Posted on 09/29/2006 8:27:34 AM PDT by Buggman
What, TC is reduced to guilt-by-association arguments now?
I'm basing it on your activities on this thread and the Rosh Hashanah thread: You have legalistically condemned the practice of observing the Appointed Times of the Lord on the supposed basis that they are "not authorized" in the NT. You have legalistically determined that keeping the Passover as the Lord and His disciples kept it is forbidden for Christians, since you write, "Christians do not celebrate the passover."
Every post in this thread that has demonstrated that the Bible never moved the Sabbath to Sunday and never ended the keeping of the Feasts has been in reaction to your legalistic demands that everyone worship according to your Calvinist tradition.
I did not author these articles in such a way as to make keeping the Appointed Times of the Lord a matter of salvation, fellowship, or maturity in a believer's walk. I wrote them to explain just why God commanded that they be kept, to show how they relate to both Israel's history and the eschaton. I wrote them to educate, not to mandate. If a few of my Sunday-brethren walked away with nothing but an enhanced understanding of an area of Scripture that they hadn't considered before, then I considered the article a success.
You are the one who came into both threads to pick a fight. You are the one who has cast judgment on another believer in a matter of observing certain days as holy in defiance of Rom. 14:5ff and Col. 2:16--and therefore in defiance of the very NT that you profess to obey. And you are the one who has elevated the traditions of men to a dogma, since your whole argument in favor of Sunday has been the supposed universal--even though we know from the ECF that it was not universal--observance of Sunday and forsaking of the Feasts in the Church in the post-NT era rather than on any careful and clear exegesis of the NT itself.
You have tried to turn your opinion into our boundary and our burden. That makes you, not us, the legalist.
It's interesting that Max Lucado penned those words (in his booklet, The Greatest Moments) at a time when he was under heavy fire from the Church of Christ for worshipping with other denominations as he traveled around the country on speaking engagements. Why? Because the Church of Christ does not use musical instruments in worship, and these other denominations do. What's up with that? you ask. Well, it's a funny thing, but nowhere in the NT is the use of musical instruments specifically authorized. The CoC, taking the, "we follow the New Testament, not the Old," to its logical extreme, therefore came to the conclusion that instruments were verboten in a church service. Some in the CoC were therefore passing judgment on Lucado for worshipping in a fashion not specifically authorized by the NT.
Sound familiar?
Now, while I thank you for all the hits and all the times you've bumped my articles, I think your time and intellect would be far better served discussing the material and interpretations of the articles themselves, rather than arguing that we should not be observing these times or even having these discussions on the basis of your particular interpretations of certain NT passages which we have shown there are other, equally or more viable interpretations for.
The former edifies the body. The latter is just legalism and Hellenizing, and denies that "All Scripture (not just the NT) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Ti. 3:16-17).
Unfortunately, it seems to be a common practice in these quarters. You did see the "mullah Calvin" comment in reference to Pastor Maoz, didn't you? And the comment about Calvin "murdering" people, lots of people in fact?
Guilt by association at it's finest, even if it is based on lies about Calvin. (On my part I don't think I surfaced any lies about Ellen White, did I?)
I'm willing to try to rise about the pettiness that has been rampant on all sides in these discussions.
Shall we proceed in that spirit, or would that be expecting too much?
Well, will we continue to act based on suspicions and assigning motives, or will we move beyond?
How is calling me a "legalist" or "pharisee" (in your eyes) different than your view that I claim you are a "judaizer"?
Perhaps you will come back and say, "but you are a legalist according to the way I use the word." Then we are back at the beginning quibbling over words and their meanings.
Is progress possible, or are we just once again going to fall back into (bad) habit patterns?
No, Christ determined that.
And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles." -- Mark 2:21-22"No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse.
Nope, missed that one. However, since you freely associate yourself with Calvin, and even call yourself by his name, that's not a guilt-by-association argument. It could be an ad hominem against Calvin, however.
On the other hand, given the natural Calvinist tendency to insist that only the elect can properly interpret Scripture, it's not entirely unfair to see if Calvin's life demonstrates that election, since otherwise he could simply be just an intellegent man who makes a good argument--you know, like the rabbis you reject as having anything to say of value.
It's not enough that Calvin called himself a Christian or proclaimed Christ:
Not every one that saith unto Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out devils? and in Thy name done many wonderful works?" And then will I profess unto them, "I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity." (Mat. 7:21-23)Therefore, we are right to look at the personal lives of all who claim authority in the Lord's Name, for, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits" (vv. 15-16).
