Replies

Do you affirm or deny that one who who comes to God as a contrite damned + destitute sinner, and trusts the risen Lord Jesus to save him by His sinless shed blod, is presently justified before God by his faith being counted for righteousness?

That depends upon how you look at it - Betrothal is legally marriage, but is only the promise - until the consummation, it is not realized.

The question was not about whether this means one will persevere in faith, but whether faith appropriates justification.

Certainly the Lord fulfilled the Law in its fullest intent, going beyond what the letter of the law of Moses said,

Murder was always in the heart, not the action.

No, murder was also action, and only that was penalized, while the Lord Jesus expanded love of brethren to enemies, contrary to the hatred of enemies enjoined as in "Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever," (Deuteronomy 23:6) "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." (Matthew 5:44)

And divorce was also restricted.

Your point is not lost on me - but you might digest the fact that the spirit of the law, in every instance wherein Yeshua interpreted, was stricter than the letter - Even thinking of murder IS murder

Thanks for affirming my point that you just combated, that "the Lord fulfilled the Law in its fullest intent, going beyond what the letter of the law of Moses said,"

But Torah is not merit based. Every single OT person I can think of was saved by grace through faith.

Wrong, they were saved by grace by faith in the mercy of God, looking toward Christ, while the Law condemned them. For you deny what the Holy Spirit says about salvation under the Law in contrasting it under grace,

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. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. (Galatians 3:10-12)

Rather than "if a man do, he shall live in them," (Neh. 9:29; Ezek. 20:11) under grace,

"to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:5)

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. (John 1:17)

Wrong answer. The law cannot be added to nor taken from.

It is you who is in error, as we are taking about the letter, not its intent, and the new covenant is distinctly stated to be,

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. (Hebrews 8:9; Jer. 31:32)

Details to follow.

No, the traditions and doctrines of men are not based upon the law. If it were that they were true to the law, they would not be traditions and doctrines of men.

Yes, they were based on the Law. Such things as "the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things" (Mk. 7:7) are easily seen to be derived from purification statutes upon which principal baptism was based, but went beyond them in making doctrines of them, and grievous to be borne. In such a case only what God affirmed was enjoined, thus the baptism of John was of God, and not of men.

I am keeping kosher because YHWH said to. And if we love YHWH we will keep his commandments.

Wrong, you are a heretic who denies the manifest nature of the New Covenant, with the distinctions it makes btwn types of laws, and the literal observances thereof, obedience under which constitutes obedience to the Lord who instituted that Covenant with His own sinless shed blood!

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: (Hebrews 8:7-8)

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. (Hebrews 8:13)

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; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Hebrews 9:9-10)

Details to follow.

That borders on insolence. Paul is not saying the merely being circumcised places one under the Law, but being circumcised in submission to the Judaizers signified submission to the Law as means of justification, that one must keep the Law en toto in order to be saved.

It wasn't meant to be insolent, but merely snide. But your interpretation is correct - And I do not keep Torah as a means of justification (I know who my redeemer is), but rather, as an expression of love for YHWH. What then?

To be consistent, you must hold that saving faith is only that which literally obeys all the ordinances of Torah entoto, as able, and thus you are substantially no different than "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." (Acts 15:5)

. ... obedience to Christ means keeping the Torah including 7th day Sabbaths keeping, feasts, dietary laws etc. Do you consider this what obedient saving faith is or not?

It is in my case. Yeshua is our example. That means we do what he did. That is what obedience to the Rabbi is - As perfect an emulation as one can produce.

The "it is in my case" is equivocation - "A statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth." (The Free Dictionary) It should be obvious this is not dealing with issues such as infants or the ignorant, but obedience to Christ by those who can hear and obey His voice, as per my reference, (Jn. 10:27,28) and if obedience to Christ means keeping the Torah including 7th day Sabbaths keeping, feasts, dietary laws etc. for you, then it means it for all such as who can hear and obey the Scriptures.

Meanwhile, by ignoring covenantal distinctions past and present, you must enjoin literally keeping the Law upon men as Enoch. But if such could be righteous before the Sinaitic covenant was given, so can those under the New Covenant which is not according to that.

Which essentially makes you a modern day heretical Judaizer.

