Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Making Sense of Scripture's 'Inconsistency'
The Gospel Coalition ^ | 7 January 2014 | Tim Keller

Posted on 01/07/2014 1:55:56 PM PST by Gamecock

I find it frustrating when I read or hear columnists, pundits, or journalists dismiss Christians as inconsistent because "they pick and choose which of the rules in the Bible to obey." Most often I hear, "Christians ignore lots of Old Testament texts---about not eating raw meat or pork or shellfish, not executing people for breaking the Sabbath, not wearing garments woven with two kinds of material and so on. Then they condemn homosexuality. Aren't you just picking and choosing what you want to believe from the Bible?"

I don't expect everyone to understand that the whole Bible is about Jesus and God's plan to redeem his people, but I vainly hope that one day someone will access their common sense (or at least talk to an informed theological adviser) before leveling the charge of inconsistency.

First, it's not only the Old Testament that has proscriptions about homosexuality. The New Testament has plenty to say about it as well. Even Jesus says, in his discussion of divorce in Matthew 19:3-12, that the original design of God was for one man and one woman to be united as one flesh, and failing that (v. 12), persons should abstain from marriage and sex.

However, let's get back to considering the larger issue of inconsistency regarding things mentioned in the Old Testament no longer practiced by the New Testament people of God. Most Christians don't know what to say when confronted about this issue. Here's a short course on the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament.

The Old Testament devotes a good amount of space to describing the various sacrifices offered in the tabernacle (and later temple) to atone for sin so that worshipers could approach a holy God. There was also a complex set of rules for ceremonial purity and cleanness. You could only approach God in worship if you ate certain foods and not others, wore certain forms of dress, refrained from touching a variety of objects, and so on. This vividly conveyed, over and over, that human beings are spiritually unclean and can't go into God's presence without purification.

But even in the Old Testament, many writers hinted that the sacrifices and the temple worship regulations pointed forward to something beyond them (cf. 1 Sam. 15:21-22; Ps. 50:12-15; 51:17; Hos. 6:6). When Christ appeared he declared all foods clean (Mark 7:19), and he ignored the Old Testament cleanliness laws in other ways, touching lepers and dead bodies.

The reason is clear. When he died on the cross the veil in the temple tore, showing that he had done away with the the need for the entire sacrificial system with all its cleanliness laws. Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice for sin, and now Jesus makes us clean.

The entire book of Hebrews explains that the Old Testament ceremonial laws were not so much abolished as fulfilled by Christ. Whenever we pray "in Jesus name" we "have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus" (Heb. 10:19). It would, therefore, be deeply inconsistent with the teaching of the Bible as a whole if we continued to follow the ceremonial laws.

Law Still Binding

The New Testament gives us further guidance about how to read the Old Testament. Paul makes it clear in places like Romans 13:8ff that the apostles understood the Old Testament moral law to still be binding on us. In short, the coming of Christ changed how we worship, but not how we live. The moral law outlines God's own character---his integrity, love, and faithfulness. And so everything the Old Testament says about loving our neighbor, caring for the poor, generosity with our possessions, social relationships, and commitment to our family is still in force. The New Testament continues to forbid killing or committing adultery, and all the sex ethic of the Old Testament is re-stated throughout the New Testament (Matt. 5:27-30; 1 Cor. 6:9-20; 1 Tim. 1:8-11). If the New Testament has reaffirmed a commandment, then it is still in force for us today.

The New Testament explains another change between the testaments. Sins continue to be sins---but the penalties change. In the Old Testament sins like adultery or incest were punishable with civil sanctions like execution. This is because at that time God's people constituted a nation-state, and so all sins had civil penalties.

But in the New Testament the people of God are an assembly of churches all over the world, living under many different governments. The church is not a civil government, and so sins are dealt with by exhortation and, at worst, exclusion from membership. This is how Paul deals with a case of incest in the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 5:1ff. and 2 Cor. 2:7-11). Why this change? Under Christ, the gospel is not confined to a single nation---it has been released to go into all cultures and peoples.

Once you grant the main premise of the Bible---about the surpassing significance of Christ and his salvation---then all the various parts of the Bible make sense. Because of Christ, the ceremonial law is repealed. Because of Christ, the church is no longer a nation-state imposing civil penalties. It all falls into place. However, if you reject the idea of Christ as Son of God and Savior, then, of course, the Bible is at best a mishmash containing some inspiration and wisdom, but most of it would have to be rejected as foolish or erroneous.

So where does this leave us? There are only two possibilities. If Christ is God, then this way of reading the Bible makes sense. The other possibility is that you reject Christianity's basic thesis---you don't believe Jesus is the resurrected Son of God---and then the Bible is no sure guide for you about much of anything. But you can't say in fairness that Christians are being inconsistent with their beliefs to follow the moral statements in the Old Testament while not practicing the other ones.

One way to respond to the charge of inconsistency may be to ask a counter-question: "Are you asking me to deny the very heart of my Christian beliefs?" If you are asked, "Why do you say that?" you could respond, "If I believe Jesus is the resurrected Son of God, I can't follow all the 'clean laws' of diet and practice, and I can't offer animal sacrifices. All that would be to deny the power of Christ's death on the cross. And so those who really believe in Christ must follow some Old Testament texts and not others."


TOPICS: Evangelical Christian; General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: bible; dietarylaws; keller; pca; presbyterian; timkeller
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

1 posted on 01/07/2014 1:55:56 PM PST by Gamecock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: drstevej; OrthodoxPresbyterian; CCWoody; Wrigley; Gamecock; Jean Chauvin; jboot; AZhardliner; ...
GRPL Ping


2 posted on 01/07/2014 1:57:23 PM PST by Gamecock (Celebrating 20,000 posts of dubious quality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

There is no biblical inconsistencies.

Not that this former Atheist could find.

“Inconsistencies” happen when tradition and doctrines contradict scripture.

The bible in itself, when interpreting itself does not contradict.


3 posted on 01/07/2014 1:58:55 PM PST by INVAR ("Fart for liberty, fart for freedom and fart proudly!" - Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elsie; Colofornian; xzins; Greetings_Puny_Humans
Once you grant the main premise of the Bible---about the surpassing significance of Christ and his salvation---then all the various parts of the Bible make sense. Because of Christ, the ceremonial law is repealed.

And it also helps you from wandering into certain cults that are out there.... (As well as in FR as well.)

4 posted on 01/07/2014 2:02:43 PM PST by Gamecock (Celebrating 20,000 posts of dubious quality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
Once you grant the main premise of the Bible---about the surpassing significance of Christ and his salvation---then all the various parts of the Bible make sense. Because of Christ, the ceremonial law is repealed.

Tim Keller ping for later

5 posted on 01/07/2014 2:11:39 PM PST by Alex Murphy ("the defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Protestant Brigades")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: INVAR

>>There is no biblical inconsistencies.

Not that this former Atheist could find.

“Inconsistencies” happen when tradition and doctrines contradict scripture.<<

Interestingly (and may I suggest ironically?) the naysayers yell about “picking and choosing” Scripture.

As with so many things in life, the entirety makes sense. It is the pickers and choosers who adulterate the message given to us.

Dice and slice at your peril.


6 posted on 01/07/2014 2:28:51 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Fight Tapinophobia in all its forms! Do not submit to arduus privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
Thanks for an interesting article GC....So many in the church should understand this because its right out of Romans 7&8. Before Moses there was no ‘Law’, Abraham did things like marrying his half sister which was punishable by death under Moses.

Moses gave the law but only to the Jews - no one else.

Jesus gave us the new covenant, replacing the old covenant, not doing away with the Law but fulfilling/perfecting it. Christians are under Grace [unmerited/undeserved favor] and our law is to love God with all our heart and love others as ourselves [and walk in the Spirit].

Paul wrote extensively about those Jews who attempting to bring the church back under the law but he said if you go back to the law you make Christ of none effect.

7 posted on 01/07/2014 2:30:23 PM PST by virgil283 (When the sun spins, the cross appears, and the skies burn red)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

Bookmarked!


8 posted on 01/07/2014 2:31:47 PM PST by Inyo-Mono (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

The law was a tutor leading to Christ. It demonstrated the incapacity of humans to perfectly keep a perfect law. Jesus “fulfilled law”. When Peter and the others met in Jerusalem to decide whether circumcision would be required of Christians they decided not. The law had fulfilled its purpose, but since it was a perfect law, many of the things it forbade are still wrong, like murder, adultery, theft, idolatry and so on. It doesn’t mean the law is still in force.


9 posted on 01/07/2014 2:52:07 PM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

The argument of the atheists and secularists is invalid, but it is still effective. That’s because trying to explain why it is invalid requires quite a bit of exposition, a lot of which is only comprehensible to people already familiar with the Bible and Christian theological ideas. They can toss this grenade out, and by the time you could defuse it, the audience has lost interest and walked away with the impression that you are a hypocrite.

One way to counter that is simply to flip the accusation back at them. Tell them that Muslims are completely inconsistent when it comes to following verses from the Quran. Then demand to know why they are not out publicly condemning the Muslims for their inconsistency. If they tar you unfairly as a hypocrite, tar them right back as a religious bigot.


10 posted on 01/07/2014 2:56:44 PM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
OK, I'll bite:

If the New Testament has reaffirmed a commandment, then it is still in force for us today.

The whole of Torah was reaffirmed in the New Testament, right out of the lips of Yeshua:

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

(e-Sword:KJV)

11 posted on 01/07/2014 3:00:04 PM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1

So your contention is that there is a contradiction?


12 posted on 01/07/2014 3:06:35 PM PST by Gamecock (Celebrating 20,000 posts of dubious quality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
So your contention is that there is a contradiction?

Not in the Bible, but rather in the traditions of Christendom.

13 posted on 01/07/2014 3:08:28 PM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

Thanks for the ping, G.


14 posted on 01/07/2014 3:14:15 PM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

Yup...spot on.


15 posted on 01/07/2014 4:16:29 PM PST by The Unknown Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
The argument of the atheists and secularists is invalid, but it is still effective. That’s because trying to explain why it is invalid requires quite a bit of exposition, a lot of which is only comprehensible to people already familiar with the Bible and Christian theological ideas. They can toss this grenade out, and by the time you could defuse it, the audience has lost interest and walked away with the impression that you are a hypocrite.


That's very true especially to folks who assume religion and therefore Christianity are about all the ‘things you have to do’ to get into heaven. People that are unsaved tend to see the Bible as a rule book when it is so much more; that's why it says the cross of Christ is foolishness to them.

God gives us some fairly succinct answers in Romans. One of the easiest to remember is Chapter 6 verse 14 “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.”

That verse is the 20 second crash course in dispensationalism.

16 posted on 01/07/2014 4:31:35 PM PST by Idaho_Cowboy (Ride for the Brand. Joshua 24:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
I believed the scriptures were inconsistent and the churches full of hypocrites until my eyes were opened to the fact that it was I who really was inconsistent and the hypocrite. Then everything made sense.

1Co 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

17 posted on 01/07/2014 4:40:57 PM PST by HarleyD (...one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
The whole of Torah was reaffirmed in the New Testament

Why is it we hardly ever hear you under the law guys say "Old Testament? It is always "Torah." Is it because you guys don't believe there is a New Testament?

By the way, verse 17 in the passages you cited is the key to verse 19. The New Testament doesn't promoting unrighteousness and ungodliness. There is a difference in living a righteous life because of an external law, and, having being regenerated by Christ within, living a righteous life because one's very nature has been changed.

18 posted on 01/07/2014 5:03:00 PM PST by sasportas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sasportas

correction

The New Testament doesn’t promote unrighteousness and ungodliness.


19 posted on 01/07/2014 5:05:32 PM PST by sasportas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

And then the reeeeaaaallly fun part comes when you read it every day and study it more and more, ALL of LIFE becomes meaningful and Glorifies God. It all fits together, and we can’t even see it all! I’m so excited, and it’s not from the black raspberry ice cream I just had.


20 posted on 01/07/2014 5:05:42 PM PST by huldah1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1

****one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.****

Are you saying that all of the law was not fulfilled by Christ?

Also at the time he spoke, the law was not fulfilled yet. Was he admonishing the crowd to continue in the current format until he completed his work?

Look carefully at your bold section. Notice that the warning he gives is to the status in heaven. Is he saying that after I complete my work you who are teaching that the law is now already not in effect can still be in heaven?

In my opinion this was a stop gap measure by Christ to stop any premature conclusions from having people decide to live as if he had completed his mission and then die before he could do so therefore still rendering them under the law.

Notice that he did not say the people who taught the breaking of the commandments before he completed his work were false teachers. Perhaps premature and to be forgiven and let into the kingdom, but warned that it would cost them.


21 posted on 01/07/2014 5:28:13 PM PST by ResponseAbility (The truth of liberalism is the stupid can feel smart, the lazy entitled, and the immoral unashamed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ResponseAbility

“Are you saying that all of the law was not fulfilled by Christ?”

Bingo. Paul explains this very thing in Hebrews, that Christ, the perfect priest, was able to fulfill the ritual obligations perfectly, once and for all, on the cross. Now that they have been fulfilled, there is no more need for the ineffective machinations of imperfect, earthly priests. The law has been satisfied, not annulled.


22 posted on 01/07/2014 5:55:38 PM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

***satisfied***

I wonder if this word would explain the situation better, but I hope there is a better word to encompass the awesomeness of the fulfillment.

It seems that circumvented is satisfactory for the control freaks. Annulled might be an even better choice for the statist Godless ones who want to rid themselves of us God fearing folk.


23 posted on 01/07/2014 6:21:19 PM PST by ResponseAbility (The truth of liberalism is the stupid can feel smart, the lazy entitled, and the immoral unashamed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1; Gamecock

“The whole of Torah was reaffirmed in the New Testament”


Indeed, we had this fight before. The idea that we ought to be under the “whole of Torah”, however, was entirely crushed by the Apostles, as demonstrated at the first church council. The sect of believing Pharisees insisted that circumcision AND the law of Moses ought to be entirely kept (IOW, faith + works):

Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

To which Peter replies, asserting that we are under grace, not law:

“And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.”
(Act 15:7-11)

And if by grace, it is no more works of the law:

Rom_11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

As salvation, if it must include both faith and obedience to the law of Moses, must be kept perfectly:

Gal_3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

And therefore, no flesh can be justified by the law. Hence the final decision by the church sent out, declaring that “no such commandment” had ever been given for them to be under the law of Moses, and, rather than giving that commandment now, warn them off of fornication, and from meat sacrificed to idols, etc., only:

“And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.”
(Act 15:23-29)

Though, the abstaining from “meats offered to idols,” ought to be understood as only to avoid causing dissension with the unconverted Jews, or those who, being weak in the faith, still insist on them:

1Co_8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

“Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.”
(Rom 14:1-3)

Though, it is not a matter of law that any meat should be abstained from, as all creatures are from God, and are fit to eat, even those purchased from the markets which had been offered to idols, provided they are received with thanksgiving, and do not cause another to stumble:

“All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth. Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: For the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof. If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof: Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?” (1Co 10:23-29)


24 posted on 01/07/2014 6:27:55 PM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans (I mostly come out at night... mostly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
I can see that this thread will degenerate into yet another LAW vs GRACE thread, a C vs P thread, a Calvinist vs Arminian thread; so I'll just post this and be on my way:


 

John 6:28-29

Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”


1 John 3:21-24

Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.


25 posted on 01/07/2014 7:06:57 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1

Not trying to argue but I am curious as to what you mean by “The whole of Torah was reaffirmed in the New Testament, right out of the lips of Yeshua”

By “whole of Torah was reaffirmed” are you implying Christians should follow all of the things proscribed by the OT such as stoning. Just asking.


26 posted on 01/07/2014 7:43:32 PM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sasportas
Why is it we hardly ever hear you under the law guys say "Old Testament? It is always "Torah." Is it because you guys don't believe there is a New Testament?

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but the way I see the Scriptures, Torah must needfully hold primacy as a structural matter. It is the 'seed' if you will - The whole of the tree is originally contained in it's seed, governed by the plan contained therein. Ergo, what one sees in the tree must necessarily be of the seed... I don't know if that describes it perfectly, but I hope you get the idea.

Either Torah is eternal, or the whole Book falls apart. YHWH is the only contender for the position of god that I have ever found that declares Himself explicitly and forbids any change to what He said. Take that away, and there is no difference between Him and all the rest. If priests and teachers have authority to change it, then the very thing that declares Him AS GOD is rendered null. That is why He guards His Word so vociferously.

And if His word is no good, then neither are His Covenants. One disregards Torah at their peril.

By the way, verse 17 in the passages you cited is the key to verse 19. The New Testament doesn't promoting unrighteousness and ungodliness. There is a difference in living a righteous life because of an external law, and, having being regenerated by Christ within, living a righteous life because one's very nature has been changed.

So if you 'fulfill' the law by driving 55mph once, does that mean you no longer have to mind that law? I think you might need to reconsider what 'fulfill' means.

And as to righteousness, the definition of righteousness IS obedience to Torah - So, what is written on the heart must needfully resemble Torah, wouldn't you say?

How does Yeshua condemn 'workers of iniquity' when the very definition of 'iniquity' is lawlessness (without Torah)? If the law is 'fulfilled' and no longer serves a purpose, then there is neither iniquity as a matter of fact...