While I frankly find the whole matter extraneous to the conversation and not worth getting into, why is examining a particularly black mark on Calvin's personal record off-limits? Frankly, before you get upset about an ad hominem on John Calvin, you would have to take back all the ad hominems you've been making against the Jews.
I'm willing to try to rise about the pettiness that has been rampant on all sides in these discussions.
I won't speak of "all sides," but I don't think that I've personally been in the least petty in this debate. I've treated you with respect and I've given full and supported answers to your questions and objections. I have never questioned your faith, and despite your attempts to goad me into saying otherwise, I have never said that what I perceive as an honest error on your part in any way invalidates your love for the Lord. I have in fact said several times on many threads that I know you have a genuine love for the Lord, and I have even gone as far as calling down "my" side on this thread for even implying that God's Appointed Times are a matter of salvation.
If you believe that I have personally wronged you in some way, then please quote the specific post and explain what I did so that we can come to a reconciliation.
Now, I'm all for proceding in the Spirit, but let's get one matter out of the way first: Is it in fact your contention that someone saying that we should keep the Feasts is legalism, but someone saying that we must not keep the Feasts is not legalism? That seems to be a curious double-standard to me.
Nice try, but no, that's not what He was talking about. Check the context; what events led up to that parable?
Now, I'm all for proceding in the Spirit, but let's get one matter out of the way first: Is it in fact your contention that someone saying that we should keep the Feasts is legalism, but someone saying that we must not keep the Feasts is not legalism? That seems to be a curious double-standard to me.
What I have always said is that keeping the feasts/dietary laws/circumcision/etc is a matter of adiaphora as far as individual believers are concerned. I would say the same of people who wish to exchange gifts on December 25 and call it "Christmas".
My objection is when folks bring these things into the church as normative worship practices for a congregation of baptized believers (Jews/gentiles/both, doesn't matter). In my understanding of Scripture, under the new covenant God could care less if we have a roast pork dinner at a church gathering, where clothing of mixed material, cut or beards a certain way, or do not remember the "passover" or "yom kippur". In fact, what would be offensive to God is if we insist on doing these things which are personally adiaphora in the context of corporate worship among other brothers and sisters who believe they have been set free from these thing in Christ. To force adiaphora on the church would be denying them their liberty since they do not constitute the "commands of Christ".
So, far from being "legalism" in any true sense of the word, the objection is to the sense of spiritual superiority that comes from "messianic judaism" v. "gentile christianity" based on the idea that keeping what were admittedly laws pertaining to Israel as a nation in a particular time and place that are somehow normative for the universal church under the new covenant.
Or, to put it another way, if you believe that for me (or anyone else who calls himself a Christian) to keep these laws or not keep these laws is a matter of absolutely moral indifference (adiaphora), then we are OK. But, if you insist that I will be better off spiritually and truly pleasing to God by devoting myself to keeping these things in as scrupulous a manner as can be defined in this day and age, then I call that "legalism" and a judaizing of the church.
So that is where I stand on the ceremonials.
The weekly sabbath is a different issue in my mind since it involves the moral law (the 4th of the "Ten Words") and is not the strictly ceremonial. I have a difficult time thinking that God has left the day of the week for worship by His body a matter of adiaphora. I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem to be the case. So we are left with trying to understand based on all that is given to us in the Bible what was God's intention for weekly sabbath worship under the terms of the new covenant within the universal body of Christ. Obviously, we disagree on the proper interpretation of certain Scripture passages. You think I'm wrong and I think you're wrong. Sometimes it escalates to outright name calling; "legalist" v. "judaizer".
I'm not sure if this question is useful, but let me ask anyway. When we talk about the fact that "Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:3), I assume you believe that means that if a person were an actual murderer, then Christ died for the particular act of murder in that person's background. Would it also be your belief that for a Christian from a gentile background that means that Christ died for the sin of eating swine flesh or not properly worshipping on the "passover"?
Yes, I know where my clothes are that I need to wear.
Although not specifically addressed to me, I would like to respond to this question.
Christ died for every sin that we can commit. Deliberately disobeying God breaks at least two commandments:
Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
In the case of eating unclean animals, Christianity has instituted it's own ideas about what to eat as opposed to God's wishes. They have put their religious beliefs ahead of God...they have another god before God. Same thing with not observing Passover or any other holy day.
It also violates that 5th commandment:
Exo 20:12 Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
God, our father, is not being honored when he specifically tells us, his children, to not eat the flesh of certain animals...or when we disregard his instructions on the holy days.
As a father, God does things for reasons we might not understand for a while. We obey on faith. I know that there are profound spiritual rewards for obeying God on these points, but I had to step out on faith and do them without knowing exactly what those rewards might be.
It's like a father telling a little kid not to play in the road. The kid doesn't have a clue what the actual consequences of disobedience might be, but the father knows it may end up killing the kid. The kid can rationalize all day that the traffic is light, that the drivers will see him and stop in time, the speed limit is low, that he's fast enough to get out of the road, etc., etc. ...and may consider his fathers rules to be restrictive and stupid. But the father has seen plenty in his lifetime and KNOWS what the best course of action is.
It's the same with God. He's been around longer than forever. He knows the dangers to humans in the world. He knows how are bodies are designed and what the best and safest fuel for them is. He knows how to build our spiritual character. When we disregard his instructions, there are always consequences.
1) What is the Biblical definition of sin, as you understand it?
2) You keep objecting against keeping the Appointed Times of the Lord becoming the "normative worship practices for a congregation of baptized believers." What do you mean by that exactly? Are you objecting to the very existence of congregations that choose to observe the Appointed Times of the Lord in lieu of Sunday, Christmas, etc.?
3) If you object to a perceived "spiritual superiority" among Messianics, then should my perception of a superiority complex among Calvinists cause me to a priori reject your tenants as you reject ours?
And to answer your question:
Would it also be your belief that for a Christian from a gentile background that means that Christ died for the sin of eating swine flesh or not properly worshipping on the "passover"?
I have already stated my ambivalence over whether eating pork is a sin for a Gentile believer since there are (to my mind) caveats for Gentiles built into the Torah itself, so my answer to the first part would be, "If eating pork is indeed a sin for a Gentile believer, then yes."
My answer to the second question is also yes, with the caveat that I have said nothing about worshipping "properly" outside of keeping the specific commandments associated with the Passover. I believe that within the framework of the written Torah (and by extension, all Scripture) there is plenty of room for individual expressions of worship and cultural traditions. Even though I observe these Feasts from within a Jewish cultural tradition, I also recognize the need for modification to reflect our New Covenant belief; e.g., the Passover is no longer solely about the Exodus from Egypt, but also our Exodus from sin in our Lamb Yeshua, and the Seder needs to express that.
As for why I would consider such things sins, I'll explain that in more detail when you answer my question #1, since my answer will be tailored according to yours. Fair enough?
1Co 1:11 For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brothers, by those of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 1Co 1:12 But I say this, that every one of you says, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. 1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 1Co 1:15 lest any should say that I had baptized in my own name.
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
1) What is the Biblical definition of sin, as you understand it?
Sin is defined in terms of our obedience or disobedience to the moral law of God. As my catechism says, "Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any [moral] law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature." As John says, "Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness."
The moral law of God is summarized in the "Ten Words" written by the finger of God. Thus they are eternal and applicable to all men in all ages. When the books are opened and the deeds examined, the deeds for all men are related to this eternal, moral law.
In addition to this moral law, there was, for a time, certain positive commandments, such as the commands given by God to the Israelites to drive the Canaanites from the land, or the law of kings to not "multiply horses" (Deut. 17:16). These were binding on Israel and the Jewish kings, and, as they were the command of God to disobey would be sin for Israel. Also, the law given to cultic Israel which was temporary (such as the food laws and clothing laws, the laws of sacrifice, the priesthood, and the annual festivals, etc) were binding on that people for that time, but no other.
2) You keep objecting against keeping the Appointed Times of the Lord becoming the "normative worship practices for a congregation of baptized believers." What do you mean by that exactly? Are you objecting to the very existence of congregations that choose to observe the Appointed Times of the Lord in lieu of Sunday, Christmas, etc.?
What the Old Testament (2 Cor. 3:14) describes as the "appointed times" was part and parcel with that last category of cultic laws given to Israel as a national/religious entity. Their purpose was as a shadow to point people to the Redeemer to come. They were only binding on the people of Israel, and we abrogated with the appearance of Christ, the perfect Lamb of God.
Since they were nationalistic and temporary, they are no longer appropriate or normative for the universal church of Jesus Christ, made up of Jew and gentile without distinction. Therefore, to enforce those practices as normative within the gathered people of God, the church, is to do violence to the liberty purchased for us by the blood of Christ (Gal. 5:1).
