The Debates With Tommy Bertoli

[darinhouston]

So... how'd it go? (Replacement debate)

[Sean]

So... how'd it go? (Replacement debate)

You can download the debate from the link you listed in your first post here.

[featheredprop]

Darin, thanks for posting the links.

I just finished listening to the Eternal Security Debate. I've listened to tons of Steve's lectures, but I don't recall him ever providing a response to the "perfect tense" position. In this debate Tommy brought it up, and used it foundationally in his argument - making it sound rather convincing. However, Steve's counter-response was excellent, and should make any open-minded listener really question if the tense question can be relied upon to decide the issue.

Later in the debate Tommy wanted Steve to provide him with just "one verse" that says that "if a believer does such and such, he loses his salvation" (I'm paraphrasing). He asked the question of Steve at least three times. Steve was honest and said that there was no such verse. Eventually Steve turned the tables and asked Tommy if there was one verse that summed up his position that one could leave Christ and still be saved (around 58:10 of the first mp3 file). I found it interesting that Tommy wouldn't give a yes or no answer as Steve did. He seemed to dance around it for a while, saying that he didn't understand the question, then saying it was irrelevant, and then finally responding that he had "the weight of theological truth concerning salvation on his side."

That really wasn't a good answer. That's like trying to prove that what you said is right because you believe you are right. In my opinion, Tommy didn't want to answer Steve's question with a "no" because he wasn't comfortable with holding his own theology to the same standard of proof that he wanted to hold Steve's.

I really enjoyed the debate. You did a very nice job, Steve. I'm looking forward to the Israel debate.

peace,

dane

[steve]

The Israel debate was frustrating, partly because of the same tactics being used by Tommy. He kept saying, "Can you show me one verse that says the Body of Christ is Israel?" When I gave him verses making the point in equivalent terms (like Philippians 3:3 and Romans 2:28-29), he kept saying that I had to find a verse that stated it in the very words he was using, and saying "I don't think it is too much to ask for just one verse."

[Sean]

The Israel debate was frustrating, partly because of the same tactics being used by Tommy. He kept saying, "Can you show me one verse that says the Body of Christ is Israel?" When I gave him verses making the point in equivalent terms (like Philippians 3:3 and Romans 2:28-29), he kept saying that I had to find a verse that stated it in the very words he was using, and saying "I don't think it is too much to ask for just one verse."

The debate went pretty well. I expected Tommy to use that same tactic again so I really wasn't surprised. It's always easy to win against a self-built straw man. And again in this debate there seem to be verses that can only go one way (the Israel way). He couldn't give an answer for Gal 3:16, yet he's sure he is right.

As far as Tommy's question "Can you show me one verse that says the Body of Christ is Israel?" I would have to say this:
Gal 3:6 Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."7 Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham.
and
Gal 3:22 But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

The children of Abraham are those who believe. What was promised is given to those who believe. Jew or Gentile does not matter.

Interesting that Tommy quoted Romans 4 to make his point about the law not affecting the promise to Abraham. What he didn't seem to realize is that what Paul said was:

Rom 4:13 It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.

Isn't faith mentioned by Paul as a condition? I thought this promise was unconditional? Not only did Abraham have to meet this condition, everyone else does as well, it would seem.

[steve]

Good points (as usual), Sean.

[darinhouston]

If you have more debates with him, I hope you can reach agreement that the "show me one verse that says..." is out of bounds. It's a loser's argument anyway, and makes him come across as desperate and bullying. Other than that, I've really enjoyed the spirit of these debates.

[featheredprop]

If you have more debates with him, I hope you can reach agreement that the "show me one verse that says..." is out of bounds. It's a loser's argument anyway...

I agree Darin. I was surprised to hear it used again in the second debate. Steve responded to it very well, showing that a demand for a verse that contains certain exact words is unrealistic. However, Tommy just didn't seem to listen to that reasoning. Yet, I'm sure that if Tommy were debating someone over Jesus' position in the Trinity, and they insisted on an exact verse proving his point, he would have taken up Steve's position - not his own.

(By the way, I think I would have picked Gal. 6:16 to be the "one verse." - not that it would have convinced Tommy.)

