Except to observe this. By the strangest irony, you appear to end up in a place very much like that of the most advanced dispensationalists. I grew up among dispensationalists, so I know who I'm talking about. In fact, while a student at Moody Bible Institute back in the '70's, I actually met John Walvoord. I set aside his fame and cut directly to the chase and asked him about the restoration of the temple sacrifice during the millennium. I can't remember exactly how I stated it, but basically I couldn't imagine a worse blasphemy against the Son of God than that millennial believers should, by reverting to the law of sacrifice, "crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame" by returning to the temple system.
This is also, as you must recognize, a parallel irony in that the chief problem New Covenant Christians have with the Roman system is that it too is a regression to Old Covenant shadows, complete with a recapitulation of the daily sacrifice, held together by Aquinas' sophistry concerning transubstantiation.
Whereas the New Covenant teaching countenances neither form of regression to the old wine skins. We have new wine, and we must have new wine skins.
But again, you already know all this, because it has been repeatedly presented to you. So there is no point in having yet another correspondent on those matters. But I do find your apparent alignment with Rome and the dispensationalists simultaneously alarming and entertaining.
BTW, I do not mean to offend you with my blunt descriptions. I have direct experience with cults, a family member who was draw into one for a time. It was a heartbreaking situation. There is a specific tone to the cultic mindset, and I am seeing it on these pages. For example, this cult my family member was involved with would teach salvation by grace through faith, substitutionary atonement, etc., etc., everything a good hearted follower of Christ would want to hear. That is why the scam works so well. It appeals to people who truly love Jesus, because it provides, as you called it, a means to know how to love God and man, a precisely codified handbook that removes the risk of uncertainty in relying on the Spirit for the infilling of agape, the divine love. Instead, just do x, y, z, and you will know you have behaved lovingly. Love by rules.
And here is where it goes dark, and here is why Paul's teaching on the believer's being dead to the law, and the teaching in Hebrews on the genuine newness of the New Covenant, is so critically important to the exercise of Christian faith. In any belief group, there is the formal teaching and there is the de facto teaching. It's best when the two are the same. Very often they are not. In the cult I had to deal with, the formal teaching was grace, faith, etc. The true, de facto teaching, what was practiced by manner and tone, was guilt, fear, burdens of the law, same as all the so-called law cults.
For you see, the practical problem with grace, is how do you know you've received it? Well there has to be evidence, right? And what better source for the evidence than a rule-based system visible to the carnal eyes of man, what one eats and drinks, what one wears or touches, how one celebrates certain holy days, or uses the "best" way of speaking of God, the sacred names, etc. All of these easily quantifiable by observers. And so the leadership becomes the observer class, watching closely for signs of false faith by deviation from the cherry-picked rules. Then the fear of failure sets in, and takes over, and takes control of a person's mind and life. It very nearly destroyed the sanity of my family member.
This is why Christian liberty, per Galatians and elsewhere, is not merely a nice additive with which you can mix the law. It is really a dramatically new way for the love of God to work in the hearts of humankind:
John 7:37-39 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. (38) He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (39) (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)The Spirit of God makes us new creations in Him. The foundation is love, not fear:
1Jn 4:17-19 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. (18) There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. (19) We love him, because he first loved us.See, it is not, "we love him, and we know it because we do x, y, z." It's that we really love Him, and so we don't have fear, and the torment that accompanies it. We love Him, not because we live in fear of condemnation, but because our hearts cannot help but to respond to the love He has shown to us. This love is the power of God by which He draws us to Himself, as His own chosen people.
Rom 7:4-6 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. (5) For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. (6) But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.Peace,
Absolutely unqualified statements such as that are almost never true. It's like the fellow who picked two passages from the Bible at random and called it doctrine. The first was "Judas went ... and hanged himself." The second was "Go and do thou like wise." Wouldn't the reader benefit from a little context here? For any given passage, you need to know the setting, the audience, what just went before, what immediately follows, why is the statement made, are there any qualifiers, etc., etc. Without a proper framework, you can't comprehend the meaning.
All that needs to be added to the context that already inhabits the Christian mind is a preference for the Hebrew custom over the Greek. This is a perfect example thereof, as a Greek 'disciple' has an entirely different connotation than an Hebrew 'talmudim'. Understanding the extreme service a talmudim provided to and for his master necessarily colors this story - These were not mere students sitting at the feet of a philosopher (which is the image we all have caught in our heads), but rather, a profound and passionate emulation and preservation of every word and deed, every movement and gesture - If the master was left handed, the disciple would endeavor to become left-handed. The intent was to preserve the master in the disciple, to the very best degree possible.
Thus, it is true that a disciple would record, and live out every word that passed from the mouth of his master, And that he uttered. even once, a ratification of Moses, makes it so forever. No disciple can gainsay the words of his master - it simply wouldn't happen. A fairly cursory examination of the relationship of a talmudim to his rabbi would validate this view.
This is one of the main concepts that began to separate me from the Christian 'herd', and caused me to question the easy-believe-ism that intrinsically infects Protestantism... And a whole new world opened up to me from within the scriptures.
But this is precisely how cultic sophistry works.
It would be an odd thing for me to be assigned to a cult. I have no affiliation except to a non-denominational stereotypical praise-centered Evangelical church. My erstwhile affiliation with Calvinists dissolved with my divorce, and while I have drifted some among the Pentecostals too, I can assure you that there is no 'cultic leader' promoting this view in me - A view which in the main, I have held for decades.
Needless to say, my current church holds little sway over my position either, as I tired of the Platonism of the pulpit long, long ago. Even among the Reformed. I don't expect to be fed much meat in any sermon or study. When it happens (and it does from time to time), it is an astonishment. What I have received from church, for a very long time, is authority to be in submission to (where my conscience allows), and the opportunity to worship with fellow believers - Hence the praise orientation.
We know several things about this passage and the broader context that disallow the view that the law of Moses applies in the same way to New Covenant believers as it did to Old Covenant believers.
What you know, in my mind, is colored by a Greek and especially Roman eisegesis. No offense meant to you personally in that - I have little knowledge about your views beyond the generics of your denomination (which I know all too well, having come out from the Reformed). While I hold the Protestants in high regard, I think they did not protest near enough.
Except to observe this. By the strangest irony, you appear to end up in a place very much like that of the most advanced dispensationalists. [...] [I] cut directly to the chase and asked him about the restoration of the temple sacrifice during the millennium. I can't remember exactly how I stated it, but basically I couldn't imagine a worse blasphemy against the Son of God than that millennial believers should, by reverting to the law of sacrifice, "crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame" by returning to the temple system.
Then It may be no surprise to you that I get along fairly well with the old-school dispys, even though I reject dispensationalism per se. My own view aligns more with a pre-mil, mid-trib, historist position, and I am informed more by the OT times and seasons, to include the Jubilees.
As to the sacrifice, I am not of the same mind as you - I don't understand where that line can be drawn in the face of Paul hastening to be in Jerusalem for Passover (Passover is a personal blood-sacrificial event) among other things, and because of the case of the Prophets, who show a sacrificial system present in the Kingdom. How the 'HERE' came from 'WHEN' and gets to 'THEN' is important to me. What we think we know 'HERE' should invariably be upon the road between 'WHEN' and 'THEN'... And it is not. So too, was the case for those worshiping under Temple Judaism... Not only did they miss their time of visitation, but also the signs of their coming destruction. Complacency, and follow-the-leader left them, by and large, wholly unaware. I will state that the very same case exists, and largely has existed, within Christendom.
And Heb 6:6 is speaking of 'falling away' into sin, not into the sacrificial system. How one can quantify 'sin' without Torah is still a mystery to me.
This is also, as you must recognize, a parallel irony in that the chief problem New Covenant Christians have with the Roman system is that it too is a regression to Old Covenant shadows, complete with a recapitulation of the daily sacrifice, held together by Aquinas' sophistry concerning transubstantiation.
While I see what you are saying, I will adamantly disagree - I DO see the Roman church copying Judaism in large part, if it were possible to strip her of her paganism enough to see, but their system, like the Pharisee-ism which became Rabbinical Judaism, supplants Torah with a law of their own. It is extremely difficult, from either side (as I know Torah-keeping Messianic Jews) to peel back the many layers of Tradition to get to the pearl: Torah and the Testimony of Yeshua, that which the Bible says is the necessary core.
Protestantism, all unknowing, retained much of Romanism precisely because of their reliance upon Latin and Greek terminology and custom, and because of it, their way looks right to them. But replace the Greek lenses with Hebrew ones, and Protestant thought becomes untenable.
I do find your apparent alignment with Rome and the dispensationalists simultaneously alarming and entertaining.
Isn't it strange that I would say the same of you (at least with Rome)?
BTW, I do not mean to offend you with my blunt descriptions.
Never fear - It is a pleasure to chat with you. I enjoy directness, provided that it is not accompanied by gnashing teeth and a lot of dust thrown in the air.
I have direct experience with cults, a family member who was draw into one for a time. It was a heartbreaking situation
Yeah, me too - My sister got caught up in a similar situation. It drug her through a knothole.
It was a heartbreaking situation. There is a specific tone to the cultic mindset, and I am seeing it on these pages.
Oh, so am I, but not coming from me.
The true, de facto teaching, what was practiced by manner and tone, was guilt, fear, burdens of the law, same as all the so-called law cults.
Strangely enough, I have dropped quite a bit of my burden because of Torah. I am far more free now than when I was under Calvinism. I prefer the Torah of YHWH to the strictures thereof, of that I am certain. And I am not under fear. That would be counterproductive.
For you see, the practical problem with grace, is how do you know you've received it? Well there has to be evidence, right? And what better source for the evidence than a rule-based system visible to the carnal eyes of man, what one eats and drinks, what one wears or touches, how one celebrates certain holy days, or uses the "best" way of speaking of God, the sacred names, etc.
Yet you feel perfectly comfortable calling me back to your standards and mores, your sacred names, and your holidays... Pardon me, but it is the very same thing. You will never know how vehement and indoctrinated Christians of all denominations are until you get out of the fishbowl. Just look at this thread.
This is why Christian liberty, per Galatians and elsewhere, is not merely a nice additive with which you can mix the law. It is really a dramatically new way for the love of God to work in the hearts of humankind:
Yes, so I have heard. Apparently Christians are free to do almost anything except keeping that nasty, tricksy, old Torah. They never stop to consider that the Power of Messiah makes them capable of keeping Torah. How can 'being perfected' not include being able to withstand sin? Rather, the Christian mind takes the sin away. How convenient.
But of all that, what I hold most dear, is the liberty He bought for me with His blood, which is not simply "better blood" as you put it, it was the only blood that could save me. The blood of bulls and goats could only "purify the flesh," as the writer of Hebrews says. But the blood of Christ could do the unthinkable, could actually purge my conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Hebrews 9:14). Dead works, All my righteousness as filthy rags to him, yet He condescends to love me enough to die for me. And what a sinner I was, what a burden of sorrow I must have added to His soul that dark day. It makes me cry to think of it. And He did all this for my liberty. His life for mine. His love giving birth to my love. To set me free:
That was beautifully rendered.
Thank you for your reasonable conversation. It is much like what I used to come to FR for. Kudos.
Peace, indeed. -roamer_1