That is nonsense. Peter is not talking about having to wear anything or just keeping the "additions or changes to Torah, endorsed by the elders,"

The yoke of a Rabbi is his interpretation of Torah, which the disciple is bound to strenuously keep, and duty bound to emulate (sometimes on pain of death) ). Is it your position that Peter was strenuously keeping Yeshua's interpretation of Torah by *not* keeping Torah? It is ridiculous! What then can the 'yoke we could not bear' be?

This is indeed ridiculous. Your response was to the yoke "which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear," and thus it was you who made that yoke being that of another rabbi, but which remains non-sense, for again, the context is not that of rabbinical additions, but,

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. (Acts 15:5)

And thus the contrasting requirements was not that of releasing the Gentiles from such things as the washing of cups, while keeping all feasts, dietary laws etc., but that of Noahide essentials, keeping the primary moral law (idolatry is the mother of all sin) and the primarily offensive practice of eating blood.

Under the Law every time a man had marital relations, or even touched a dog or cat (or anything that walked upon its 4 paws) left one unclean till the evening. (Leviticus 11:27; 15:16) That's a lot of "unclean time," in addition to the constant sacrifices. Thus Peter's words,

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? (Acts 15:10)

Peter himself had been told to violate the dietary laws in Acts 10, regardless of any denial, and further proof that this referred to abrogating observance of the ceremonial law is seen in the reiteration of the sentence of Acts 15 by James in Acts 21, in contrast to Paul showing that he was one who "keepest the Law" such as in undergoing temple washing, for in contrast he states,

As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing , save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. (Acts 21:25)

Thus it is incontrovertible that this "yoke" is what Peter referred to no matter how much you try to spin it to refer to rabbinical additions, the rejection of which was already a foregone conclusion.

And as for meats and drinks, diverse washings, and carnal ordinances: What meats? What drinks? What diverse washings? What carnal ordinances? Specify please.

A valid question indeed.

Meats and drinks:

Hebrews 9 is clearly referring to ordinances under the Law, in which the Temple was center, and its ordinances extended in principal and by precept into daily life, and which Heb. 9 says were in force "until the time of reformation," in which dietary laws, which were not originally part of obedience to God, where typological of New Covenant spiritual realities, such as "leaven" representing hypocrisy. (Mt. 16:12; 1Cor. 5:7)

Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? (Mark 7:18-19)

I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. (Romans 14:14)

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. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. (1 Timothy 4:1-5)

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. (1 Corinthians 10:25-26)

On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. (Acts 10:9-13)

But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (Acts 10:14-15)

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. (Genesis 9:3)

Diverse washings.

Same principal as above, "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him." (Mark 7:15) Again, the context of Heb. 9 are the ordinances under the Law, centered around the Temple, which includes temple purification and which in principle and by precept extended into being "unclean unto the evening." But which were typological of NT fulfillment, in which the believer is "washed" by faith in the sinless shed blood of the Lord Jesus, and thus has " boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus." (Hebrews 10:19)

Outside of baptism which signifies death and resurrection, nowhere is ritual washing enjoined upon Christians, though they may do so, as with Paul,

And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. (1 Corinthians 9:20-21)

Carnal ordinances.

Similarity, these refer to typological ordinances "imposed on them until the time of reformation," but in general, and which Col. 2 speaks of, in which circumcision is "the circumcision made without hands," baptism answering to that, (vs. 11,12) as the believer having being dead in his sins and the uncircumcision of his flesh, God raised the believer up together with the Lord, and having forgiven them all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against him, which was contrary to him, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross. (Colossians 2:13-14)

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. (Colossians 2:16-17)

Thus this is not talking about extraScriptural ordinances, which were certainly not a foreshadow of Christ, but those of Scripture as regards typological laws which were a shadow made by the body of Christ, and when the person who made the shadow appears, you look to the reality, not the shadow.

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. (Romans 14:5)

In addition, believers are not to be taken in by those who also added to these laws such things as esoteric angelology and likely the invocation of angels, and false asceticism. (Col. 2:18-22) The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that a further reinforcement of Marian devotion “was derived from the cult of the angels, which, while pre-Christian in its origin, was heartily embraced by the faithful of the sub-Apostolic age." (Catholic Encyclopedia > Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary)

In contrast to perpetuating shadows of Christ in ceremonial ordinances, or looking to angels, all is found in Christ, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:" (Colossians 2:9-10)

I think you are claiming salvation by a faith which requires keeping the dietary laws, feast keeping, 7th day sabbath, etc. If not, say so.

No, Torah keeping has nothing to do with salvation. Loving YHWH means keeping his commandments, and following Yeshua means copying him as an example. In both cases, that includes Torah.

But while works do not actually earn eternal life, following Christ is what faith does (and repents when convicted of not doing so), and thus as caring for the brethren is one of the primary "things that accompany salvation," (Heb. 6:9) and those who habitually are forsaking the assembling of believers together (Hebrews 10:25) are testifying against having faith, then it follows that not keeping the ceremonial law would also be the latter, if this is necessarily part of obedience to Christ as you contend.

But instead it is clearly stated, despite the Judaizer spin, that dietary laws are abrogated, as are those re holydays, the new moon, or the sabbath, and rather than being enjoined, going back into such is only rebuked.

But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (Galatians 3:23-24)

Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. (Galatians 4:3-5)

But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. (Galatians 4:9-10; cf. Rm. 8:3)

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. (Galatians 5:1-2)

Thus nowhere is obedience to the ceremonial law and the sabbath enjoined under the New Cov., but requiring it is reproved, Stop trying to compel God's holy word to conform to your latter day Judaizers. May God give thee and them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

[roamer_1:] That depends upon how you look at it - Betrothal is legally marriage, but is only the promise - until the consummation, it is not realized.

The question was not about whether this means one will persevere in faith, but whether faith appropriates justification.

Grace through faith appropriates all.

[roamer_1:] Murder was always in the heart, not the action.

No, murder was also action, and only that was penalized [...]

Only the action CAN be penalized, even to this day. That doesn't negate the fact that a true interpretation of Torah will line up with what Yeshua said. YHWH has always been interested in the circumcision of the heart, not the flesh. And murder has always been in the heart. Without the thought, the action would never occur.

while the Lord Jesus expanded love of brethren to enemies, contrary to the hatred of enemies enjoined as in "Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever," (Deuteronomy 23:6) "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." (Matthew 5:44)

You are comparing cats and bananas. National instruction vs. personal instruction.

[roamer_1:] Your point is not lost on me - but you might digest the fact that the spirit of the law, in every instance wherein Yeshua interpreted, was stricter than the letter - Even thinking of murder IS murder

Thanks for affirming my point that you just combated, that "the Lord fulfilled the Law in its fullest intent, going beyond what the letter of the law of Moses said,"

But I am not affirming your point. There is plenty of evidence that Torah is pointed at the heart. But one has to read it with that in mind.

And you are saved by grace by faith in the mercy of YHWH looking back at the cross, and thereby toward Messiah, while the law condemns YOU. There has never been salvation under the law - that is not what the law is for. What has changed is that the Better Blood has come. Every time you sin, it is the blood of Messiah that is your covering. The mechanics of the thing have not changed. Sin must be repented and covered by blood.

[roamer_1:] Wrong answer. The law cannot be added to nor taken from.

It is you who is in error, as we are taking about the letter, not its intent, and the new covenant is distinctly stated to be,

Who is talking about the letter? The intent was always there, and IS there, if you would but find it. How can the literal law not contain the intent for which and of which it is written? That is simply schizophrenic.

Thank you for making my point - it wasn't the law itself, but rather the traditions of men - and that much we can agree upon. But traditions of men based upon the law, are still traditions of men. In every single case, Yeshua upheld Torah, and excoriated the Pharisaical law.

Not at all - Obedience to Yeshua is all I can have, as his disciple. He is the one who said to keep Torah. And I will point you to the prophets, who declare my position as being true in the Kingdom. Why would it not also be true today?

According to whom? I am consistent in two things: To be a disciple of Yeshua is to follow his every example and word. And if we love YHWH we will keep his commandments. I have never ever said that keeping Torah is salvific, or that I expect it to justify me... BECAUSE I am saved, I keep Torah. Not the other way around. 'If you love me, you will keep my commandments' ... 'how do we know we love God, when we are walking in his commandments' - That seems simple enough to me.