I thought Tommy's strongest argument was found in his opening statement, when he read from Jer. 31. He called this argument the "indestructable nature of the nation of Israel." I say that it was his strongest argument because at first blush the passage does seem to say what Tommy says that it says. As he was making his point, I was thinking "okay Steve, you can't let this one go." He didn't. Steve responded and showed how Jesus made the new convenant with the remnant during the night of the Last Supper.

I did appreciate that both parties were very friendly and sincere. They were even funny towards one another at times - which was nice! In that way, it differed slightly from the White vs. Gregg debate.

All in all a good debate - though understandably frusterating at times (for both sides!).

peace,

dane

[postpre]

Sean,

Abraham lived well before Jacob (later named Israel, from whom the 12 tribes sprang). Thus, the passages that you have pointed to to support the notion that the Body of Christ is Israel is not valid. Those verses in Galatians 3 are simply highlighting one aspect of God's promises to Abraham, that all the nations of the earth would be blessed through his seed. They say nothing about the Body of Christ now being identified as Israel. You are right to conclude that all can now partake in what was promised to Abraham (Jew and Gentile alike), but it is not correct to say that the Church is Israel.

Concerning Romans 4, no one disputes that individual participation in the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant is conditional (upon faith). It was after Abraham "believed" God that the Lord then swore an oath to Abraham that his "descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies." The Abrahamic Covenant will be fulfilled- it is an absolute certainty, according to God. Yet, one must have the faith of Abraham to participate in the fulfillment of this covenant.

I'm not sure why the Amills keep getting this wrong. In the debate, Steve read Scripture that indicated that Isreal did not have rights to the land (under the law). But, this is exacty what Galatians 3 addresses. Contrary to popular opionion, the Law was not eternal. The Law couldn't give Israel the eternal rest that she sought. The permanent possession of the land could not be gained through adherence to the Law!

17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, ,cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ that it should make the promise of no effect. 18 For if [b]the inheritance [/b]is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

Notice, that the inheritiance is not of the law, it could not be fulfilled by the law. But, it was given to Abraham by promise. I take this that Abraham will be resurrected to receive this promised land in the Kingdom. How else could we interpret it?

Brian

[steve]

That the Church is Israel is the only conclusion that can be reached from Paul's discussion of the olive tree. The olive tree is obviously being viewed as Israel. There are two factors that make this obvious: 1) the image is taken directly from Jeremiah 11:16, where Israel (Judah, in this case, which constituted Israel after the fall of the Northern Kingdom) is called an olive tree with branches broken off—Paul's exact imagery; and 2) because it is the concern of Romans 9-11 to discuss how God has fulfilled His promises to Israel (e.g., 9:6; 11:2, 5, 7).

Tommy said the olive tree just represents the "place of blessing," but there is absolutely no reason to give it this entirely arbitrary meaning, when there is an established meaning for the metaphor already in the Bible. The olive tree is a figure for Israel. Nothing but less-than-honest exegesis could lead to a different conclusion.

But what does Paul tell us about this olive tree? It is made up of a combination of the believing Jews (the ones remaining attached after the removal of the unbelieving Jews) and of the ingrafted Gentiles who believe. If we would ask if there is another name for this combination of participants, taken collectively, it would be the Church, or the Body of Christ.

This is precisely the same idea (in different imagery) that is taught in Ephesians 2:11-19, where Gentile believers, who were "once...aliens from the commonwealth of Israel" (vv.11-12), have become, with the believing Jews, "one new man" (v.15), or "one body" (v.16), and are "no longer strangers and foreigners" [from the commonwealth of Israel] (v.19).

Paul says that we Christians (the Church) are "the circumcision" (Phil.3:3). He does not say that we have received "the circumcision," but that we are "the circumcision." This is the same Greek term Paul used in Romans 2:9, 12 and Galatians 2:8-9 (and numerous other places) as his common synonym for "Israel" (as opposed to "the uncircumcision"—his term for Gentiles). If Paul says that the Church is "the [true] circumcision" then he is saying the Church is the true Israel.

I can see nothing, other than having an agenda to believe otherwise, that could possibly lead someone to deny this obvious teaching of Paul.