27 posted on 01/07/2014 7:50:49 PM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ResponseAbility
Are you saying that all of the law was not fulfilled by Christ?

As you are defining law, yes. As an example, the Holy Days of YHWH have a prophetic purpose - That is what they are for - The notion behind moedim (Holy Days) is something like 'rehearsals'...Yeshua fulfilled the purpose of the Spring Feasts, but the Fall Feasts remain. And lets not forget that the Prophets are included in the statement as needing to be fulfilled too - and the Prophets extend into the Millennial Reign - So most decidedly all is not fulfilled. And as to those Holy Days passing away once fulfilled, the prophets deny that outright, as the whole world will do Torah and keep the Holy Days (and the Sabbath) in the Kingdom. Read Isaiah and Ezekiel.

Also at the time he spoke, the law was not fulfilled yet. Was he admonishing the crowd to continue in the current format until he completed his work?

Then why make the declaration at all, and leave confusion in the centuries to follow? No, it is an explicit statement, backed up throughout the New Covenant. And the words of the Master cannot be trumped by the disciple.

Look carefully at your bold section. Notice that the warning he gives is to the status in heaven. Is he saying that after I complete my work you who are teaching that the law is now already not in effect can still be in heaven?

The statement is precise. Do Torah. Do you suppose He wasn't speaking to generations to come? Why is it that the disciples keep Torah after the fact of the cross? Notice though that Torah is not a matter of salvation, but reward... As it has always been.

In my opinion this was a stop gap measure by Christ to stop any premature conclusions from having people decide to live as if he had completed his mission and then die before he could do so therefore still rendering them under the law.

Then He sets up his disciples to override what He explicitly declared - Making them false disciples to declare other than what their Master gave them. That cannot be true. Like Torah, the Hebrew sense of 'disciple' is a stricter sense than you seem to imply - A disciple would never add to or take away from what his Master said. the whole idea of a Talmudim is perfect emulation of the life of the Master.

Notice that he did not say the people who taught the breaking of the commandments before he completed his work were false teachers. Perhaps premature and to be forgiven and let into the kingdom, but warned that it would cost them.

That is at odds with the time spent excoriating the Pharisees at every turn for doing exactly that - making the Word of YHWH null...

28 posted on 01/07/2014 8:25:01 PM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
The idea that we ought to be under the “whole of Torah”[...]

There is only the 'whole' of Torah - It cannot be added to, nor taken from... Either we are under it all, or we are not under it at all, which is literally impossible.

The idea that we ought to be under the “whole of Torah”, however, was entirely crushed by the Apostles, as demonstrated at the first church council. The sect of believing Pharisees insisted that circumcision AND the law of Moses ought to be entirely kept (IOW, faith + works):

The question at hand at the Jerusalem Council was whether (presumably adult) male converts had to be circumcised in order to be saved. It was not a referendum on Torah. And you will note that their reasoning included the idea that Moses was taught in every town, so that the convert could learn as they went along.

As to the rest of your evidences, they all reference the spurious notion that one can be justified by keeping Torah - That has never been my claim, nor is it my intention. I keep Torah because I love YHWH and I endeavor to be obedient. No one has ever been justified by keeping Torah except Messiah. That is not it's purpose.

Everyone *ever and always* has been saved by grace through faith, imputed as righteousness... to include every soul since the world began.

29 posted on 01/07/2014 8:43:03 PM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
By “whole of Torah was reaffirmed” are you implying Christians should follow all of the things proscribed by the OT such as stoning. Just asking.

In a word, yes, that is what I am saying - But you would do well to understand who it was that must cast the first stones. Research 'kosher witness' as a beginning.

Torah cannot be divided. It cannot be added to nor taken from. That is where I must disagree with cherry-pickers who suggest we are only obligated to the moral law (and not even all of that). No one has authority to change Torah at all.

30 posted on 01/07/2014 8:56:35 PM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1; All

“Everyone *ever and always* has been saved by grace through faith, imputed as righteousness... to include every soul since the world began.”


This is good to hear, which means I can basically ignore everything you say on keeping “Torah”, as you are not saying that I am damned for ignoring it.

Thus, I can stand in my liberty:

“Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.”
(Gal 5:1-5)

None of the things you would ask me to do “profit” me in any way. But, I suppose, if a Christian wants to burden himself with the yoke of Moses, just out of self-righteousness sake, he may do so.

But as for me, I’ll fulfill all the law with love, and leave others to their vain religious acts:

Jas_2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

“The question at hand at the Jerusalem Council was whether (presumably adult) male converts had to be circumcised in order to be saved. It was not a referendum on Torah.”


The question at hand at the Jerusalem Council wasn’t just about “circumcision,” but also whether or not we should be “commanded” to keep the law of Moses:

Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

If, perhaps, you want us to believe that they still “recommend” that we follow the law of Moses, it says that nowhere in the text, but actually repudiates it. For example, prohibitions against meats, as in the Jewish dietary laws, is called a doctrine of the devil:

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.”
(1Ti 4:1-3)

All creatures are good to eat:

Ti_4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

Compare to Leviticus:

Lev_11:4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
Lev_11:5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
Lev_11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
Lev_11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you

“There is only the ‘whole’ of Torah - It cannot be added to, nor taken from... Either we are under it all, or we are not under it at all, “


So it follows, if I can rend the dietary laws out of the New Testament, that I can rend “all” of the laws of Moses out too, since it is “all” or nothing.

“No one has ever been justified by keeping Torah except Messiah. That is not it’s purpose.”


But how did Christ actually understand “Torah”? While, certainly, the Jews under the law were “ritually unclean,” according to the law, were they to think that there isn’t a deeper purpose in the law? Let’s ask Christ:

Mat 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Compare to Leviticus above!

How about the Sabbath?

“Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.”
(Mat 12:5-8)

If Christ is Lord of the Sabbath, may He not dispense with it whenever, and however He pleases, and lead His apostles to do however He pleases as well?