Or, as Paul put the question to Peter, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?" Peter knew he was perfectly free in Christ from the old covenant strictures according to Acts 10 and other passages. And apparently he lived that way for a time when among the gentiles in Galatia. Further, as far we know he never actually tried to compel any gentile to live like a Jew. But Paul was clear that his hypocrisy by withdrawing from the gentile brethren at the coming of "certain men came from James" had this very effect on the gentiles.
3) If you object to a perceived "spiritual superiority" among Messianics, then should my perception of a superiority complex among Calvinists cause me to a priori reject your tenants as you reject ours?
Perhaps, the difference being that Calvinists do not claim any superiority based on their behavior. We do not distinguish ourselves by the clothing we wear or the food we eat or the annual festivals we observe.
Now, if someone wishes to observe a festival day without stating that it is a moral imperative and thus applicable to all people, that it is adiaphora, as I said I have no problem. There is liberty. Just as Peter and Paul had personal liberty in Christ to eat or not eat all manner of food, or to observe or not observe "a festival or a new moon or sabbaths", so do we.
When you cross the line and say "you ought" because these laws are perceived to still be in place and expanded to include gentiles, that is where the objection is made. I do not perceive the position of the messianics to be one of liberty, one of adiaphora. Otherwise, I do not think we would be having this conversation.
Or, to put it another way, I do not consider you to be spiritually inferior because you are not a Calvinist. Neither do I consider myself to be spiritually superior. There is no particular eternal blessing, no higher place in heaven, associated with being a Calvinist or Arminian. Jesus did not say, "If you love me you will be a Calvinist." He said, "If you love me you will keep my commandments." I understand "commandments" to be the moral law as summarized in the Ten Words and Jesus' statement, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself." "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." Jesus said, "a tree is known by its fruit." When you include matters of the ceremonial law as articles of fruit, I, and most Christians, will object.
Again, I'm merely answering your questions to clarify my position.
OK, I'll play along for a minute.
Here's is the bulk of the OT law regarding the keeping of the Passover:
Now the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, "This month shall be your beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year to you. Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying: 'On the tenth day of this month every man shall take for himself a lamb, according to the house of his father, a lamb for a household. And if the household is too small for the lamb, let him and his neighbor next to his house take it according to the number of the persons; according to each man's need you shall make your count for the lamb. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats. Now you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month. Then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at twilight. And they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the houses where they eat it. Then they shall eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. Do not eat it raw, nor boiled at all with water, but roasted in fire--its head with its legs and its entrails. You shall let none of it remain until morning, and what remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire. And thus you shall eat it: with a belt on your waist, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. So you shall eat it in haste. It is the Lord's Passover. For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord. Now the blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you; and the plague shall not be on you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt. So this day shall be to you a memorial; and you shall keep it as a feast to the Lord throughout your generations. You shall keep it as a feast by an everlasting ordinance. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses. For whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel. On the first day there shall be a holy convocation, and on the seventh day there shall be a holy convocation for you. No manner of work shall be done on them; but that which everyone must eat--that only may be prepared by you. So you shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this same day I will have brought your armies out of the land of Egypt. Therefore you shall observe this day throughout your generations as an everlasting ordinance. In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty-first day of the month at evening. For seven days no leaven shall be found in your houses, since whoever eats what is leavened, that same person shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is a stranger or a native of the land. You shall eat nothing leavened; in all your dwellings you shall eat unleavened bread.' " (Exo. 12)(Feel free to add anything I have missed.)"You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leaven, nor shall the sacrifice of the Feast of the Passover be left until morning." (Exo. 34)
"'These are the feasts of the Lord, holy convocations which you shall proclaim at their appointed times. On the fourteenth day of the first month at twilight is the Lord's Passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the Lord; seven days you must eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall do no customary work on it. But you shall offer an offering made by fire to the Lord for seven days. The seventh day shall be a holy convocation; you shall do no customary work on it.' " (Lev. 23)
Now, tell us plainly, while carefully observing all the "jots and tittles" and "least of these commandments" (Matt. 5:18,19), how does one observe this "passover" today?
Under the new covenant, we observe Passover as God in the flesh observed it and as his disciples observed it. We follow the example set forth in scripture:
1Jo 2:6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.
1Co 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
How did Christ observe Passover?
Lev 23:5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD's passover.
Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
We know that Paul, an imitator or Christ, did the same thing:
1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.
Jesus, God in the flesh, also gave another command to be observed at Passover under the new covenant:
Joh 13:12 So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?
Joh 13:13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.
Joh 13:14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
Joh 13:15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.
As far as the animal sacrifices you listed, the new testament clearly teaches that under the new covenant Christ is the sacrifice:
1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us
Heb 9:9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
Heb 9:11 But Christ being come a high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Now do I observe the Passover perfectly? Not by any means. I also don't observe the sabbath perfectly. In fact, I don't observe any commandment perfectly. But that doesn't mean you throw you your hands and say "I can't do it". It means that you submit yourself to the will of Christ, living in you, and overcome, build TOWARD perfection by letting his spirit work through you:
Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
Heb 13:21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.
These are the feasts of the Lord, holy convocations which you shall proclaim at their appointed times. On the fourteenth day of the first month at twilight is the Lord's Passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the Lord; seven days you must eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall do no customary work on it. But you shall offer an offering made by fire to the Lord for seven days. The seventh day shall be a holy convocation; you shall do no customary work on it.' " (Lev. 23)
There is a biblical distinction between Passover and the days of unleavened bread, but if you would like me to tell you how to observe that festival I will be glad to share.
I notice you insert the adjective "moral" before Law of God - even in your catechism. What scripture do you cite that permits such a qualifying term? What scripture divides the Law into pieces?
Where does the Bible say "moral law"? 1 Jn. 3:4 simply says, "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law" (KJV) or "Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness, for sin is lawlessness" (MKJV). You are making an artificial distinction that the Bible itself does not make.
The moral law of God is summarized in the "Ten Words" written by the finger of God.
I have to disagree that the Ten Words is all "moral" law: The commands against idolatry and to keep the Sabbath would have to fall under the definition of "ceremonial law" in anything even approaching a natural distinction. To say that keeping the Sabbath is a moral commandment, but that keeping the other Feasts--which are grouped together with the Sabbath in Lev. 23, as well as in Col. 2:16-17--is a "ceremonial law" that has somehow been done away with in the Cross is pure arbitrariness on your part.
Also, the law given to cultic Israel which was temporary (such as the food laws and clothing laws, the laws of sacrifice, the priesthood, and the annual festivals, etc) were binding on that people for that time, but no other.
While I needn't disagree with your point about the sacrificial system, since the High Priesthood has been transferred (metatithemines, Heb. 7:12) to Yeshua (though I maintain that there will be a return of an earthly Temple in the eschaton), even agreeing to that, the NT says nothing about the transferrance, change, or removal of the food, clothing, or Appointed Times laws. You're simply reading back your traditions into the text, and stretching Hebrews to say far more than it actually does.
They were only binding on the people of Israel, and we abrogated with the appearance of Christ, the perfect Lamb of God.
You keep repeating that, but you've not yet proved it. I wrote a lengthy post (#102) refuting your arguments which you have thus far declined to answer. Therefore, you have no grounds on which to object to keeping the Feasts being part of a congregation's normative practice.
Or, as Paul put the question to Peter, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?"
There is a valid interpretation of that passage that do not require Kefa to have given up a Torah-observant lifestyle. Remember that Kefa was from Galilee, while Sha'ul was a Pharisee who was educated in Jerusalem at the feet of Gameliel. The Judeans regarded the Galileans as being renegades and half-Gentile because while they kept the Torah, they were not as concerned with the minutae of the Law nor with the Oral Law, the traditions. Therefore, Sha'ul could have been gigging Kefa for not being "as Jewish" as Sha'ul himself: "Look, if you as a Jew are going to ignore the rulings and traditions of Judea like most Galileans, where do you get off forcing these Gentiles to become observant Jews?"
Now, why is my interpretation superior to yours? Continue through the letter to Gal. 5:3 - "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole Torah." Kefa was circumcised--i.e. Jewish--and he was therefore under obligation to keep the whole Torah, including those parts specific to the Jews, including, in my view and for example, the kosher laws. There is therefore no reason to believe that Kefa was flouting any part of the Torah.
Perhaps, the difference being that Calvinists do not claim any superiority based on their behavior.
