Posted on 05/04/2005 7:58:31 AM PDT by pro610
Neither you nor your messianc friends keep the holy days as God prescribed in Scripture. You keep those days after the traditions of the rabbis, not according to any biblical prescriptions. That a fact that you cannot deny. There is no expressed change in the law that permitted "voluntary" participation in some of the cultic practices of old Israel.
It is not an argument from silence to say that Paul never recommended gentiles keep the cultic rituals of the older covenant. Paul gave many teaching to the gentiles, including teachings about the law. That's what the book of Romans is largely about. But nowhere, let me repeat that since you seem to miss it, nowhere in Romans or anywhere else does Paul hold out the remotest possibility that keeping the cultic laws of the old covenant is an option for gentiles, or that it is somehow pleasing to God. Once more ... nowhere. Take the situation in Galatia. According to your theory, Paul should have instructed the Galatians to change their food habits when Peter and the others arrived from Jerusalem. They were obviously behaving in an inferior way with respect to the cultic rules of old Israel. Does Paul instruct them to change and be more "Jewish"? Hardly. Does Paul give any instruction on how to observe the holy days once the temple is destroyed and sacrifices have ended? Never. What you call an argument from silence is simply a rationalization on your apart regarding the facts of the NT.
Paul does have many things to say about the moral law as an ongoing standard of righteousness for both Jews and gentiles, which you seem to be unable to discern from the cultic laws. E.g., Rom. 13:9; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; 1 Tim 1:9. It's interesting that if you look at the various lists that Paul recommends to the church he never once includes circumcision or food or clothing or sabbath days or other holy days of cultic Israel. It is precisely the Ten Words that he focuses on. This is in keeping with the words of Jesus as well. BTW, to call Baptism and the Lord's Supper "cultic" further betrays your ignorance. They are exactly the universal symbols that God has prescribed for His universal people, the church, in this day. Your suggestion that they are merely a starting point is the argument from silence.
So you are obviously wrong in your understanding of the place of the law in the life of the church. The moral law is an abiding standard. And lest I be misunderstood, let me reiterate that we are not saved by law keeping. But rather the life of the regenerate believer should reflect the summary of the moral standard that God has set down for all time in His Ten Words. The cultic law has decayed and been dissolved into nothingness. It lives only in the rabbinic world which fundamentally denies the person of Jesus Christ, and His righteousness on our behalf.
This is what I continue to hammer home. These are judaizing tendencies from those who still believe the old covenant is operative and normative for the church. It is not. The ECF got it right. The neo-judaizers of today who ignore the apostolic teaching and 2000 years of application of that teaching have it wrong.
I'm simply not interested in this subject anymore.
If all of you can remember to leave my name off the pings to Warren threads, it will clean up my screen a bit.
If you ping me, no big deal.
I'm not upset about anything; just looking for something different and looking to clean my screen.
What he said.
Nothing personal guys. I'm just not interested in keeping up on this one.
Hey, CDL, you do the same things I find myself sometimes doing. You pinged yourself instead of me, just like I always finding myself pinging myself when I intend to ping you.
***Funny, Dean Gotcher offers that encounter in the Garden of Eden as the earliest example of the Diaprax.***
I was going to ask about that. It does seem as if it would be a good example of the diaprax in action. So, perhaps, blue-duncan is really pointing out that my observation about the diaprax being used on this thread to defend the PDC stuff is right on.
"I was going to ask about that. It does seem as if it would be a good example of the diaprax in action. So, perhaps, blue-duncan is really pointing out that my observation about the diaprax being used on this thread to defend the PDC stuff is right on."
When Jesus asks Peter, "Whom say ye that I am?" is that an example of diaprax in action, also?
Harley, please read post #362. Thanks.
What do you call giving the word of God to an unbeliever? I call that evangelism. The only way a Church can avoid evangelism is to not allow any tares or visitors into their church and never to preach the word.
If you preach the word from the pulpit you are engaged in evangelism. If you obey the words of Christ you will go out into the streets and compel those on the streets to come in.
Harley you have a very twisted view of evangelism. How does your church evangelize the lost? Oh wait, your church obviously NEVER evangelizes. That is not the calling of the Church. (/sarcasm).
How very un-Calvinistic of you bd. :O)
If they wanted to be saved don't you think God would saved them with or without our help?
Hey, my fault Corin. i did a courtesy ping to you because i had mentioned a situation in your life, and thought it best to give you the opportunity to correct the record had i gotten it wrong. Apparently, you got caught up in pings because lots of us are doing Copy/Paste with ping lists to keep up with the flow of this thread. i'll make certain to keep your name off subsequent pings. No harm intended, and have a good day.
Sure, the concept of the Logos was first developed by the pagan Greek Platonists, yet it is found in the Bible.
Many of St. Paul's concepts mirror the Platonized Judaism of Philo and other Hellenistic Jews of his time.
"How very un-Calvinistic of you bd. :O)"
Harley, old buddy, you forgot thst next sentence. "That's what they were preordained to receive and therefore they are there at the irresistible urging of the Holy Spirit."
No problem. I actually did throw in a comment or two up the line. I'm just not inclined to spend more time talking about Warren. (and yes, you were correct with the facts on my story)
I don't wish to split the hairs too close between preacher and evangelist. The differences between them are minuscule in my mind. That is not to say that I don't believe there are not differences. Preaching was meant for edification of the believer.
I see evangelism as for the unbeliever.
You don't need to zealeously preach before believers (although, quite frankly we could use some of that). You do need to give moral instruction. This also shouldn't be confused with teaching.
I see all three of these as different roles. Can a great preacher be a great evangelist or visa versa. Absolutely-many have been. That doesn't mean worship service was meant to evangelize.
I could counter your sarcasm by saying perhaps your church is so busy evangelizing 24/7 that it does not take the time out to worship God in the beauty of His holiness. Much like Martha running around while Mary sat at our Lord Jesus' feet. But I won't. ;O)
Enough said on this topic.
Oooopppssss.... You're saved (in more ways than one). ;O)
If you are going to preach the gospel, you are going to reap the harvest. The more people you preach the gospel to, the more people are going to be harvested. Jesus said the harvest is plenty but the laborers are few. So those that are willing to do the labor in harvesting (i.e., preaching the gospel TO THE LOST) are going to experience the most harvesting of lost souls.
I would be willing to bet that your Church is engaged in active evangelism from the pulpit. You probably don't like it, but the church you have chosen is probably one of the ones who believes that the church is not only a place to equip the saints, but also a place in which to reap the harvest.
If you do not do evangelism under the roof of your church, then how do YOU do it? Do you go out into the streets every day and preach the gospel from the street corners? Or do you leave that job up to those who have been called to be street preachers.
And what about a person like myself, who, neither out of ignorance nor neglect, but out of a careful study of Scripture rejects seventh-day sabbath keeping, the pagan judaizing origins of messianic holy day observance, gentile circumcision, and all the cultic laws of old Israel?
Does that mean I don't love Jesus? After all, I'm not keeping His commandments according to your theory. So either my faith is "dead" with respect to my works (James 2:17), or your position is too fluid to make any sense.
My sense is that you want to have it both ways. You cannot anathematize centuries of faithful Christians who have rejected your theory based on knowledge, not ignorance. At the same time you wish to pay homage to centuries of rabbis who have rejected Christ and His finished work on behalf of His body, the church.
In order to do this you need to invent an category of "voluntary" laws that may be kept optionally by both Jews and gentiles. You need to adopt the regulations promulgated by post-temple rabbis, not by Scripture, since Scripture doesn't describe cultic law keeping after the temple is destroyed. And that for good reason, since the old covenant was decaying and about to has disappear. Why describe something that would make absolutely no sense in terms of the new covenant?
This invention is the messianic version of "works of supererogation". Scripture knows of no such category of works. It's a pagan notion, a form of works-righteousness.
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.