Where is your Sabbath day then? Is Christ a sinner for doing good works on the Sabbath?

From Dr. Gill’s commentary quoting R. David Kimchi in Josh. vi. 11.:

“...as he was the institutor of the sabbath among the Jews, that being a ritual, and of mere positive institution, could dispense with it, and even abrogate it at his pleasure. The Jews so far agree to this, that he that commanded the law of the sabbath, could dispense with it; they say, that

“the day on which Jericho was taken was the sabbath day; and that though they slew and burnt on the sabbath day, “he that commanded the observation of the sabbath, commanded the profanation of it”.’’

And since Christ is greater than the temple, and has all the perfections of the divine nature in him, is equal to the Father in power and glory; and even as mediator, has all power in heaven and earth given him; so as he is Lord of all other things, he is of the sabbath, and has a power of dispensing with it, and even of abolishing it; see Col_2:16 and since the Lord of the sabbath had a power of dispensing with it, and made use of it in the cases of David and his men, and of the priests in the temple formerly; the Pharisees ought not to think it strange, that the Son of man, who is equally Lord of the sabbath, dispensed with it in his disciples now.”

I will also add:

Mar_2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath

If you attempt to lord the Sabbath day over us, for example, all you do is make the “man for the Sabbath,” rather than the Sabbath for man. It becomes nothing more than a needless yoke, you who force it on us, rather than for man to enjoy, which was its true purpose.

“And you will note that their reasoning included the idea that Moses was taught in every town, so that the convert could learn as they went along.”


The part of your sentence that says “so that the convert could learn as they went along,” is nowhere in the text, and is purely your invention. And, in fact, it contradicts the scriptures, since if “the law of Moses” was to be obeyed, albeit as Christians were slowly taught it by UNBELIEVING Jews, then the contention of the believing group of Pharisees is confirmed, only slowly, and the Apostles are in the wrong for commanding against it and in living “like Gentiles”:

Gal_2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

How, indeed, can you presume that the Jewish Apostles, who lived like Gentiles, were compelling Gentiles to live like Jews?


31 posted on 01/07/2014 9:12:14 PM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans (I mostly come out at night... mostly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
Either Torah is eternal, or the whole Book falls apart.

Either the covenants of the OT were made with ONE group - the Chosen People - or they were not.

I do NOT have to obey the speed limit in Jerusalem when driving in Denver.

32 posted on 01/08/2014 2:17:42 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans; roamer_1; Elsie
“Everyone *ever and always* has been saved by grace through faith, imputed as righteousness... to include every soul since the world began.” -roamer

I do NOT have to obey the speed limit in Jerusalem when driving in Denver. -elsie

Galatians 2: 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

17 “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.

19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

...

Ephesians 2: 11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

33 posted on 01/08/2014 3:03:22 AM PST by WVKayaker ("Today, doesn't it seem like we have a Corrupt Bastards Club in D.C.? On steroids?" -Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1

Ah yes .. Someone who admits they believe in stoning. Thats what muslims believe also. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.


34 posted on 01/08/2014 6:22:12 AM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
Male, 1962... Born Again Christian, Reagan Conservative, 27 yr loyal Republican until midsummer '07, now Independent... Avid outdoorsman, all around fix-it guy, businessman, now disabled (Lyme, Fibromyalgia, Arthritis)...

This extract from your profile says that you are a "born again Christian". I never dispute the Christianity of anyone who claims to be one. That is for God to decide.

Nevertheless, we can make judgments based of observations of people's behaviors and stated beliefs and our own experiences and beliefs.

Such beliefs as Everyone *ever and always* has been saved by grace through faith, imputed as righteousness... to include every soul since the world began. are not in the belief system of any born-again Christian that I ever met, read, or read about. It sounds more like Universalism to me. So, if you don't mind sharing, could you mention the name of the religious organization (denomination?) where you worship. Also, if you don't mind, how you came to be "born-again"?

Thank you.

35 posted on 01/08/2014 6:24:39 AM PST by chesley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: virgil283

I’ve cut and pasted your post for future reference because you put it so well in just a few lines. Thanks!


36 posted on 01/08/2014 9:49:15 AM PST by Nea Wood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

I’ve heard it explained that the ceremonial law is no longer in effect after Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection. However, the moral law is in effect for all time.


37 posted on 01/08/2014 9:53:47 AM PST by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
This is good to hear, which means I can basically ignore everything you say on keeping “Torah”, as you are not saying that I am damned for ignoring it.

Truly, the disposition of your eternal soul is far above my pay grade.

Thus, I can stand in my liberty:

As for me and mine, we shall serve YHWH.

Gal 5 (1-5)

Do you really believe Paul is talking about Torah, which the Tanakh proclaims to be good and righteous, even the way of righteousness? This is the yoke of bondage? And again, the passage is speaking of justification... Keeping Torah has never justified anyone - So how is it that he can be speaking of Torah?

None of the things you would ask me to do “profit” me in any way.

It isn't about profiting for yourself - it is about obedience to YHWH.

But, I suppose, if a Christian wants to burden himself with the yoke of Moses, just out of self-righteousness sake, he may do so.

LOL! So because I strive to follow the way of the Father, the way declared by the Son, I am being self-righteous? Quite the opposite - I know I am a servant, and that I have nothing of my own. I simply endeavor to follow the Instructions of my Master, to demonstrate my love for Him to HIM, and express my gratitude for what He has given me by trying to do as HE says. There is where liberty lies - In the yoke of YHWH.

But as for me, I’ll fulfill all the law with love, and leave others to their vain religious acts:

Which 'religious acts' are considered vain by YHWH? "In vain do they worship me..."

1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.