No, just their "superior" understanding of Scripture. If you'll excuse the thread-hopping for a moment, these are just two recent quotes from the PREDESTINATION: LETTING GOD BE GOD thread:
Forest Keeper (post #3202): "It is through sanctification that the greater truth of Calvinism can be known..... OR, is it a specific grace that the Holy Spirit only reveals to some among believers?"And you yourself write over on the Rosh Hashanah thread (post #154):Lord_Calvinus (post #3201): "As much as I'd like for the Lord to simply zap all spirtual babes with maturity so we don't have to have these insane spats with the non-Calvinists, the Lord has been pleased to let most of us wander in a self-centered conceit for a time."
Christmas and Easter and just as inappropriate for the new covenant as Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. All of these feast days are a denial of the simplicity of new covenant worship as given to us in the Bible. Both sets are based on the traditions of men; one group is Roman syncretistic traditionalists and the other is Judaizing traditionalists who have not quite made it all the way into the freedom of the new covenant.Funny, that looks like boasting based on behavior to me, not to mention boasting based on just being a Calvinist from your fellows. I do believe that there is a saying about stones and glass houses that is appropriate here.
In any case, one cannot make a legitimate argument based on the perceived arrogance of the other side; that's just a type of ad hominem. Ultimately, this discussion is not about us, it's about God's Word and how we understand and interpret it. So stop making it about us, and stop making snap judgments based on your feelings.
When you cross the line and say "you ought" because these laws are perceived to still be in place and expanded to include gentiles, that is where the objection is made.
But you don't cross the line when you say, "You ought not . . ."? Or when you say that Sunday-worship is a New Covenant requirement? Again, you're employing a double-standard.
And I'm sorry if it bugs you, but the fact is that in the Torah, God commands certain days to be observed forever. We have successfully countered all of your arguments to the contrary from the NT, and have shown that keeping the Torah was the normative practice among, at the least, the Jewish believers. Therefore, why shouldn't we say that we ought to be observing certain days and employing certain symbols that God Himself gave us?
Now, back to some issues in post #268:
In my understanding of Scripture, under the new covenant God could care less if we have a roast pork dinner at a church gathering, where clothing of mixed material, cut or beards a certain way, or do not remember the "passover" or "yom kippur".
And we in the Messianic movement understand differently. We also understand that honest disagreement and error is covered by the blood of the Messiah on either side, and that we share in one Spirit regardless.
But, if you insist that I will be better off spiritually and truly pleasing to God by devoting myself to keeping these things in as scrupulous a manner as can be defined in this day and age, then I call that "legalism" and a judaizing of the church.
I insist that these are God's commandments; I would be lying if I called them anything else. Now, if God commands something, wouldn't you be better off spiritually to obey Him?
Now, the second part of your sentence, "and truly pleasing to God," is where you, not I, fall into legalism. We are both agreed that only in Yeshua HaMashiach are we made in any way, shape, or form made pleasing to God: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Yeshua HaMashiach, even we have believed in Yeshua HaMashiach, that we might be justified by the faith of the Messiah, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Gal. 2:16).
Perhaps a Calvinist believes in his heart of hearts that by being a Calvinist, and emphasizing God's sovereignty in his particular manner, he is somehow more pleasing to God. And doubtless there are many Messianics who labor under the mistaken belief that it is by keeping the whole Torah they can be made pleasing or more pleasing to God.
I, however, am not one of them. I am far too well aware of my own sin--how can someone who misses the mark so often take pride that his target (yarah) is a little narrower than someone else's?
This is not about winning points "by the works of the law." It is about obeying a beloved Father--not to win His favor, but simply because we love Him.
It is also about regaining a lost blessing. You keep talking about the Feasts as if they were some horrible, onerous burden that Christ came to free us from. They're not. They're for our pleasure, our good. "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27). They are times of refreshing, foretastes of the things to come, and memorials of God's grace.
Even if the Feasts were adiaphora, why wouldn't I want to celebrate and share them?
Now, go back and read the original article. Do I at any point even bring up my belief that we should be observing these Appointed Times? No. All I do is explain what Yom Kippur is about and how I believe it will be fulfilled in the End Times, when the High Priest will emerge from the Holy of Holies to show all Israel that His sacrifice on their behalf has been accepted.
Why you find that threatening, I have no idea.
Pure speculation at best - and contradicted by Paul's own dissimssive attitude towards his Pharisaical bona fides in Philippians 3.
Because they are the sacraments of an old, imperfect covenant which has vanished and passed away, along with its regulations for worship and earthly place of holiness (Heb. 8:13-9:1).
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.