[roamer_1:] It is in my case. Yeshua is our example. That means we do what he did. That is what obedience to the Rabbi is - As perfect an emulation as one can produce.

The "it is in my case" is equivocation - "A statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth." (The Free Dictionary)

No, it isn't. I am not in a position to place expectations upon others - that is above my paygrade.

It should be obvious this is not dealing with issues such as infants or the ignorant, but obedience to Christ by those who can hear and obey His voice, as per my reference, (Jn. 10:27,28) and if obedience to Christ means keeping the Torah including 7th day Sabbaths keeping, feasts, dietary laws etc. for you, then it means it for all such as who can hear and obey the Scriptures.

It is not my place to decide that. All I can do is tell folks what I see. Presbyterians are way different from Pentecostals... Is one right and the other wrong? My mother is far more comfortable with her old hymns and quiet ceremonies... But my sister would wither in that environment. It isn't in me to judge either one.

...And so can those under Moses, as has obviously occurred. I just see those distinctions being differently placed, in order to reconcile Paul to John and to Peter, and in order to reconcile the present with the past and future.

Which essentially makes you a modern day heretical Judaizer.

LOL!

[roamer_1:] The yoke of a Rabbi is his interpretation of Torah, which the disciple is bound to strenuously keep, and duty bound to emulate (sometimes on pain of death) ). Is it your position that Peter was strenuously keeping Yeshua's interpretation of Torah by *not* keeping Torah? It is ridiculous! What then can the 'yoke we could not bear' be?

> 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. (Acts 15:5)

When a Pharisee says 'Law of Moses', one has to realize what it is that they believe is the 'Law of Moses'. They believe in TWO Torahs handed down, the oral and the written, and ALL of that is (to them) the 'Law of Moses'. The fact that they are demanding something that is not in Torah should be a clue. What they are demanding is NOT in Moses.

The Noahide essentials are where anyone starts out. Another clue is that not all of the Noahide essentials were listed... It is obvious to me that these things which were set forth were but a starting place, with an intention that they would learn more as they go.

Under the Law every time a man had marital relations, or even touched a dog or cat (or anything that walked upon its 4 paws) left one unclean till the evening. (Leviticus 11:27; 15:16) That's a lot of "unclean time," in addition to the constant sacrifices.

No, one is unclean for touching a dead carcass, not the animal itself.

LOL! No, he wasn't. Peter doubted in himself what the dream should mean, and then interpreted it himself in the house of Cornelius.

Thus it is incontrovertible that this "yoke" is what Peter referred to no matter how much you try to spin it to refer to rabbinical additions, the rejection of which was already a foregone conclusion. .

The thing that is in your way is that a disciple is not greater than his teacher, and the Teacher said to do and teach Torah. It is plain to me that Torah does not require circumcision of male adults, and certainly does not say it is needed for salvation. So the premise from which this started is *not* Torah - Thus it must be referring to something else.

[roamer_1:] And as for meats and drinks, diverse washings, and carnal ordinances: What meats? What drinks? What diverse washings? What carnal ordinances? Specify please.

A valid question indeed.

And a well thought out answer - But if it is as you say, then why the return to Sabbaths and washings, and ordinances in Ezekiel's temple? Somehow that has to be reconciled, and I reject the dispensational view outright.

[roamer_1:] No, Torah keeping has nothing to do with salvation. Loving YHWH means keeping his commandments, and following Yeshua means copying him as an example. In both cases, that includes Torah.

But while works do not actually earn eternal life, following Christ is what faith does (and repents when convicted of not doing so)[...]

If following Messiah means keeping Torah to me, and my conscience will not allow me otherwise, what is that to you?

[...] and thus as caring for the brethren is one of the primary "things that accompany salvation," (Heb. 6:9) and those who habitually are forsaking the assembling of believers together (Hebrews 10:25) are testifying against having faith, then it follows that not keeping the ceremonial law would also be the latter, if this is necessarily part of obedience to Christ as you contend.

How does that follow in the least?

Then you will have to explain the disciples participating in such. And the prophets proclaiming such to be the future... And explain how the ONLY one to change the times and laws is this guy:

Dan 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

There is no other changing Torah. And I think this happened long ago... The frog in the pot can't tell...