Rev_14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

The question at hand at the Jerusalem Council wasn’t just about “circumcision,” but also whether or not we should be “commanded” to keep the law of Moses:

Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Pharisees consider their tradition to be a part of the Law of Moses... Similar to the Catlicks, whose tradition is made inseparable from the Bible. It is that tradition that Yeshua destroyed at every turn, and it is not surprising that there were many that had a hard time letting go of it - to include Peter.

So I take it that it is your belief that eating blood, meats that were strangled or offered to idols, and fornicating, are the only sinful things for Christians? Is that really what you think? After all, this is all the conclusion of the council stated in the literal.

If, perhaps, you want us to believe that they still “recommend” that we follow the law of Moses, it says that nowhere in the text, but actually repudiates it. For example, prohibitions against meats, as in the Jewish dietary laws, is called a doctrine of the devil:

Isn't that odd, as Peter was keeping Kosher at least a decade and a half after the resurrection (meats and sheets vision). Again, How can it be that Torah, which is called good and righteous is a 'doctrine of devils'? Was David lying? Were the Prophets lying when they said the whole world will follow Torah in the Kingdom? Before you and after you there is Torah. How can it be that Torah is not for you too?

As to 1Tim 4:

abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Which foods did YHWH create to be received? Torah will tell you.

1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Which food is sanctified by the Word of YHWH? Torah will tell you.

If Christ is Lord of the Sabbath, may He not dispense with it whenever, and however He pleases, and lead His apostles to do however He pleases as well?

No. For if he disposes of the Sabbath, then he is a false prophet, and not to be hearkened to.

Where is your Sabbath day then?

Right where it has always been since the seventh day of creation, when it was sanctified by the Creator of all, as an eternal precept.

Is Christ a sinner for doing good works on the Sabbath?

Show me where it is so in the Torah. If your ox falls in a well on the Sabbath, don't you get him out? If your sheep gives birth on the sabbath, don't you ease it and watch over it? Do you not milk your cow on the sabbath? Must she suffer because of it? Don't you feed and water your animals on the Sabbath? Don't be silly.

From Dr. Gill’s commentary quoting R. David Kimchi in Josh. vi. 11.: “...as he was the institutor of the sabbath among the Jews, that being a ritual, and of mere positive institution, could dispense with it, and even abrogate it at his pleasure.

But it was not instituted among the Jews. It was instituted at creation, and given to the Jews with the manna, before the law, so it is not a 'mere positive institution'.

“the day on which Jericho was taken was the sabbath day; and that though they slew and burnt on the sabbath day, “he that commanded the observation of the sabbath, commanded the profanation of it”.’’

There is nothing I am aware of that says they fought on the Sabbath - It was the 7th day of the siege, not necessarily the Seventh day. But that leads to another question: Do you suppose that Israel, if attacked on the Sabbath, is not allowed to defend herself? Your understanding seems to favor the letter of the law, and not the spirit thereof.

If you attempt to lord the Sabbath day over us, for example, all you do is make the “man for the Sabbath,” rather than the Sabbath for man. It becomes nothing more than a needless yoke, you who force it on us, rather than for man to enjoy, which was its true purpose.

I am not lording anything over anyone. YES the Sabbath is a delight, and a boon to men... But that, in and of itself, requires the observance of the Sabbath, doesn't it? How does not keeping Sabbath make it something for man to enjoy? So much nonsense. And btw, even if I were to cede to you the possibility, it is still a moot point, as there is in no wise *ANY* evidence that Yeshua did what you suppose, nor did any of His apostles. There is *nothing* in the Bible that abolishes the Sabbath, nor moves it to Sunday. It flat ain't there.

The part of your sentence that says “so that the convert could learn as they went along,” is nowhere in the text, and is purely your invention.

I was not quoting. But I will defend the inference, as if not, why would it be there?

And, in fact, it contradicts the scriptures, since if “the law of Moses” was to be obeyed, albeit as Christians were slowly taught it by UNBELIEVING Jews, then the contention of the believing group of Pharisees is confirmed, only slowly, and the Apostles are in the wrong for commanding against it and in living “like Gentiles”:

A proselyte begins with the Noachide law and learns the way of Torah. You seem to suggest that the minute one found YHWH the entire Torah must be immediately kept. That has never been the case. In fact, that intention is made clear by what the Council sent forth - Half of the Noachide law is what they started the proselytes with. You seem to forget that these folks are practicing in the synagogues in and among non-messianic Jews. If it is as you say, there is no WAY that they would be tolerated within the Jewish community, and would be unwelcome in the synagogue. That finally DID occur, but only after decades.

Gal_2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

How, indeed, can you presume that the Jewish Apostles, who lived like Gentiles, were compelling Gentiles to live like Jews?

You have taken the verse out of context - Show me in the Torah where a Jew cannot eat among the gentiles. That is Jewish Tradition, not Torah. Peter was bowing to false Tradition.

38 posted on 01/08/2014 11:37:23 AM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan
Does NO one know what a COVENANT is any more??

It is a CONTRACT; a BINDING legal agreement between two or more parties.

God made an agreement between Himself and a select group of people - the CHOSEN race: Jews.

HE said that if they'd do something then He'd do something.

If you ain't Jewish; then you have NO part of that agreement.

==================================================

Galatians 3:15-16 (niv)

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.

39 posted on 01/08/2014 11:39:04 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Either the covenants of the OT were made with ONE group - the Chosen People - or they were not.

Not all who are Israel ARE Israel.

I do NOT have to obey the speed limit in Jerusalem when driving in Denver.

Well, the Sabbath and the Noachide law are unequivocally upon all of mankind. Established long before Abraham. Start there. And the prophets make it clear (if you don't believe the Torah, which also does) that the Torah is intended for all mankind, as ALL will keep it in the Kingdom. That's what we rednecks might call a clue.

40 posted on 01/08/2014 11:44:24 AM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: WVKayaker

AGAIN with the justification! No one is arguing that there is justification in works.


41 posted on 01/08/2014 11:47:15 AM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
Ah yes .. Someone who admits they believe in stoning. Thats what muslims believe also.

