Mark Call wants to cite as authoritative one of three non-Canonical texts allegedly written by Matthew, but calls Romans “bogus.”
Mark Call wants to argue that if Christians love Jesus, then they will obey the regulations of the Mosaic Covenant, even though His Word clearly states that the Old Covenant has been replaced by a New and better one.
Mark Call rejects God's commands for obedience to the governing authorities, yet makes himself a slave to regulations that are “weak and useless” “shadows.”
Mark Call will not allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. Instead he picks and chooses whatever suits his false doctrine, making the Word of God nonsensical.
According to Mark Call, when Jesus said, “If you love Me, obey My commands,” Jesus really meant, “If you love Me, obey the obsolete and aging commands of the Mosaic Covenant, which I am about to replace with a New and better one.”
Whom shall we believe? Mark Call, or the Son of God?
Mark Call says, "...one bogus verse...."
But God says:Sanctifie them through thy trueth: thy word is trueth (John 17:17).Mark Call says, “Tell Him how His Word was just so inconsistent, that He couldn't make up His mind whether "forever" meant forever, or until you thought He changed His mind again.”
If any man shal adde vnto these things, God shall adde vnto him the plagues, that are written in this booke. And if any man shall take away from the wordes of the booke of this prophesie, God shal take away his part out of the booke of life, and out of the holy citie, and from the things which are written in this booke (Revelation 22:18, 19).
But God says:Behold, the dayes come, saith the Lord, that I will make a newe couenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Iudah. Not according to the couenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I tooke them by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which my couenant they brake, although I was an husband vnto them, saith the Lord.
But this shall be the couenant, that I will make with the house of Israel, After those dayes, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and wil be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more euery man his neighbour, and euery man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know mee, from the least of them vnto the greatest of them, saith the Lord; for I will forgiue their iniquitie, and I will remember their sinne no more (Jeremiah 31).
A new commandement I giue vnto you, That yee loue one another, as I haue loued you, that yee also loue one another (John 13:34).
Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you (Luke 22:20).
Who also hath made vs able ministers of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giueth life. But if the ministration of death written, and ingrauen in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly beholde the face of Moses, for the glory of his countenance, which glorie was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit, be rather glorious?
For if the ministration of condemnation bee glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousnesse exceed in glorie. For euen that which was made glorious, had no glorie in this respect by reason of the glorie that excelleth. For if that which is done away, was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
Seeing then that wee haue such hope, we vse great plainnesse of speech. And not as Moses, which put a vaile ouer his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly looke to the end of that which is abolished; But their mindes were blinded: for vntill this day remaineth the same vaile vntaken away, in the reading of the old testament: which vaile is done away in Christ.
But euen vnto this day, when Moses is read, the vaile is vpon their heart. Neuerthelesse, when it shall turne to the Lord, the vaile shall be taken away.
Now the Lord is that spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is libertie (2 Corinthians 3).
For there is verily a disanulling of the commandement going before, for the weakenesse and vnprofitablenesse thereof. For the Law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did: by the which wee draw nigh vnto God....By so much was Iesus made a suertie of a better Testament (Hebrews 7).
Who serue vnto the example and shadow of heauenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the Tabernacle. For see (saith he) that thou make all things according to the paterne shewed to thee in the mount.
But now hath he [Jesus] obtained a more excellent ministerie,, by how much also he is the Mediatour of a better Couenant, which was established vpon better promises.
For if that first Couenant had bene faultles, then should no place haue bene sought for the second.
For finding fault with them, hee saith, Behold, the dayes come (saith the Lord) when I will make a new couenant with the house of Israel, and the house of Iudah. Not according to the Couenant that I made with their fathers, in the day when I tooke them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, because they continued not in my Couenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
For this is the Couenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those dayes, saith the Lord: I wil put my Lawes into their minde, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shalbe to me a people. And they shall not teach euery man his neighbour, and euery man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: For all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be mercifull to their vnrighteousnes, and their sins & their iniquities will I remember no more.In that he saith, A new Couenant, he hath made the first olde. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old, is readie to vanish away.Mark Call says: “YOU deign to celebrate His Sabbath...”
...Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offred both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the seruice perfect, as pertayning to the conscience, Which stood onely in meates and drinkes, and diuers washings, and carnall ordinances imposed on them vntill the time of reformation.
...For if the blood of Bulls, and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the vncleane, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit, offered himselfe without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead workes [also translated, “useless rituals”], to serue the liuing God?
And for this cause hee is the Mediatour of the New Testament, that by meanes of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were vnder the first Testament, they which are called, might receiue the promise of eternall inheritance (Hebrews 8 and 9).
And to Iesus the mediatour of the new Couenant... (Hebrews 12:24).
But God says:Let no man therefore iudge you in meat, or in drinke, or in respect of an Holy day, or of the New moone, or of the Sabbath dayes: Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ (Colossians 2:16, 17).Mark Call says, “How does Peter's dream square with Acts 15 and the things even the new believers had to abstain from?” implying that somehow Acts 15 supports his false contention that if Christians love Christ they will observe all the Mosaic Covenant.
There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entred into his rest, hee also hath ceased from his owne works, as God did from his (Hebrews 4:9, 10).
But God says:And there came a voyce to him, Rise, Peter: kill, and eate. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I haue neuer eaten any thing that is common or vncleane. And the voice spake vnto him againe the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common (Acts 10).Would God command His apostle to sin to make a larger point, as Mark Call's logic requires? Would Peter find himself in a vision in a room full of prostitutes and hear a voice telling him to indulge his marital impulse in order to demonstrate that unfaithful (adulterous) Israel should repent?
Neither would God tell Peter to sin by eating unclean animals, especially since Christ already “declared all food clean.”
The Church offered a recommendation to new Gentile believers. What is notable is what they did not recommend: the false doctrine Mark Call is peddling here--that if a Christian loves Jesus he will obey all the Mosaic regulations (against such a burden Paul vehemently argued when confronting the heresy of the Judaizers).
And YHWH calls the Mosaic Covenant “obsolete,” “aging,” and replaced by a “new and better Covenant.”For it seemed good to the holy Ghost, and to vs, to lay vpon you no greater burden then these necessarie things; That ye abstaine from meates offered to idoles, and from blood, & from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keepe your selues, yee shall doe well....Hardly a new command here, and definitely not a command to obey all the regulations of the Mosaic Covenant. In fact, the suggestion to “abstain from meats sacrificed to idols” is not a requirement for Christians, as evidenced by Paul's stating that for a Christian, food is just food:But if any man say vnto you, This is offered in sacrifice vnto idoles, eate not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake. The earth is the Lords, and the fulnesse thereof. Conscience I say, not thine owne, but of the others: for why is my libertie iudged of another mans conscience? For, if I by grace be a partaker, why am I euill spoken of, for that for which I giue thankes (1 Corinthians 10)?Mark Call says, “I was going to end with that, hoping you'd actually "search it out for yourself.”
I have offered quite a few passages from God's Word showing that He has removed from us the regulations of the Mosaic Covenant by giving us a new and better one.
If a Christian wants to celebrate a particular day, or feast, or whatever, he is free to do so in Christ. But to mislead others by claiming that if they love Christ they will obey commands that He has made obsolete is heresy.
Such a teacher should carefully examine his doctrine and what motivates it.
Friday, July 07, 2006
Beware of the ideological company you keep
Some comments in response to a twenty-first century Judaizer here: