesus’ sharp rebukes (cf. Mark 7:1–13; Matt 23).
For both ancient Pharisees and modern Torah keepers, passion for the Word of God can turn into what Augustine called a “disordered love.” He taught that sin is not primarily about loving the wrong things, but about loving good things in the wrong order (ordo amoris). Love of the law displaces love of the Lawgiver; zeal for holiness displaces compassion for sinners; the letter of the law is cherished while the heart of the law is neglected. This is precisely this inversion of priorities that Jesus confronts so sharply in His rebuke of the religious leaders of His day:
This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.
(Matt 15:8–9; citing Isa 29:13)
The difficulty in engaging with Torah-keepers is that the conflict often appears to be theological, when in reality it is far more a matter of the heart. Our instinct is to respond by carefully reasoning from Scripture why Christians are not required to observe the dietary laws and holy days given under the old covenant. So we cite passages like Colossians 2:16–17:
Do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
And the problem is that believers who are deeply immersed in this movement rarely engage these passages with openness. Instead, they respond combatively with well-rehearsed talking points. Many, I am convinced, have moved beyond a posture of teachable humility. Scripture repeatedly warns against such an attitude: “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice” (Prov 12:15), and again, “Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for ‘God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble’” (1 Pet 5:5–6). In this sense, the dynamic we often encounter among Torah-keepers resembles the spiritual blindness described in Scripture (cf. 2 Cor 4:4; 1 Tim 4:1–5).
This is why logic alone rarely breaks through. Conversations tend to circle endlessly, with both sides talking past one another. I once asked a woman who had come out of this movement how she responded to passages like these while she was still in it. She told me they essentially flew right past her; she never truly engaged with them because her mind was made up.8
People rarely reason their way out of a belief system they didn’t reason themselves into. And Torahism, in my assessment, is not a theology arrived at through careful study of—or submission to—Scripture. Rather, it reflects an emotionally driven search for hidden knowledge and a sense of spiritual exclusivity. And the bad news is that I have yet to find a reliable formula for reaching those who are deeply entrenched in this way of thinking. There are unmistakably cult-like dynamics at work, and once someone has crossed a certain threshold, reasoned arguments fall on deaf ears.
The good news is that we serve a big God who delights in redemption. I know many who eventually found their way out of this movement, but, unfortunately, it’s a timeline typically measured in years, not months. Among those I’ve spoken with who have come out of this belief system, I have noticed a few patterns. Here are three anecdotal observations offered in the hope they will prove helpful to the reader.
First, for many women, it seems to be selfless acts of kindness from Christian friends or family that begin to soften the armor. They seem to respond most deeply to relational grace. One woman, for example, shared that the moment which finally began to open her heart was when a close friend voluntarily removed her own Christmas decorations out of a desire to preserve their relationship. That quiet act of humility and love spoke more powerfully than any argument ever could.
Second, men seem more responsive to arguments that place a “stone in the shoe,” so to speak; ideas that make their current position increasingly uncomfortable to maintain. But it can take a while for them to wrestle through their cognitive dissonance, repent, and turn the ship around. Which is understandable. For someone deeply invested in Torahism—someone who has repeatedly made bold public arguments, reordered their lives, and fractured relationships based on their beliefs— it is no small thing to turn back. Like the prodigal son, it can take time for a person to “come to his senses” (Luke 15:17). And yet, as C. S. Lewis so wisely observed, “If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.”9
The final encouragement I would offer is this: prayer and patience remain our greatest weapons in this struggle. The process is slow, but I’ve seen God faithfully bring people out of these systems through His Word and through the steady presence of loving, faithful believers. So, if you’re walking alongside someone caught in this movement, don’t lose heart. You are not responsible for their awakening, only for your faithfulness. Pray. Speak truth when invited. Love without condition. And trust the Holy Spirit to do what only He can do. No one is beyond God’s reach.
1 It’s important to understand that the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) is a fundamental and beautiful part of the Christian faith and is in no way to be rejected or dismissed. Torah-ism, on the other hand—treating Torah observance as an imposed covenant obligation under Christ—is an unbiblical and dangerous belief system that misapplies God’s Word. During the Jerusalem Council in 50 AD, the Apostle Peter described such a position as “placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear” (Acts 15:10).
2 I’m indebted to Dr. Michael Brown, who sketched out the first four phases of this process when we spoke on the Biblical Roots Ministries’ YouTube channel in August of 2023. I have since developed and expanded on that framework through my own experience and reflection.
3 Jesus and Moses are not in competition with one another. Moses was given the Law for Israel under the old covenant, while Jesus brings the new covenant that the Law was always pointing toward. Jesus didn’t come to reject or undo Moses’ teaching, but to fulfill it and bring it to its intended goal. Christians, therefore, follow Jesus—not because the Law of Moses was wrong, but because its purpose is now fulfilled in Him (see Matt. 5:17; Jer. 31:31–34; Heb. 8:6–13).
4 I have lost count of the number of parents and grandparents who have shared their grief with me, having found themselves unexpectedly distanced from children or grandchildren they dearly love because of Torahism. And while the severing of family relationships is not a formal tenet of modern Torah-keeping, it is an all-too-common byproduct of it.
5 Readers will find ample examples of this posture in the comment sections of our videos and social media posts. While not all who identify with Torah observance engage this way, many interactions reveal an argumentative and dismissive posture that sometimes even devolves into the mocking of Christians, the church and historic Christian belief. These patterns, observed repeatedly over time, help explain the relational strain described above.
6 Cf. Matt 5:17–18; Acts 15:1–11, 19–29; Rom 6:14, 7:4–6; 14:5–6; Gal 2:15–21, 3:23–25, 4:9–11, 5:1–6; Col 2:16–17; Heb 7:11–19, 8:6–13, 9:9–10, Heb. 10:1–10.
7 The phrase “building a fence around the Torah” comes from early rabbinic teaching (cf. Pirkei Avot 1:1), which encouraged the creation of additional safeguards to prevent accidental violation of God’s commandments. These protective traditions were intended to preserve obedience but, over time, sometimes came to be treated with the same authority as the law itself.
8 See Straight Outta Hebrew Roots (A True Story), a live interview with Katryn Dockins on our YouTube channel from January 5, 2025.
9 C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: HarperOne, 2001), Book I, chapter 1, “Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe.”
Anonymous
All I can say to your poor use of scripture and using a human emotional fallacy to bring any authority to your accusation that following God’s Law is an incorrect way to follow Christ is just sad. I pray that you will come to the truth and repent because teaching others to not keep the commandments is going to make you least in the kingdom. You used Mathew 5:17 to back your claim. Not only is that cherry picking a scripture but Verse 18 clearly says that not even a jot or a title of the law will go away until Heaven and Earth pass away and always accomplished. So that kind of negates anything you pointed towards verse 17 saying that the law has been done away with by Christ. The fact that you think Jeremiah 31 says that there is an actual New Covenant is incorrect as well he made several new Covenants throughout the Old Testament as the previous one was broken by Israel it’s a New Covenant new promise but it does not do away with the old it builds on the last before it. That is just common knowledge in exegesis of scripture. You are praying on those that do not read scripture for themselves and your responses should be to read the scripture for yourself and let yourself determine with prayer and listening to the Holy Spirit who leads us and guides us to all truth. Once you do that it makes more sense that God who said that my Law is forever and my law is a light under a path to me that he didn’t do away with it at all but send his son to die for our sins to make a pathway for salvation. Which Christ is the only way to Salvation. But we honor that through obedience after and he asks for obedience out of our love for him.
I will continue to pray for you as I believe that you do love Christ and I have seen your debates with Torah keepers as you bring emotion and false modern Doctrine and talking points yourself to a conversation that needs to be done using scripture in context and using scripture to back your belief if that is truly the book of Truth in our faith of Jesus Christ. The comment about tourkeepers when given logic in an argument reduce themselves to will rehearse talking points is pretty much hypocritical considering your well-reversed talking points using modern Doctrine and modern theology that has for hundreds of years gone away from actual biblical Doctrine and contextual use driven by a desire to leave terrible leaving Christians and any Jews that were left in the world out of a newly formed religion.
Last, I will say that the moment you come to a realization that you didn’t bring Jesus or God into your life they brought you into theirs and whose kingdom did you join theirs or did they join yours? Once you make them the center and the rulers of your life you really kind of lose the argument that you have any say of how you are to worship The Sovereign Lord at all and you start to ask how do they want to be worshiped. I hope you take another look and truly deepen your relationship with the God you serve or say you do. And in that freedom that you are serving the god of Abraham Isaac and Jacob and the father of our Lord Jesus Christ and Truth that brings more joy than you could ever imagine a human tradition could ever bring to your life.
Shalom
R. L. Solberg
Hi, Anonymous. I agree 100% that obedience to God is of utmost importance for believers. We are to submit to His authority over our lives. Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15).
I’m sure you would agree that not every command God has given applies to every person at all times. Some only apply to certain people (i.e., men, women, parents, Levitical priests) or at certain times (i.e., building an ark, gathering manna, while in exile). And I’m sure you would also agree that we are each only expected to keep the commands of God that apply to us. He doesn’t expect us to keep commands that He gave to someone else!
The NT expressly teaches that many of the commands given under the old covenant Law do not apply to Christians today. (ex. “There is no longer any offering for sin” (Heb. 10:18). See also Acts 15:1–29, Col. 2:16-17.) Under the New Covenant, “We serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code” (Rom. 7:6). So the commandments that Christians are to keep are not the exact same set of commandments that God gave to Israel at Mount Sinai.
Blessings,
Rob
Ric Joyner
This sounds like Torah Keeping 101 argument FOR KEEPING THE MOSAIC LAW. Which I was around this movement and saw the gross and extreme damage it does to people and families. Because there is high emotional manipulation used in the arguments with rebukes and a call for repentance. The entire Bible has spiritual lessons that we can pay attention to reveal sin. Rob is right to point out to you that there are laws that do not apply to you in the Old. Worse 613 laws in the OT Torah were for when the temple was around which removes them to 247. Well for nearly two thousand years there isn’ta temple. Rabbinic Judaism today says we cannot keep Torah. Most HR follow Jewish tradition about the sabbath and feasts thus living a Jewish lifestyle not following Torah.
Yes Jesus said for us to obey His commandments when speaking with the Disciples in John 14:15. In the Nt there are 1642 Greek imperatives which Jesus gave to to the Apostles to give us. Acts 2:42. He also gave us the Holy Spirit and He is our guide. So Jesus called us to follow Him. Are we or are we following traditions of Judaism?
Worse for your argument is mt Transfiguration. This was a clear transition by God the Father with Moses (law) and Elijah (prophets) to “now listen to my beloved Son”. What can be clearer than that? So can the rebukes you levied come back on you?
Ric Joy er
This is so well done and writren!
Anonymous
Thank you for a good, well-reasoned article Dr Solberg.
This pattern that you’ve laid out does seem to be the typical path that nearly all Torah observant people follow on their way into Torah legalism.
However there are still so many questions that remain unanswered to a satisfactory degree regarding topics like (1) early church practices (both jewish and gentile), (2) Jewish views regarding rabbinic traditions being equal to God’s Law in the Pentateuch, (3) different/alternate interpretations of New testament passages, specifically Paul, that fit better with 1st century gentile thinking (ie. Col2 vs 16-17), (4) the endless debate of Godly vs pagan festivals and traditions the West celebrates, (5) what Jesus actually expects all disciples throughout the ages to actually do/act/observe with our freedom, (6) does Jesus’s Kingdom have any laws that come from the Torah? and the list goes on…
I know you have endeavoured to answer many of these questions as best as you can over the years, but there are still lingering gaps about scripture, history and Jesus’s eternal Kingdom, that lend themselves being easier to reconcile with “Torahism” rather than with “modern” theological teaching.
But regardless of my lingering questions I am still trying to keep the joy of my salvation in Jesus and not fall into the pitfalls of the many different legalisms of our time.
So thanks for the balance that you’re trying to bring to The Body and thanks again for this article.
R. L. Solberg
Thanks, Anonymous. I appreciate both the affirmation and the honesty about the questions that remain for you.
I agree that many of those issues are complex, historically layered, and not resolved by a single verse or slogan. My goal with this article wasn’t to claim that every question has been exhaustively answered, but to share about a progression that I’ve repeatedly seen influence how people move from healthy interest into something that can ultimately eclipse the gospel. As I see it, the real danger isn’t wrestling with hard questions, but allowing any framework (Torahism included) to displace the sufficiency of Christ and His Gospel.
Blessings!
Rob
Anonymous
When I first attended a Christian Church the council of Elders decided that baptisim must be the centerpiece for salvation in this particular church. The pastor complied with a poignant sermon at the next gathering that ended with “If it was good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for us.
i was sitting in the back of the auditorium and i observed the congratulations he received as he decended from the podium and walked torwards me. When he got close, he sat down and asked what i thought. And to that i asked why the emphasis on baptisim? Did he want to become an ioudaios?
i further stated Ieesous took that path because it was one step of three (circumcisim and the following of the torah commandments being the remaining two of which He also did.) to becoming a ioudaios proselyte.
This was necessary because the slander that was circulating was that Ieesous’ birth was the result of mariam having taken up with a roman soldier and ioseeph was not the father.
The pastor after some significant consternation carried my statement the elders and they declared me to be a blasphemer for calling Jesus a bastard.
The ioudaios are a unique tribal group that are fulfilling the destiny that He (Theos) has set before them in this saga. The ethnos are all other people groups that are not under the burden of the ioudaios, and i personally am glad for that.
That is not to say The Hebrew Inscriptions and extension of the Greek Writings are well worth understanding to aid one in what Theos and Ieesous and the Breath are about.
R. L. Solberg
Yeah, I can understand why encounters like that would leave a lasting impression, especially when complex theological issues get collapsed into sharp accusations or misunderstandings.
As I see it, though, a few distinctions are important. Jesus’ baptism wasn’t a step toward becoming an Ioudaios proselyte—He already was a Jew, born under the Law (Gal 4:4). And John’s baptism wasn’t part of a standard proselyte package alongside circumcision and Torah observance; it was a prophetic, preparatory act tied to repentance and the inauguration of the kingdom (Matt 3:1–15). The NT presents Jesus’ baptism as revelatory and messianic (Matt 3:16–17), not as a response to slander about His birth, which the Gospels explicitly address in other ways (Matt 1:18–25; Luke 1:26–38).
I’d also agree with you that Israel has a unique role in redemptive history (Rom 9:4–5), and that Gentiles aren’t placed “under the yoke” of Israel’s covenant obligations (Acts 15:10–11, 28–29). At the same time, the NT consistently frames unity in Christ not around ethnic categories (Ioudaios vs. ethnos), but around a shared participation in Him (Eph 2:11–22; Gal 3:28).
It seems we both value the Hebrew Scriptures and the NT together, and want to understand Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit more faithfully. My ongoing concern—and the reason I write about these topics—is so that historical insights or covenantal distinctions don’t quietly become new boundary-markers that shift our confidence away from Christ and His finished work (Col 2:16–17; Heb 10:10–14).
Yours in Him.
Anonymous
i understand at that time to convey ioudaios ethnic heritage, the father had to be a ioudaios and we know without a doubt Theos was the Father and not ioseeph. At some time later that determination changed to the birth mother had to be ioudaios and not her husband.
i will not comment on the Biblical references because after reading the New American Standard Bible (described as the most accurate translation) cover to cover nine times. After that i was more confused than when i read it the first time. This i attributed to the fact all modern bibles are based on the Wescott and Hort manuscript. From reading myself about what they said about themselves, i believe them to be satanists. And a second fact is there are 17000 variances between the Wescott and Hort and the Byzantine Majority Textform. And that Majority textform of 1995 has some serious linguistic issues. It is corrupted, but the best of the three textual streams.
Tom
If you wish to do apologetics, how would you answer the non-inerrantist who says Jesus was a Judaizer, and apostle Paul was a heretic? I’ve seen this being argued more and more and I find mainstream Christianity’s fascination with Paul to be absurd.
Ric joyner
Perfect Torah Keeping answer Tom. Straight out of talking points. To dismiss Paul is how far they will go to keep the Mosaic law.
R. L. Solberg
Hi Tom. I would say this: Jesus said this about the Apostle Paul: “This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel” (Acts 9:15). Jesus also said, “Whoever receives the one I send receives me” (John 13:20). So, to reject Paul is to reject Jesus who sent him. And the Apostle Peter refers to Paul’s writings as “Scripture” (2 Pet 3:15–16).
Shalom,
Rob
Ric joyner
Perfect
Tom
Do you believe there is sufficient ambiguity in the NT about Paul’s apostolic credentials as to allow that his critics could possibly be reasonable? Or do you believe the evidence in favor of Paul’s credibility is so strong that only unreasonable people would dare question his opinions? I realize you think Paul was all that and a bag of chips, but I never understood why the modern church elevates Paul far higher than the original Christians ever did. I have criticisms of Paul that I’d like to run by you to see what your response is.
R. L. Solberg
Hi, Tom! No, I do not believe there is ambiguity in the NT about Paul’s of apostolic credentials. If one takes the NT as the inspired word of God, as I do, there is no question that Paul was an apostolos sent by Jesus Himself (Acts 9:15; Gal 1:1; 1 Cor 9:1; John 13:20). That said, I’m open to hearing your specific criticisms.
Ric joyner
May I make a suggestion? This is an excellent comment. However, I would ask that it be his own research. Typically what happens is that Torah keepers use their fav teachers and you argue against them and their comebacks. Clearly there is indoctrination going on because of your first gracious comeback was ignored if you noticed it. You essentially repeated it without giving Jesus’s comment about Paul. Here you reinforced it. My guess is he is arguing 119 heresies on Paul. Why? Paul literally destroys law keeping and puts the law into perspective the way Jesus did. So that is my suggestion to ask to have him do his own research not push others research on you as most Torah keepers do.
Anonymous
This article is sadly accurate. There doesn’t have to be a silver bullet to disprove it because the heart conditions and the fruit prove what it is. A movement that appeals to those who want to belong to something that is superior and exclusive. A people whose hearts are yearning (initially) for holiness, belonging, acceptance, obedience, identity, and understanding. Nothing wrong with that. But then it takes a dark turn. You can’t miss it when it happens. Pride is slowly increased little by little, until the idea becomes so intoxicating. It’s that intoxication combined with spiritual pride, and self focus that keeps them reaching for the next ‘drink’. Just like a drunk person they are unable to see how dangerous their behavior has become. You can’t reason with an intoxicated person. Especially not one who is convinced that he is strong, capable, and completely invincible. Being an elect member of God’s chosen people will do that to you (since this is what they believe).
This isn’t what the Kingdom is about. But they won’t admit it to themselves sadly. Common attitudes are:. Bitterness, unforgiveness, pride, anger, cruelty, slander, jealously, criticism, envy, division, lustful desires, fear, anxiety, depression, backstabbing, and persecution of anyone who asks reasonable questions. There’s also mixture of pagan thinking while claiming to be the champions of anti-pagan worship. Sometimes Kabbalah, sometimes Rabbinic teaching, sometimes Chassidic. At other times they dispute the work of the Spirit, gifts of the Spirit, and that God speaks at all to believers. All this goes on, while they criticize the church. I could never understand that. It made no sense to me.
But the belief will be protected at all costs because turning from it would make them a shameful heretic that will be cut off from God. That’s the strength of it. That’s why you won’t find a silver bullet. They’ve crossed a threshold and they have to stay committed or face the fact that they are wrong. This won’t happen. How do you say that you were wrong to be the elect of God, chosen and special, above others? How? How do you face yourself and others (especially the ones you’ve left, and hurt because they didn’t want to believe what you said). How do you go back to the family members you alienated and called lawless, and then say, ‘I’m sorry I was wrong?’ Does pride ever do such a thing? It’s take the grace of God to get the courage to do that. To change your whole worldview back to one that you openly declared war on. No, my friends. You will not do it, only the grace of God will do it. They do not see they have changed their worldview away from Christ. They are 100% convinced they are Christ like. You will not win this in the flesh – not even with arguments from scripture.
I’m not making these comments as an outsider looking in. I was there. This was me and I couldn’t survive this movement. I once even said if this is Christianity I will go back to the world because it’s softer, kinder, and more gracious than this. That was when God brought his fear upon me, and I realized I was about to make a fatal declaration unless I ran away with all my might. I lost everything and everyone in the process. So, this hit hard for me.
You’ve never seen this level of commitment from your average Christian. It’s both awesome and frightening. I grieve everyday for them. Many have turned from Christ and from Paul, if not openly, then in their hearts. Once someone I tried to reason with said to me: Jesus wouldn’t disobey Moses. That day was the beginning of the end for me.
There’s no formula for getting them out of it. This is personal. It’s their very standing before God and their eternity you’re tackling. It’s their entrance into the Millennial reign. It’s their right to rule and reign at stake. It’s their obedience to God. Those that get out, sorry to say, were not all the way in it yet. The grace for me was that I couldn’t ignore most of Paul’s writings. That kept me from full commitment, which was also used as the excuse to exile me. I didn’t understand correctly they said, I wasn’t chosen enough to get the revelation. OK, so be it. That was that. I went away broken, and not chosen. I will take my chances with the Gospel.
While they still believe in Christ, there’s hope for everyone. I pray with all my might (and have for years) that the Lord will grant them deliverance from this. I know that it probably began very earnestly, but the truth is it has evolved into something very confusing, complex and dark. May God be with us all.
Tom
Ahh, good. Thanks for fixing the “nonce”. Mr. Solberg, if Jesus had a ministry to Gentiles before he died, (Matthew 4:15), we can reasonably infer that whatever perspective he had on circumcision, he would have conveyed it (whether it was necessary or unnecessary), he would have conveyed it to his apostles before he died, especially when telling them to evangelize Gentiles (Matthew 28:20).
Keeping that in mind, does it bother you that nobody in Acts 15 (Council of Jerusalem) expresses or implies that anybody ever asked whether Jesus ever required circumcision for male Gentile Christian converts?
R. L. Solberg
No. Because the issue being decided in Acts 15 wasn’t resolved by appealing to Jesus’ pre-cross teaching, but by interpreting the new covenant reality created by His death and resurrection. The council reasons from what God had done through the risen Christ—Gentiles receiving the Spirit apart from circumcision (Acts 15:7–11)—and from Scripture read in light of that event (Acts 15:15–18). Jesus Himself said the apostles would not grasp everything until after the resurrection and the Spirit’s coming (John 16:12–13).
Tom
Your answer has implicated 16 different areas of disagreement we have with each other, which prevents us from reaching agreement on what constitutes minimally sufficient reasonableness in bible-interpretation. Having now deleted 5 pages of rebuttal, I’ll summarize them in a list.
1) We disagree about Aristotle’s Dictum (we do not agree with each other on whether a modern unbeliever is somehow obligated to give a “benefit of the doubt” to the NT at the start of his bible reading). I can justify refusing to give such benefit of the doubt, and justify starting with a hermeneutic of neutrality.
2) We disagree on whether it can be reasonable for the unbeliever to demand certain proof of the Christian’s alleged born-again status, before the unbeliever allows them to teach him any biblical thing.
3) We disagree on whether it can be reasonable for the unbeliever to demand certain proof that the Christian possesses the ability to interpret the NT infallibly, before the unbeliever becomes obligated to seriously consider the Christian’s perspective.
4) We apparently disagree on what it means to “reasonably” interpret a bible verse, probably because we also disagree on what the proper criteria for “reasonableness” is in the first place. The notion that reasonableness necessarily always demands correctness, is wrong, which I will demonstrate if you challenge this.
5) We disagree on how we can know when a “pre-cross” teaching of Jesus does or doesn’t apply after the cross. Matthew neither expresses nor implies that the new covenant via Jesus’ death and resurrection frees any Christian from obeying all that Matthew wrote about the pre-cross gospel (i.e., we disagree on whether it can be reasonable to deny that Matthew was a dispensationalist).
6) We disagree on whether it can be reasonable to say the NT presents the risen Christ as answering the male Gentile circumcision question before he ascended. Nobody in Acts 15 resorts to what Jesus taught, so you are forced under the doctrine of inerrancy to pretend that the question they debated is one Jesus somehow neglected to answer previously. Because if I can show that he DID answer it previously, then somebody at the Council of Jerusalem must be dead wrong, maybe even Paul.
7) We disagree on whether it can be reasonable to assume Matthew’s perspective can be sufficiently gleaned from Matthew’s gospel alone.
8) We disagree on whether it can be reasonable to allow the possibility that Matthew disagreed with Paul about salvation.
9) We apparently disagree on whether it can be reasonable to accuse Paul of duplicity and dishonesty.
10) We disagree on whether it can be reasonable to deny the historical reliability of the stories of Paul’s “conversion” in Acts 9, Acts 22 and Acts 26.
11) We disagree on whether it can possibly be reasonable to view Acts as whitewashing the original apostles to make them falsely appear to be more in agreement with Paul than they really were.
12) We disagree on whether it can be reasonable to say the original apostles mostly neglected fulfilling the Great Commission that the risen Christ had tasked them with.
13) We disagree on whether it can be reasonable to first ensure we’ve understood Matthew correctly within his own exclusively produced literary context. I don’t first interpret the Great Commission in the light of Philippians 3. I first interpret it in the light of everything else exclusively written by Matthew. There might be special nuances Matthew intended that would be lost otherwise, especially for modern readers who do not share the presuppositions Matthew expected his originally intended audience to hold.
14) We disagree on whether it can be reasonable to reject full bible inerrancy.
15) We disagree on whether it can be reasonable to refuse to use bible inerrancy as a hermeneutic.
16) We disagree on whether it can be reasonable to deny that the bible teaches classical theism consistently. I say such denial is reasonable, and find that the bible also teaches open-theism, in which case the mere fact that it was “god” who said something, by no means forces the conclusion that it is either true or reasonable.
Either you can pick which of these 16 forms of disagreement we should start with, or I will start with # 1.
R. L. Solberg
Wow, Tom. That’s quite a list! This isn’t 16 separate disagreements but an entire theological and epistemological framework that diverges from mine at nearly every foundational level—authority, inerrancy, apostolic reliability, canon, and even the nature of God. These aren’t differences that can be responsibly resolved inside a blog comment thread. So I’m going to respectfully decline the invitation to pick one and “start there” because debating them piecemeal (detached from their shared presuppositions) won’t actually move us toward clarity or agreement.
At the most basic level, my work proceeds from the conviction that (a) the NT presents a coherent apostolic witness, (b) the risen Christ governs the church through that witness (Luke 24:44–49; John 16:12–15),and (c) Acts 15 is not an embarrassment to Jesus’ teaching but its Spirit-guided application in a new redemptive-historical moment.
If one rejects apostolic reliability, denies the coherence of the NT, treats Acts as propaganda, and regards God’s speech as potentially unreasonable or false, then we’re no longer debating interpretation of Scripture—we’re debating whether Scripture can function as Scripture at all! To paraphrase Augustine: if we accept the parts of the Bible we agree with and reject the parts we don’t, it’s not the Bible we believe but ourselves.
That’s a legitimate philosophical discussion, but it’s a different conversation than the one this post was written to address. I do appreciate the care you’ve taken to state your position clearly, and I’ll leave it there for now.
Yours in Christ,
Rob
Tom
“So I’m going to respectfully decline the invitation to pick one and “start there” because debating them piecemeal (detached from their shared presuppositions) won’t actually move us toward clarity or agreement.”
——-Then what debate procedure WOULD move us toward clarity or agreement? Does the example of apologetics/evangelism given by Jesus and the original apostles help answer that question?
And if the points I raised implicate a “legitimate philosophical discussion”, then where on your website or elsewhere could we have that discussion?
As you probably know, plenty of other Christian apologists could move the debate forward, they wouldn’t just throw up their hands and say “if you reject bible inerrancy, then my defense of the authenticity of Paul’s apostolic calling will never be convincing to you”.
Most apologists would argue that because Acts gets all the names of people and places correct, that means Acts is also telling the truth about the events and how they unfolded. You’ve heard it before: “the parts of the suspect’s testimony that could be checked turned out to be true, therefore, we are obligated to assume the parts of his testimony that cannot be checked, are equally truthful”.
Then you said:
“To paraphrase Augustine: if we accept the parts of the Bible we agree with and reject the parts we don’t, it’s not the Bible we believe but ourselves.”
———– Then under the same logic, if we accept the parts of the Apocrypha we agree with and reject the parts we don’t, it’s not the Apocrypha we believe but ourselves.
Looking forward to meeting you anywhere anytime, at my expense, live or online, to have that “legitimate philosophical discussion”.
R. L. Solberg
I appreciate you being so accommodating, Tom! If you want to dive more deeply into the theological and epistemological frameworks on which we diverge, let’s take it over to the article below where our conversation will be much more on topic. I’ll let you set the table and throw out the opening question/challenge:
Can the Bible Be Our Authority and Be Errant?
Ric joyner
Rob, so well said! You didn’t even need to get into the barn clutter. Like someone calling to you from the hip deep slop. Well done sir!
Ric Joyner
Or Rob you just dismiss as we have different view is biblical handling and the Bible in general and call it a day. Sounds over the top 119 ministry. Good luck wading into the barn yard on this one.
Tom
Ric,
Well, I guess maybe I should be faulted for attempting to be too thorough in how I approached the subject?
R. L. Solberg
LOL! You’re a deep thinker, my friend.
Ric Joyner
Tom, too thorough or confusing? I am glad you and Professor Solberg are deciding the boundaries so there is some order. What I have seen in Torah Keeping people is the farther they go into Torahism the more they denigrate Paul. We see clearly a break in Acts10 to a focus from Peter to Paul. Because Paul appears to take apart Torah Keeping (trying to get Gentiles to keep the Mosaic law who are not in Israel.) Jesus clearly brought a new covenant to the Jews with His death and the destruction of sin. Paul takes apart the traditions of men that the Pharisees taught were equal with scripture called the oral law. But not the law. So in seeing torahism this is what I see are Gentiles keeping Jewish tradition ABOUT THE Torah. Not the real Torah. Which was to reveal sin and our sinful motives. This is Matthew 5, 6, 7. Jesus taught how to interpret the law properly which the NT does well with 1642 Greek imperatives. So Jesus is the same God on Mt Sinai as on Mt Beatiudes. Forgive my skepticism because I see Torah Keepers who are walking through progressive talking points until finally they question Paul’s authority. In other words Professor Solberg does his own research. Sadly your comments sound like 119 ministry. Are they? I hope your debate is really your research with good biblical study methods not proof texting and someone else’s work which is what I see most of the time. I will put my waders away until the debate.
Tom
Ric, I’m an atheist, I attack Paul in part to promote truth and in part to justify rejecting a bit of authority that Christian, for unknown reasons, seem to find compelling.
And yes, I do my own research, I will not simply be asking Solberg to respond to other scholars.
I don’t believe I wrote anything expressing or implying that I was a Christian.
Ric Joyner
You are right on the expression of Christianity. Your dialogue is now even more confusing. Either way, you explained your preliminary view. That is what was so confusing about your perspective. Let me ask a poignant question. What would be the purpose of having a debate with you when the two worlds are opposite, and the belief systems are constructed in opposition? For example, the historical evidence for Jesus Christ and His impact on the world is significant. Only history deniers disregard it. So, there is proof of God in Christ. Yet even when presented with evidence, Dawkins will rather say aliens created humans. Rather than having to be accountable to God. Which seems to be at the core of atheism. Watching Christopher Hitchens, I was never convinced by his skepticism toward God, because I actually know God personally. When I was presented the Gospel of Christ, coming to save us from our sins, I had no clue what the person was talking about because I did not grow up in church. I was a default atheist. But when I was given the opportunity to have a relationship with God by asking Christ to forgive my sins and to come live in my heart, I instantly jumped back in my chair because the knowledge of God filled the room where it hadn’t been before. So, I was born again on that day, which is necessary for our salvation to eternal life. I met God. Scripturally, understanding scripture is understood when we are born again. John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” To be intellectually honest, one cannot prove God doesn’t exist, nor can I prove God to you; however, history is good evidence. A few people I ask this question to know the answer. How did Christopher Hitchens die? Throat cancer. I find that ironic. He could no longer speak for quite a while. Well, good luck with your debate with Rob. Back to my first line. It always perplexes me that people who are atheists are trolling in Christian sites, trying to win debates. I wonder why?
Tom
“What would be the purpose of having a debate with you when the two worlds are opposite, and the belief systems are constructed in opposition?”
———Ask all the other Christian apologists, who can claim true salvation no less than you do…but who still see much biblical justification for Christians to have such discussions with atheists despite the two worldviews being diametrically opposed. You aren’t going to deny such Christian apologists’ salvation, and you aren’t going to deny their sincerity toward God or their walk with Jesus, so you must either allow that god may want you to dialogue with an atheist, or, you must confess that even when a true Christian is sincere toward god in their bible studies, they can still possibly draw unbiblical conclusions. If the latter, I would cite it as a reason why the biblical god can’t be trusted.
“For example, the historical evidence for Jesus Christ and His impact on the world is significant.”
——Only because the average layperson for most of the last 2000 years lacked the ability to reason critically at the level we do today. And yet it was the uneducated people that formed most of the Christian corpus (1st Cor. 1:26). And Paul fosters that intellectual hole by explicitly distinguishing persuasive reasoning from “demonstration of power” in 1st Cor. 2:4.
“Only history deniers disregard it. So, there is proof of God in Christ.”
——No, the rise of Christianity in history can be sufficiently explained on purely naturalistic grounds, no miracles needed. But you are making sweeping claims, and I learned long ago not to attempt comprehensive rebuttal to mere sweeping assertions. I can, but only if you stick to one proposition at a time.
“Yet even when presented with evidence, Dawkins will rather say aliens created humans.”
———-I’m a different breed of atheist. I don’t get into the details of how life arose from non-life or why there is something rather than nothing. I merely make a showing that I can be reasonable to deem Christianity to be false. That’s critically different than simply insisting “Christianity is false”.
“Rather than having to be accountable to God.”
—–Accountability to God in 2000 years of Christianity proves to be nothing more than accountability to some pastor’s interpretation of the bible. So accountability to god in a Pentecostal church is probably more strict than it would be in a Cessationist church, and more strict in a Lordship Salvation church than in a Free Grace church.
Interpretation is always subjective, especially when it comes to biblical doctrine, as proven by all the denominations, each with their respective genuinely born-again scholars who disagree with each other despite constantly citing the Greek Lexicons, the author’s immediate literary context, and his social context.
“Which seems to be at the core of atheism.”
——Not mine. I can be reasonable to disregard “god” if I so choose, because I don’t justify atheism the way the “new atheists” do. Getting rid of atheism by citing the defective nature of the New Atheists makes about as much as sense disposing of Christianity by disposing of KJV Onlyism.
“Watching Christopher Hitchens, I was never convinced by his skepticism toward God, because I actually know God personally.”
——-“I actually know God personally” doesn’t make much sense unless you insist on redefining “personally” to such a degree that it means precisely the opposite of its real meaning. You probably know your parents “personally” too, but there, “personally” means they physically interacted with you in ways subject to empirical proof. Since I can reasonably deny that modern people ever “experience” god that way, they obviously define “personally” radically differently when claiming they “personally” experience god.
“When I was presented the Gospel of Christ, coming to save us from our sins, I had no clue what the person was talking about because I did not grow up in church. I was a default atheist. But when I was given the opportunity to have a relationship with God by asking Christ to forgive my sins and to come live in my heart, I instantly jumped back in my chair because the knowledge of God filled the room where it hadn’t been before.”
——God never gave me that kind of feeling, so it’s not my fault if I cannot sympathize.
“So, I was born again on that day, which is necessary for our salvation to eternal life. I met God. Scripturally, understanding scripture is understood when we are born again. John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
——–But only IF what Jesus said to Nicodemus applies to 21st century people. Does it? If so, how directly is that stated in the bible? Does the bible state “the gospel applies to 21st century people” equally as directly as it states “Jesus is Lord”? If not, then it might qualify as a non-essential bit of eschatology that, by being non-essential, and you’d be wrong if you continued pushing it as if the gospel’s applicability to 21st century people is no more disputable than Jesus’ gender.
“To be intellectually honest, one cannot prove God doesn’t exist, nor can I prove God to you; however, history is good evidence.”
——If history were “good” evidence, the history recorded in the bible wouldn’t have caused thousands of genuinely born again Christians to disagree with each other on nearly every last bit of it, as they clearly do. They even disagree with each other on whether some doctrine is “essential to salvation”, which is far worse than disagreement on non-essentials like eschatology.
“A few people I ask this question to know the answer. How did Christopher Hitchens die? Throat cancer. I find that ironic. He could no longer speak for quite a while.”
——-How did Jesus die? God wanted him to be murdered. Acts 4:28. I call that ironic.
“Well, good luck with your debate with Rob. Back to my first line. It always perplexes me that people who are atheists are trolling in Christian sites, trying to win debates. I wonder why?”
——–Various atheists will give you different answers. I can only answer for myself. My reason for starting debates with fundamentalist Christians is because their position constitutes an insult to my intelligence (they insist that Psalm 14:1 is correct in describing atheists as fools), and I don’t react to such things in a pacifist way. Just like if I had a website that argued “the only reason a person becomes a Christian is because they are weak-minded, and they need religion as a psychological crutch because they cannot handle this life on its own terms”, this would be perceived by Christians to be an insult to their intelligence, and many “internet apologists” would probably “troll” me.
I do not start debates with Christians if I know previously that they take a liberal view, since the liberal view doesn’t insult my intelligence in ways that I care to bother with. It is only the “fundamentalists” who find it necessary to screech about the unreasonableness of gospel-rejection, that I put into the analytical cross-hairs.
To clarify: I neither express nor imply that Christianity is false. Instead, I argue that I can be reasonable to view it as false. Since reasonableness is more complex than accuracy, there will be times when a belief could possibly be reasonable even while being ultimately false.
Anonymous
First, I can’t agree with most of your talking points. They seem like oversimplifications, especially the claim that our intellectual capacity is greater today than at any time in history, which depends on the people and the situation. Lastly, I know God personally. He wants a personal relationship with people. Your view of Christian fundamentalists is wrong historically. Your use of it in your view is based on a pejorative view of denigration. It simply means the fundamentals of the faith. What is your definition of liberal? In any debate, we would need to define our terms before the debate opponent even started. Have a nice debate. Mine is over with you. Blessings.