I believe that YHWH established the Torah as immovable and eternal. I can't pick and choose.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Right! Now you are catching on...

42 posted on 01/08/2014 11:50:06 AM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1

Catching on? I have believed that most of my life. You must be jewish. I have never known a jew that believed that we should be stoning people.


43 posted on 01/08/2014 12:26:42 PM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: chesley
Such beliefs as Everyone *ever and always* has been saved by grace through faith, imputed as righteousness... to include every soul since the world began. are not in the belief system of any born-again Christian that I ever met, read, or read about. It sounds more like Universalism to me.

I see what you are getting at. Let me retract and reiterate:

Everyone *ever and always* who has been saved, has been saved by grace through faith, imputed as righteousness... to include every soul since the world began.

The point I was making is that no one, even from the very beginning, has been saved by anything other than the blood of Yeshua. The atonement system prior to Yeshua was temporary, as the Torah declares, waiting for a better blood than that of sheep and goats. The cross is like a pebble droped in a lake, echoing back through history as much as forward - So the purpose of Torah has never been about justification/salvation. That is not it's job.

I am not a universalist, albeit that I hope that the blood of Yeshua is far more powerful than we can imagine... After all, every knee will bow, and every tongue confess... But, as we have it now, I cannot endorse universalism at all.

So, if you don't mind sharing, could you mention the name of the religious organization (denomination?) where you worship. Also, if you don't mind, how you came to be "born-again"?

My classic education was Christian Reformed/Dutch Reformed, and my technical membership is Presbyterian OPC, though I am not much of a Calvinist anymore. Worship wise, I am going to a non-denom praise oriented Evangelical church, but study-wise I fit better with Hebrew Roots Christians and Messianic Jews.

My conversion was really rather uneventful - not any great story in that - That particular time, I got pulled hard into the Bible in my mid 20's, with an intensity that caused me to fast and drop everything else... I was convicted while reading in John, and the Spirit fell upon me soon thereafter. That isn't perfectly right, as I had felt stirrings of the Spirit in my youth... but that particular occasion is where it took.

44 posted on 01/08/2014 12:28:57 PM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1

Thank you for the clarification.

I can agree with that, although I find the OT ceremonial law to be unnecessary.

We’ll find out one day.


45 posted on 01/08/2014 12:49:47 PM PST by chesley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
Catching on? I have believed that most of my life. You must be jewish. I have never known a jew that believed that we should be stoning people.

no I am not Jewish (to my knowledge).

So what, do you think YHWH didn't mean it?

46 posted on 01/08/2014 2:27:27 PM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1; All

“Do you really believe Paul is talking about Torah,”


He talks about the “law,” calls circumcision profitless, and even quotes Deuteronomy earlier in the epistle:

Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

I don’t think he’s talking about the Code of Hammurabi.

“LOL! So because I strive to follow the way of the Father, the way declared by the Son, I am being self-righteous? Quite the opposite”


You’re certainly free to “strive,” but it doesn’t actually make you better than anyone else or profit you in any way. You already told me that doing what you do does not justify you, and I doubt that you are going to get extra-heaven by avoiding bacon. It makes no difference what you eat or don’t eat, or whether you are circumcised or not. It’s just foolishness to think that you are pleasing God with works that were not even commanded for you to obey.

“Which ‘religious acts’ are considered vain by YHWH?”


All the ones beyond that which He now commands:

1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

“Pharisees consider their tradition to be a part of the Law of Moses...”


The Pharisees weren’t writing the Acts of the Apostles. Luke was. And Christ Himself always differentiated between the law of Moses and the traditions of the Pharisees. If Luke actually meant “you are still required to be circumcised and to live under the law of Moses, but it is only the tradition of the Pharisees we deny,” then he would have said so. Otherwise, what follows would be 2,000 years of Christians not following all the regulations and commandments not reinforced in the New Testament... which, by the way, is exactly what happened.

“So I take it that it is your belief that eating blood, meats that were strangled or offered to idols, and fornicating, are the only sinful things for Christians? Is that really what you think? After all, this is all the conclusion of the council stated in the literal.”


According to Gill:

“In Beza’s most ancient copy, and in three other manuscripts, and in the Complutensian edition, it follows, “and whatsoever ye would not have done to yourselves, that do ye not to another”; in like manner the Ethiopic version also reads, as in Act_15:20 “from which if ye keep yourselves ye shall do well”; it will be doing a good thing, and make for the peace of the churches; in Beza’s most ancient copy it is added, “born”, or “moved by the Holy Ghost”: being influenced and assisted by him in this, and every good work:”

I don’t think any of the Gentiles actually had a problem with fornication though. It seems more like a list of sins associated with Gentiles specifically, for to appease the Jews. The ending conclusion, nevertheless, is that “no such commandment” was given to obey the laws and regulations of Moses, and no such commandment is then given.

“Isn’t that odd, as Peter was keeping Kosher at least a decade and a half after the resurrection (meats and sheets vision)”


Just your assertion. The scripture has Paul condemning Peter for his hypocrisy, since he “lived like a Gentile,” and dissimulated with the Jews who desired to have the Gentiles “live like Jews.”

” How can it be that Torah, which is called good and righteous is a ‘doctrine of devils’? Was David lying? Were the Prophets lying when they said the whole world will follow Torah in the Kingdom?”


Because the old Covenant is no longer in force, and the New One is now what we are under.

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

To command us to go back to what which is now obsolete, and already fulfilled in Christ perfectly, is a doctrine of devils.

“Which foods did YHWH create to be received?”


That’s an easy one, despite your sophistry:

1Ti_4:4 For EVERY creature of God is good, and NOTHING to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

Otherwise it be pretty stupid of Paul to advise Christians to eat whatever is placed before them, asking no questions:

1Co_10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

I don’t think Pagans who might offer you food sacrificed to idols are known for keeping Kosher.

“No. For if he disposes of the Sabbath, then he is a false prophet, and not to be hearkened to.”


Which doesn’t explain:

Mat 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

Nor the actions of the Apostles, who were not “in their own place”, but were picking food in the field:

Exo 16:29 See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.
Exo 16:30 So the people rested on the seventh day.

Compare:

Mat 12:1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
Mat 12:2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.

If Christ is LORD of the Sabbath, then He may do with it as He pleases, and is not servant to the Sabbath, as you would pretend. To this the Pharsees even agreed, though they would not count Jesus as the Messiah in their hypocrisy.

“There is nothing I am aware of that says they fought on the Sabbath - It was the 7th day of the siege, not necessarily the Seventh day.”


You still have six other days to account for:

Jos 6:13 And seven priests bearing seven trumpets of rams’ horns before the ark of the LORD went on continually, and blew with the trumpets: and the armed men went before them; but the rereward came after the ark of the LORD, the priests going on, and blowing with the trumpets.
Jos 6:14 And the second day they compassed the city once, and returned into the camp: so they did six days.

“I am not lording anything over anyone.”


You just got done telling me how you are “striving to serve the Lord,” by not eating bacon and such, because, apparently, that is so holy. That’s called Lording.

“I was not quoting. But I will defend the inference, as if not, why would it be there?”


It WASN’T there. Your inference is not a quote.

“A proselyte begins with the Noachide law and learns the way of Torah.”


There is no such thing as a “Noahide” law. It is an invention of Jewish tradition, which you did not like earlier when I quoted Kimchi.

“You have taken the verse out of context - Show me in the Torah where a Jew cannot eat among the gentiles.”


I’ve not taken the verse out of context. Compelling people to “live like Jews” is not referring to Jews eating with Gentiles, all of whom, if you are to be believed, were keeping Kosher anyway. To say that you are “living like a Gentile,” but are asking Gentiles to “live like Jews” is in reference to the believing sect of Pharisees who required obedience to circumcision and the dietary and other laws.

Your sophistry is profound.


47 posted on 01/08/2014 3:07:25 PM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans (I mostly come out at night... mostly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
no I am not Jewish (to my knowledge). So what, do you think YHWH didn't mean it?

OK. So you must not be a jew or a christian. Christians know that the law was there to expose sin since no one can fulfill the law. The law points to the need for a savior. Jesus Christ came and is our savior. With Christ we are not bound by the law. Christ did point to the need to honor the commandments and many things in the OT however stoning certainly is not one of them nor other petty requirements pertaining to food etc outlined in the torah. Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". I see you are familiar with that.

So, yes God meant it in the OT for the reasons stated above. However we should not be stoning people. We should be encouraging them to repent and come to Christ. Hope that helps. Cheers.

48 posted on 01/08/2014 5:00:37 PM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
A subject near and dear to my heart. So many "churched" in the Mainlines--and in university--have been tragically been taught, and swallow, the inconsistency argument. It is almost always used, as Keller says, as a defense of homosexual behavior...so as to try to muddy the ethical water for ignorant, casual Christians (like so many actually are.)

While on the main Keller's right-on here, I think he himself muddles the important logical element of covenant theology which clarifies the consistency of Scripture even more.

The nation of (theocratic/covenantal) Israel is kaput--since 587 BC no less, hence the civil penalties of the law do not, and never have, been applicable to Christians--or anyone under the New Covenant. With the re-establishment of the monarchy in the Messiah Jesus, the New Covenant completely takes over, and the OT moral law is properly understood as the right response of an already saved people loving God, and loving neighbor.

Following OT law--NOT civil (as Israel is kaput) and NOT ceremonial (since Jesus fulfilled all those sacrificial/blood obligations and, God is making one people, no longer segregated by diet/custom/ethic boundaries)--rather MORAL (since God is still holy, and created morality for our good) is NOT based on the simplistic idea that if it is repeated in the NT it applies to us (contra Keller). That's a general principle that usually works...but a more correct approach is that OT moral teachings do now, and have always applied...but the Gospel puts the Law in its proper role of not saving us, rather guiding our Holy Spirit empowered love, once we are born again.

There are several specific OT moral prohibitions (bestiality, and incest for example) which are not actually specifically repeated in the NT, rather are assumed as wrong. (Yes I know legal incest was the issue in 1 Corinthians, but even then it is approached obtusely--with Paul expressing horror that they didn't grasp the obvious evil of it).

This is why it is important to know the whole bible--as the Old Covenant (OT) laws DO actually apply to us--in their moral codes, and should not be disdained as "oh, that's in the OT" as many ignorant (even evangelical) Christians approach them today. The NT ASSUMES a thorough knowledge of, and acceptance of the normative authority of....the OT. A sloppy approach of "only if it's in the NT does it apply" approach leads to compromising and crude ethics.

On a relatively minor issue for example, acceptance of the normative authority of OT law would avoid confusion amidst Christians today: Tattoos.

Rejected by the Church for 2000 years on the basis of one tiny OT (only) proof text: "Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD." (Lev 19:28), none the less many Christians enthusiastically embrace the tattoo trend today. Interestingly "I am the LORD." is the reasoning in Leviticus..ie, God owns (even) our bodies.

Paul reiterates and elaborates the principle in 1 Cor. 6:19,20: "Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies."

Paul in context is calling for sexual purity. However purity for the body isn't limited to sexual activity.

Without an acceptance of the normative authority of OT ethical/moral commands, and therefore an ignorance of the OT--even over something as minor as tattoos--evangelicals today skate right over NT commands elaborating on the principle of God's ownership of our bodies, and do graffiti on the temples of God.


49 posted on 01/09/2014 11:52:19 AM PST by AnalogReigns (Real life is ANALOG!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns

Who exactly is “Chist” I wonder....?


50 posted on 01/09/2014 11:53:09 AM PST by AnalogReigns (Real life is ANALOG!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson