PDA

View Full Version : Messianic Heresies Exposed



bagofseed
Apr 27th 2009, 07:58 AM
http://www.nccg.org/568Art-Messianic_Heresies.html

XV. Renewed Covenant
Many messianics erroneously believe that the New Covenant is the Old Covenant 'renewed', 'refreshed' or 'revitalised' {1/2}. They believe that the Old Covenant is therefore still valid but with Yah'shua 'added on' as a renewing or refreshing agent. Part of the problem concerns the Hebrew word chadash which means 'totally new' or 'new' (as in getting a new name - Is.62:2 - or singing a new song - Ps.96:1) which is the sense of the New Covenant spoken of by Jeremiah (Jer.31:31), but which they insist has a different meaning. Part of the problem with the Greek version of the New Testament is that kainos, which renders the Hebrew chadash, can mean 'fresh', 'recent' or 'newly made' and since so many messianics are unwilling to let go of the Old for the New, they are keen to use the Greek nuance which suits them. The matter is complicated by a second Greek word, neos, which means exclusively 'new' and which is not used for New Testament passages speaking of the New Covenant. However, the reason the Greek translators used kainos is because they wished to convey the double sense of 'new' and 'fresh', so the best translation of B'rit Chadashah would be the 'Totally New and Fresh Covenant' - in other words, 'New and Renewed'.
The True Doctrine is that the Covenant established by Messiah has entirely replaced the old one with its Levitical priesthood system and form of ritualistic worship: the Old has passed away and an entirely New one is in force, as is clearly explained in the Epistle to the Hebrews. This means that we must first come to the Messiah to receive our salvation and then obey the commandments (mitzvot) but not the other way round. Yah'shua is the Living Torah and it is to the Way, the Truth, and the Life that we must go to first.





Opinions?

Sojourner
Apr 27th 2009, 08:09 AM
You like living on the edge, do you? Better put on your flack jacket, if you know what I mean. ;)

David2
Apr 27th 2009, 11:21 AM
I don't think Messiah started a new covenant. During Jesus's earthly ministry the old covenant was still fully in place. Jesus never instructed anyone to stop with the law, circumcision, temple sacrifices etc. In fact, the shadows of the law was first declared by Paul. He was also the one that coined the word "stoigeia" (first principals of the law) that were done away with (Colossians and Hebrews).

HisLeast
Apr 27th 2009, 01:17 PM
The True Doctrine is that the Covenant established by Messiah has entirely replaced the old one with its Levitical priesthood system and form of ritualistic worship: the Old has passed away and an entirely New one is in force, as is clearly explained in the Epistle to the Hebrews. This means that we must first come to the Messiah to receive our salvation and then obey the commandments (mitzvot) but not the other way round. Yah'shua is the Living Torah and it is to the Way, the Truth, and the Life that we must go to first.

Opinions?

Well, I'm not Messianic myself. I'm just a poor sucker looking for truth, but deafened by the roar of completely contradictory answers.

This last paragraph really struck me. It seems to me that if a "Messianic" loves Jesus, and their attempt to hold to the law to the best of their ability springs from that love, then where's the problem? Are we splitting hairs?

Slug1
Apr 27th 2009, 01:25 PM
Well, I'm not Messianic myself. I'm just a poor sucker looking for truth, but deafened by the roar of completely contradictory answers.

This last paragraph really struck me. It seems to me that if a "Messianic" loves Jesus, and their attempt to hold to the law to the best of their ability springs from that love, then where's the problem? Are we splitting hairs?The split hair is this IMO... do we love Jesus or the law? Why love Jesus though the law when we're to Love God, through Jesus... right?

HisLeast
Apr 27th 2009, 01:27 PM
The split hair is this IMO... do we love Jesus or the law? Why Love Jesus though the law when we're to Love God, through Jesus... right?

It might be. I don't know.
If Jesus "is" the law, then isn't loving Jesus loving the law? Is there anything explicitly wrong with studying and trying to apply old covenant law (other than the fact its impossible to do it all)?

Slug1
Apr 27th 2009, 01:37 PM
(other than the fact its impossible to do it all)?That my friend is the reason for Jesus, that we can serve God through Jesus and not the law any longer... since it was impossible and as the Holy Spirit inspired words say:

Hebrews 8

A New Covenant

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 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 did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=8&version=50#fen-NKJV-30099b)] I will remember no more.”[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=8&version=50#fen-NKJV-30099c)]
13 In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

HisLeast
Apr 27th 2009, 01:39 PM
That my friend is the reason for Jesus, then we can serve God through Jesus and not the law any longer... since is was impossible and as the Holy Spirit inspired words say:

Hebrews 8

A New Covenant

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 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 did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=8&version=50#fen-NKJV-30099b)] I will remember no more.”[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=8&version=50#fen-NKJV-30099c)]
13 In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

But is there anything wrong with "keeping what you can"?

Slug1
Apr 27th 2009, 01:50 PM
But is there anything wrong with "keeping what you can"?Why? The law's that apply are written on our hearts and the Holy Spirit convicts us of sin now. Back then, the Holy Spirit came upon people when the Lord willed but now, in the New Covenant once we give ourselves to the Lord the Holy Spirit is in us all... constantly, at all times 24/7! No need for the Lord to spell it all out, what is and isn't sin as He did with the Law... now, we "feel", are convicted as Jesus works on our insides. By following the law and changing ourselves to adhear to the Laws, we're doing it "ourselves", Jesus, through the leading of His Holy Spirit does it now... we just have to be obedient and let Jesus change us... not us change us for God through adhearing to laws laid out for a specific group of people, at a specific time, for a specific reason.

Are we to continue to justify ourselves before God by choosing which laws to follow (cause we all know what that leads to, as we read in the OT) or are we now to remain rightgeous and blameless before the Lord and allow Him to sanctify us as we allow the Holy Spirit to change us from the inside out over our lifetime as we're obedient to the will of God and do as He wills, tells what is wrong, and uses us in His Kingdom?

Teke
Apr 27th 2009, 02:06 PM
http://www.nccg.org/568Art-Messianic_Heresies.html

XV. Renewed Covenant
Many messianics erroneously believe that the New Covenant is the Old Covenant 'renewed', 'refreshed' or 'revitalised' {1/2}. They believe that the Old Covenant is therefore still valid but with Yah'shua 'added on' as a renewing or refreshing agent. Part of the problem concerns the Hebrew word chadash which means 'totally new' or 'new' (as in getting a new name - Is.62:2 - or singing a new song - Ps.96:1) which is the sense of the New Covenant spoken of by Jeremiah (Jer.31:31), but which they insist has a different meaning. Part of the problem with the Greek version of the New Testament is that kainos, which renders the Hebrew chadash, can mean 'fresh', 'recent' or 'newly made' and since so many messianics are unwilling to let go of the Old for the New, they are keen to use the Greek nuance which suits them. The matter is complicated by a second Greek word, neos, which means exclusively 'new' and which is not used for New Testament passages speaking of the New Covenant. However, the reason the Greek translators used kainos is because they wished to convey the double sense of 'new' and 'fresh', so the best translation of B'rit Chadashah would be the 'Totally New and Fresh Covenant' - in other words, 'New and Renewed'.
The True Doctrine is that the Covenant established by Messiah has entirely replaced the old one with its Levitical priesthood system and form of ritualistic worship: the Old has passed away and an entirely New one is in force, as is clearly explained in the Epistle to the Hebrews. This means that we must first come to the Messiah to receive our salvation and then obey the commandments (mitzvot) but not the other way round. Yah'shua is the Living Torah and it is to the Way, the Truth, and the Life that we must go to first.


Opinions?

It is narrow minded to interpret for understanding from singular words. The world is full of languages, so the church must clearly relate the gospel irregardless of language translations.

I've studied the Hebrew, and it's ambiguous compared to the Greek IMHO. Preferences aside, the scriptures still make their point irregardless of languages.

For instance, take the Jeremiah passage you referenced in your post. In the Sept. it's Jeremiah 38:31 just FYI(some bibles don't have all of Jeremiah). A few verses before this one, it seems to me that the Lord makes clear what is meant by "new". "For the Lord has created safety by a new planting".

This leads me to believe, taking into consideration Christology (IOW interpreting this in light of Christ), that what is "new" is in reference to quality and character, not freshly made.

Jesus Christ is new in quality and character. He is not new as in freshly made, because He was born of the virgin Mary, meaning He partook of our humanity which God had already created.

HisLeast
Apr 27th 2009, 02:09 PM
Why? The law's that apply are written on our hearts and the Holy Spirit convicts us of sin now. Back then, the Holy Spirit came upon people when the Lord willed but now, in the New Covenant once we give ourselves to the Lord the Holy Spirit is in us all... constantly, at all times 24/7! No need for the Lord to spell it all out, what is and isn't sin as He did with the Law... now, we "feel", are convicted as Jesus works on our insides. By following the law and changing ourselves to adhear to the Laws, we're doing it "ourselves", Jesus, through the leading of His Holy Spirit does it now... we just have to be obedient and let Jesus change us... not us change us for God through adhearing to laws laid out for a specific group of people, at a specific time, for a specific reason.

Are we to continue to justify ourselves before God by choosing which laws to follow (cause we all know what that leads to, as we read in the OT) or are we now to remain rightgeous and blameless before the Lord and allow Him to sanctify us as we allow the Holy Spirit to change us from the inside out over our lifetime as we're obedient to the will of God and do as He wills, tells what is wrong, and uses us in His Kingdom?

Bingo! in the first paragraph. How is it we're so sure that the Holy Spirit isn't convicting the Messianics which is driving their pursuit of the law?

It seems to me that if I came amongst my brethren and said I'm compelled to do better observing the Sabbaths and old feasts, I'd get a big pat on the back. Unless I was Messianic then I'd get the "tsktsktsk"

Slug1
Apr 27th 2009, 02:15 PM
Bingo! in the first paragraph. How is it we're so sure that the Holy Spirit isn't convicting the Messianics which is driving their pursuit of the law?

It seems to me that if I came amongst my brethren and said I'm compelled to do better observing the Sabbaths and old feasts, I'd get a big pat on the back. Unless I was Messianic then I'd get the "tsktsktsk"Why? Why was Jesus born to be sacrificed if the Holy Spirit was to ignore this and keep people following the law "as written" for the Jewish people?

If the law is to keep us righteous, Jesus would have never had to come to earth. The law would never have been written on our hearts and the Holy Spirt placed within us to keep us inline with God's will. We'd just continue to follow the Law, or at least the ones we liked, which is what is done still.

Teke
Apr 27th 2009, 02:22 PM
It seems to me that if I came amongst my brethren and said I'm compelled to do better observing the Sabbaths and old feasts, I'd get a big pat on the back. Unless I was Messianic then I'd get the "tsktsktsk"

I wouldn't give one a 'tsk tsk', I'd invite them to the new feast. ;)

moonglow
Apr 27th 2009, 02:23 PM
Galatians 3
(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&version=50&context=chapter)
Justification by Faith

1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have you suffered so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?
5 Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?— 6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”[ 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.

The Law Brings a Curse

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”
13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

The Adam Clarke Commentary (http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=ga&chapter=003)

Chapter 3

The apostle inquires how they could be so foolish as to renounce the Gospel of Christ and turn back to the law, after having heard, received, and suffered so much for the Gospel, 1-5.

Asserts the doctrine of justification by faith, on the example of Abraham, 6-9. Shows that all who are under the law are under the curse, from which Christ alone redeems us; and the promise made to Abraham comes to the Gentiles who believe, 10-14.

For the covenant is not by the works of the law, but by promise, 15-18. The law was given to show the sinfulness of sin, and to act as a schoolmaster till Christ should come, 19-25. It is by faith only that any become children of God, 26. And under the Gospel, all those distinctions which subsisted under the law are done away; and genuine believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, bond or free, are one in Christ Jesus, and accounted the genuine children of Abraham, 27-29.

JesusMySavior
Apr 27th 2009, 02:30 PM
The True Doctrine is that the Covenant established by Messiah has entirely replaced the old one with its Levitical priesthood system and form of ritualistic worship: the Old has passed away and an entirely New one is in force, as is clearly explained in the Epistle to the Hebrews. This means that we must first come to the Messiah to receive our salvation and then obey the commandments (mitzvot) but not the other way round. Yah'shua is the Living Torah and it is to the Way, the Truth, and the Life that we must go to first.




I agree with this.

It's what the Bible teaches, namely Hebrews. As the priests had to offer up sacrifices daily, Jesus was the ONE sacrifice, ONCE and for all, never needed to be done again. To keep sacrificing animals and burnt offerings are a stench to God... for He says "in burnt offerings and sacrifices I had no pleasure". Jesus fulfilled the law and the old covenant. He died so that we could live. The apostle Paul constantly tells us, let no one judge you in holy days or in new moons or in sabbaths (Colossians 2:16) or in meat or in drink since it all is from God and is purified by God. Jesus Christ is the end-all be-all, for me at least. If one wants to "attain" salvation through burnt offerings and sacrifices, go right ahead - but remember - if you've broken one law, you've broken them all.

keck553
Apr 27th 2009, 03:16 PM
I thank God He is my judge and not humans.

BHS
Apr 27th 2009, 05:32 PM
The "law" was not a righteousness for salvation, but a standard of righteousness. This is so evidenced in the Torah, that very few think worthy of study. This is the standard of righteousness that Jesus lived. If Christians follow Jesus as their perfect example, then that same standard of righteousness would serve its purpose in bringing glory and honor to the One True and Living God.

It is sad that Christians cannot seem to understand what God's purpose was in giving instructions to live by -- so important are they He promised in Jeremiah that some day they would be written upon our hearts. Has that time come? I dare say it has not when we use Christ to oppose the law.

Blessings,
BHS

manichunter
Apr 27th 2009, 06:14 PM
The "law" was not a righteousness for salvation, but a standard of righteousness. This is so evidenced in the Torah, that very few think worthy of study. This is the standard of righteousness that Jesus lived. If Christians follow Jesus as their perfect example, then that same standard of righteousness would serve its purpose in bringing glory and honor to the One True and Living God.

It is sad that Christians cannot seem to understand what God's purpose was in giving instructions to live by -- so important are they He promised in Jeremiah that some day they would be written upon our hearts. Has that time come? I dare say it has not when we use Christ to oppose the law.

Blessings,
BHS

Actually it has been this way since 2nd the century, hence it is piled on pretty high. I do not think it can be so easily removed. It is kind of entrenched by a lot of sub systems and one primary one that still sits at the fore front of this dilemma.

Teke
Apr 27th 2009, 06:27 PM
The law is subjective. The Person of Christ is not subjective, at least not in the Church.

markedward
Apr 27th 2009, 06:39 PM
I don't think Messiah started a new covenant.Kind of contradicts the book of Scripture, doesn't it?

Luke 22.20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."

1 Corinthians 11.25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

Hebrews 8.7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

Hebrews 8.13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Hebrews 9.15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.

Hebrews 12.24 ... and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

How can you claim that Jesus didn't make a New Covenant when Scripture directly says he did?

keck553
Apr 27th 2009, 06:53 PM
Of course God added a new covenant in Yeshua. How much greater is it to be under the authority of our Living Rabbi than men and thier precepts? How much better is our High Priest than a sinful Levite? How much more should we obey God in us than God in a box behind a curtain. Now that God has made a way to approach Him through a righteous and perfect Intercessor, how much more should we revere Him, and respect His Words over which He is the Authority, and no man? Just remember, with this New Covenant comes new accountability. The narrow way isn't just a euphamism. It is real.

Emanate
Apr 27th 2009, 08:52 PM
The split hair is this IMO... do we love Jesus or the law? Why love Jesus though the law when we're to Love God, through Jesus... right?


I hope you think twice before you try to love your neighbor.

keck553
Apr 27th 2009, 08:54 PM
I hope you think twice before you try to love your neighbor.

Lev 19:18
(18) Don't take vengeance on or bear a grudge against any of your people; rather, love your neighbor as yourself; I am Adonai.


Hey, isn't that one of them increase-your-sinfulness Torah commands Jesus annulled?. If you try to do just one, you're guilty of all, right?

Emanate
Apr 27th 2009, 08:55 PM
Part of the problem concerns the Hebrew word chadash which means 'totally new' or 'new' (as in getting a new name - Is.62:2 - or singing a new song - Ps.96:1) which is the sense of the New Covenant spoken of by Jeremiah (Jer.31:31), but which they insist has a different meaning.


This writer appears to not have much knowledge regarding the Hebrew language.

Partaker of Christ
Apr 27th 2009, 08:59 PM
Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Gal 3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Gal 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

I think this is what is meant.

The New Covenant, is the old 'promised' covenant, that God had given to Abraham.
Until Jesus Christ came and confirmed the covenant through His death, it was still a promised covenant.

The law, which came 430 years after, cannot disannul the promise. Once the covenant has been confirmed (come into effect) by death, it cannot now be disannuled, or added too.

If we make out a will, it is a covenant that comes into force, only when we die.

Slug1
Apr 27th 2009, 09:02 PM
I hope you think twice before you try to love your neighbor.As Jesus tells us and as led by the Holy Spirit :idea:

Semi-tortured
Apr 27th 2009, 09:05 PM
I'm just a poor sucker looking for truth, but deafened by the roar of completely contradictory answers.

:amen: There are so many questions I have with no human answers. Thank you God for looking at the heart. I hope mine is found satisfactory.

HisLeast
Apr 27th 2009, 09:07 PM
:amen: There are so many questions I have with no human answers. Thank you God for looking at the heart. I hope mine is found satisfactory.

I have a substantially bleaker outlook than you, my friend. :hmm:

Ta-An
Apr 27th 2009, 09:08 PM
The True Doctrine is that the Covenant established by Messiah has entirely replaced the old one with its Levitical priesthood system and form of ritualistic worship: the Old has passed away and an entirely New one is in force, as is clearly explained in the Epistle to the Hebrews. This means that we must first come to the Messiah to receive our salvation and then obey the commandments (mitzvot) but not the other way round. Yah'shua is the Living Torah and it is to the Way, the Truth, and the Life that we must go to first.

If the NT replaces the OT, what about the unfulfilled OT parts then :hmm:

RabbiKnife
Apr 27th 2009, 09:10 PM
No one is saying that the NT scriptures replaced the OT scriptures.

The old covenant and the new covenant are two entirely different things, and each of them is entirely different from the Scriptures.

Semi-tortured
Apr 27th 2009, 09:11 PM
I have a substantially bleaker outlook than you, my friend. :hmm:


Not necessarily. I'm just saying there's no way I'm going to heaven based on what I believe cause other than Jesus being the Son of God, a lot of other things are kinda up in the air. The end times, OSAS, old and new covenants, etc...I'm lost. And it's not from lack of trying. I've read and read and read and there is no way to truly differentiate.

Ta-An
Apr 27th 2009, 09:13 PM
No one is saying that the NT scriptures replaced the OT scriptures.

The old covenant and the new covenant are two entirely different things, and each of them is entirely different from the Scriptures. Is this not what the OP states ....
. The matter is complicated by a second Greek word, neos, which means exclusively 'new' and which is not used for New Testament passages speaking of the New Covenant. However, the reason the Greek translators used kainos is because they wished to convey the double sense of 'new' and 'fresh', so the best translation of B'rit Chadashah would be the 'Totally New and Fresh Covenant' - in other words, 'New and Renewed'.

keck553
Apr 27th 2009, 11:00 PM
Along these lines of argument I've even heard it said that Jesus "dethroned" the 'mean' God of the 'Old Testament' and took over. In some Charismatic congregations it is prohibited to even read the "Old Testament". Replacement theology is not God-breathed.

RabbiKnife
Apr 27th 2009, 11:10 PM
Along these lines of argument I've even heard it said that Jesus "dethroned" the 'mean' God of the 'Old Testament' and took over. In some Charismatic congregations it is prohibited to even read the "Old Testament". Replacement theology is not God-breathed.

Agreed!
15 characters

bagofseed
Apr 28th 2009, 12:27 AM
Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Gal 3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Gal 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

I think this is what is meant.

The New Covenant, is the old 'promised' covenant, that God had given to Abraham.
Until Jesus Christ came and confirmed the covenant through His death, it was still a promised covenant.

The law, which came 430 years after, cannot disannul the promise. Once the covenant has been confirmed (come into effect) by death, it cannot now be disannuled, or added too.

If we make out a will, it is a covenant that comes into force, only when we die.
Well done!

I would add for consideration regarding the OP.

Rom (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Rom&chapter=7#1) 7:1 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Rom&chapter=7&verse=1)http://net.bible.org/images/advanced.gif
Or do you not know, brothers and sisters (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law is lord over a person as long as he lives?

Col (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Col&chapter=3#3) 3:3 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Col&chapter=3&verse=3)http://net.bible.org/images/advanced.gif
for you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God.

Gal (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Gal&chapter=2#19) 2:19 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Gal&chapter=2&verse=19)http://net.bible.org/images/advanced.gif
For through the law I died to the law so that I may live to God.

I find two ways to keep the OT laws, one is never every sin the other is to die.

Gal 3:23
Now before faith came we were held in custody under the law, being kept as prisoners until the coming faith would be revealed.

NLT © (http://dev.bible.org/drupal/Bible_Copyrights)
biblegateway Gal 5:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=51&search=Gal+5:1)
So Christ has really set us free. Now make sure that you stay free, and don’t get tied up again in slavery to the law

NASB © (http://dev.bible.org/drupal/Bible_Copyrights)
biblegateway Gal 5:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=49&search=Gal+5:1)
It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

bagofseed
Apr 28th 2009, 12:31 AM
Not necessarily. I'm just saying there's no way I'm going to heaven based on what I believe cause other than Jesus being the Son of God, a lot of other things are kinda up in the air. The end times, OSAS, old and new covenants, etc...I'm lost. And it's not from lack of trying. I've read and read and read and there is no way to truly differentiate.
Sure there is!

Pray and Pray and Pray and Trust!

The Way the Truth and the Life is your answer.

You can rely on Him to guide you in all truth.
Lean not on your own understanding ...

Walstib
Apr 28th 2009, 11:59 AM
Along these lines of argument I've even heard it said that Jesus "dethroned" the 'mean' God of the 'Old Testament' and took over. In some Charismatic congregations it is prohibited to even read the "Old Testament". Replacement theology is not God-breathed.

I find this hard to believe. Do you have some physical examples for me? Names of churches I can look into that will back up what you say. I am serious.

See the biggest problem I see with everyone coming together on this is the propaganda game the extremists play on both side. Creating fanciful ideas the "other side" must believe in and therefor on the edge of blasphemy if not there already.

I think of myself as messianic.... why not? Other than extremists claiming salvation through works alone I can't think of much (sure there is some) I disagree with what I hear people with that label say. The application of that agreement in daily life and worship seems to be the difference. It's not as much about disagreement as about missing pieces. Everyone has missing pieces.

I find my freedom of personal relationship with Jesus attacked when painted with a propaganda brush that cheapens it.

Now I love you Keck, don't get me wrong. If you don't enjoy people superimposing extremist views onto your understanding then I would suggest doing the same for your neighbor. You may just find that precept in the law. ;)

Peace,
Joe

Teke
Apr 28th 2009, 02:42 PM
Not necessarily. I'm just saying there's no way I'm going to heaven based on what I believe cause other than Jesus being the Son of God, a lot of other things are kinda up in the air. The end times, OSAS, old and new covenants, etc...I'm lost. And it's not from lack of trying. I've read and read and read and there is no way to truly differentiate.

Bear in mind what is said in Revelations, "return to your first love". All of your answers are found in Him. The ancient church still upholds all of Jesus and the Apostles teachings.

As bagofseed said, pray. And I say pray, for God to reveal His church for you. As there you will find the fullness of truth. Just be prepared to be able to handle it, because as they say, be careful what you pray for as you just might get it. There is responsability that goes along with having knowledge of such things.

keck553
Apr 28th 2009, 03:42 PM
I find this hard to believe. Do you have some physical examples for me? Names of churches I can look into that will back up what you say. I am serious.

Websites are only like covers of books. Anyone can have a belief statement that looks innoculous. The pastor at one of the Church of God congregations forbade my wife to read the Old Testament. Jehovah's witnesses deny the echad of Father and Son. Many mainstream congregations teach we are in an 'age of grace' as if God the Father had no grace 'before'. All these heresy's chase people away from God, not draw them near. Perhaps Rabbiknife can relate some of his experiences to you too. You know, it takes a large part of one's life to root out all the lies and man made religion from our lives. Posters here like TomLane who have lived that life just might have something to offer that us younger folks haven't experienced. It would be wise for us to take heed and respect our elders. Exposing heresies are part of our walk. I think Jesus said something about that.



See the biggest problem I see with everyone coming together on this is the propaganda game the extremists play on both side. Creating fanciful ideas the "other side" must believe in and therefor on the edge of blasphemy if not there already.

No one has proposed any such thing. In fact I posted quite the opposite yesterday. I think you may consider if there are any preconceptions that may be tainting a true judgment.



I think of myself as messianic.... why not? Other than extremists claiming salvation through works alone I can't think of much (sure there is some) I disagree with what I hear people with that label say. The application of that agreement in daily life and worship seems to be the difference. It's not as much about disagreement as about missing pieces. Everyone has missing pieces.

Now I ask you to provide physical evidence of any believer in Messiah who has proposed such a condition. To my knowledge, not one believer in Messiah here has ever proposed salvation is through works. The Bible is chock full of healing, saving and deliverance before 'sin no more' is commanded to the healed, the saved and the delivered. Not one person in the Bible was delivered, healed or saved through works. Not one. If anyone posted such nonsense, all of us would teach that person in a loving way the truth. However, that is not the case. That leads me to think this 'salvation through works' dogma is used as a theological club to beat people over the head with. It's wrong and it's sin to leverage such an accusation against a faithful servent of God. I say that for the benefit of those who would use such a tactic, not as a complaint.



I find my freedom of personal relationship with Jesus attacked when painted with a propaganda brush that cheapens it.

I understand that. It's about the same as those who use the above stated club to legalistically limit my freedom in Messiah to obey God. We have choices to respond to such legalism, either in pride or in love. Or perhaps a challenge that will stir prayer and study in God's Word. Sometimes those challenges convict; many times they conflict with our doctrine. The answer of course is to ask God in the Name of His Son to reveal the truth. That's the challenge.


Now I love you Keck, don't get me wrong. If you don't enjoy people superimposing extremist views onto your understanding then I would suggest doing the same for your neighbor. You may just find that precept in the law. ;)

Compromise is a precept? Show me.
And, believe me, the super-imposition (is that a word?) of extremist views onto my faith in God is a daily occurance. I just don't make it my issue. :)

Shalom.

BroRog
Apr 28th 2009, 04:16 PM
But is there anything wrong with "keeping what you can"?

Ask Uzzah.

(I'm at work now so I am looking to give a short answer. I'll explain later if need be.)

RabbiKnife
Apr 28th 2009, 04:33 PM
Let me throw my 2 cents in while we take a brief commercial break from our regularly scheduled rant.

This commercial break is brought to you by RabbiKnife and Keck's Kosher Salt -- so kosher, even pigs and shrimp say "Oy! Vey!" at the sight of it....


OK, part of my problem with the OP is the framing of the question...We are very, very loose with our use of the word "heresy." Every believer in Christ comes to Christ as an individual and learns Christ through a lens, a paradigm, a world-view that is uniquely shaped by culture, both religious and otherwise, education, and experience.

Many Christians are so unsure in their faith that anything that doesn't line up dot for dot with their ideas gets immediately labeled "heresy", because it is easier to attack than to defend one's own position. This is a damaging, dangerous, and divisive error.

Are there "messianics" that are heretics? Sure, anyone that proposes that salvation by works or circumcision or keeping the dietary law is a heretic of the first order.

Are "messianics" who choose, based on their conscience and their understanding of the Word, to follow certain dietary restrictions and to keep certain holy days as celebrations and festivals as being observant as to what they understand "torah" to be heretics? Certainly not, as long as they believe on salvation through faith in the completed work of Jesus Christ.

Are "non-messianics" that propose salvation by works or keeping of some cultural guide related to clothing, or diet, or activity heretics? Yes.

Are "non-messiancs" that are bacon and shrimp eaters, who golf on Saturday and the only thing remembling Jewish culture in their house is watching "White Christmas" each year heretics? No.

We, as brothers and sisters in Christ, must be very, very careful to not drop the "H" bomb everytime someone challenges our particular doctrinal pet peeve.

It requires a degree of maturity and assurance of salvation that sadly I find missing in many, many posts.

So, Shalom and Peace-Out.

We now return you to our regularly scheduled mud-flinging. Remember Keck and RabbiKnife's Kosher Salt.....even the bacon and shrimp say "Oi! vey!"

keck553
Apr 28th 2009, 04:39 PM
hey Rabbi, would sprinking kosher salt on a pig farm stop swine flu? What if it was blessed by three rabbis on shabbat and four TV evangelists on Sunday?

...Sorry, the commercial break was extended..

On a serious note, I have issues with 'renewed covenant'. My Holy/common alarm bell clanged loudly at the first mention of the term. I read the apologetics on it, still the alarm is clanging. It seems to diminish the work of God.

Vhayes
Apr 28th 2009, 04:43 PM
hey Rabbi, would sprinking kosher salt on a pig farm stop swine flu? What if it was blessed by three rabbis on shabbat and four TV evangelists on Sunday?

...Sorry, the commercial break was extended..
The televangelists would have to sell you a blessing cloth to lay on the pig. :D
V

RabbiKnife
Apr 28th 2009, 04:50 PM
hey Rabbi, would sprinking kosher salt on a pig farm stop swine flu? What if it was blessed by three rabbis on shabbat and four TV evangelists on Sunday?

...Sorry, the commercial break was extended..

On a serious note, I have issues with 'renewed covenant'. My Holy/common alarm bell clanged loudly at the first mention of the term. I read the apologetics on it, still the alarm is clanging. It seems to diminish the work of God.

I have a problem with "renewed covenant", too. Old, I can understand. New, I can understand. "Renewed," I don't understand. Covenants are either in force or not. They are either valid or not. I don't understand what "renewed" means? Is that like a face-lift for an ugly woman or a fanny lift for an old man?

Slug1
Apr 28th 2009, 04:57 PM
I have a problem with "renewed covenant", too. Old, I can understand. New, I can understand. "Renewed," I don't understand. Nor do many.


Covenants are either in force or not. So which one is in force?
They are either valid or not. Is that why one is called "old" and the other is called "new"? If the old is "valid" then why call the new one... New, and the old one... Old :hmm:

Which one is "not" valid then ;)

RabbiKnife
Apr 28th 2009, 05:02 PM
Nor do many.

So which one is in force? Is that why one is called "old" and the other is called "new"? If the old is "valid" then why call the new one... New, and the old one... Old :hmm:

Which one is "not" valid then ;)

I'm pretty clear on my position. As far as I am concerned, "old covenant" is no longer valid, having been replaced in its entirety by a "new and better covenant."

Here's the point to remember, however. Just because someone says "I think God would be really pleased if you worship on Saturday, don't eat ocean cockroaches, and use cool works like 'Shalom'" doesn't mean that they believe that the sacrificial system of the Old Covenant is still valid.

As I said, no one that believes in salvation by works is anything other than a heretic. But just because someone follows a different cultural path in walking out their faith in Jesus Christ doesn't mean they are trying to live under the Old Covenant.

keck553
Apr 28th 2009, 05:22 PM
hey, stop attacking my "shalom" already! LOL.

Strange, but true, as a linguist I have learned there are just some words that don't translate well into English. Like in German "Leibengrossetankundluftwaffestrasse." Or "kosher". How many people use that in place of "proper?" Some concepts just get imbedded in the mind and in this case 'peace' just comes up short and sounds a bit disingenuous to the completeness of my wish for you. But then again, you may not know that and think I'm trying to be 'cool'. Such are the limitations of the typed letter on a compter.

Slug1
Apr 28th 2009, 05:27 PM
I'm pretty clear on my position. As far as I am concerned, "old covenant" is no longer valid, having been replaced in its entirety by a "new and better covenant."

Here's the point to remember, however. Just because someone says "I think God would be really pleased if you worship on Saturday, don't eat ocean cockroaches, and use cool works like 'Shalom'" doesn't mean that they believe that the sacrificial system of the Old Covenant is still valid.

As I said, no one that believes in salvation by works is anything other than a heretic. But just because someone follows a different cultural path in walking out their faith in Jesus Christ doesn't mean they are trying to live under the Old Covenant.OK :hug:

So when a person who has faith in God through Jesus Christ does something that is against the Levitical Laws, why are they held to them instead of Grace under Jesus? The New Covenent covers what is right and wrong, we are convicted by the Holy Spirit as the element of what was right and wrong in the Old Covenant as spelled out in all those Laws... now is inside of us (written on our hearts) and the Holy Spirit convicts us according to God's will and all He set forth for the New Covenant He wants to have with us all.

Just for a very quick example, some feel it's sinful for them to eat meat while others do not. Prime example of conviction by the leading of the Holy Spirit.

So, why do some still toss a law(s) in while omitting others when telling people what is right (according the Old Covenant standards) and what is wrong. Instead of allowing God, according to His will as He now does through His Holy Spirit now that we are in the New Covenant?

RabbiKnife
Apr 28th 2009, 05:34 PM
OK :hug:

So when a person who has faith in God through Jesus Christ does something that is against the Levitical Laws, why are they held to them instead of Grace under Jesus? The New Covenent covers what is right and wrong, we are convicted by the Holy Spirit as the element of what was right and wrong in the Old Covenant as spelled out in all those Laws... now is inside of us (written on our hearts) and the Holy Spirit convicts us according to God's will and all He set forth for the New Covenant He wants to have with us all.

Just for a very quick example, some feel it's sinful for them to eat meat while others do not. Prime example of conviction by the leading of the Holy Spirit.

So, why do some still toss a law(s) in while omitting others when telling people what is right (according the Old Covenant standards) and what is wrong. Instead of allowing God, according to His will as He now does through His Holy Spirit now that we are in the New Covenant?

No one is "held" to a Levitical law, even for those that try to follow their understanding of Torah with a clear conscience. It is all about grace, even for those that try to follow their understanding of Torah with a clear conscience.

Why do some people who are Christians say that you have to tithe, that dancing is sinful, that drinking alcohol is sinful, and that women who wear pants are inherently evil, that crew cuts are Godly, and that the KJV is the only acceptable version of the Bible? Instead of allowing God, according to His will as He now does through His Holy Spirit now that we are in the New Covenant?

CULTURE....

For either group to change without the Holy Spirit changing them would be sin, for they would be acting without faith.

keck553
Apr 28th 2009, 05:35 PM
King David sinned. Was he saved by grace or torah? Which one?

Slug1
Apr 28th 2009, 05:43 PM
King David sinned. Was he saved by grace or torah? Which one?He broke several laws if I recall correctly :rolleyes:

It just blows my mind that people today will hold themselves to and hold others to the Laws. Not only do we see God, allowing some, case by case to breaking of the Law but with the New Covenant... the Old is to Learn From and understand the why's of the New Covenant... not be "bound" by the Old Covenant but to learn from. Now that we're in the New, we're convicted by the New, while we learn from the Old.

As ya said about the word "re-newed"... what's that a "Blending" of the two Covenants? Yeah, that's dangerous IMO.

keck553
Apr 28th 2009, 05:44 PM
It's an easy question. Was King David saved by grace or torah?

RabbiKnife
Apr 28th 2009, 05:46 PM
He broke several laws if I recall correctly :rolleyes:

It just blows my mind that people today will hold themselves to and hold other to the Laws. Not only do we see God, allowing some, case by case to breaking of the Law but with the New Covenant... the Old is to Learn From and understand the why's of the New Covenant... not be "bound" by the Old Covenant but to learn from. Now that we're in the New, we're convicted by New, while we learn from the Old.

If you use the term "bound" to mean that obedience to the Torah is a requirement of salvation, then no, this is heresy.

If you use the term "bound" to mean that obedience to the Torah is an acceptable -- and for some chosen and preferred as a result of their understanding, culture, and conscience -- lifestyle, then no, this is not heresy.

Slug1
Apr 28th 2009, 05:54 PM
If you use the term "bound" to mean that obedience to the Torah is a requirement of salvation, then no, this is heresy.

If you use the term "bound" to mean that obedience to the Torah is an acceptable -- and for some chosen and preferred as a result of their understanding, culture, and conscience -- lifestyle, then no, this is not heresy.When a person pulls up a law and says you're a sinner (or wrong) cause said law was broke... the accusing person is bound and trying to bind others to what they're bound by. I hope this makes my feelings clearer.

So, based on your two examples... the first one is the one that gets so many people upset.

RabbiKnife
Apr 28th 2009, 05:57 PM
When a person pulls up a law and says you're a sinner (or wrong) cause said law was broke... the accusing person is bound and trying to bind others to what they're bound by. I hope this makes my feelings clearer.

So, based on your two examples... the first one is the one that gets so many people upset.

The first is clearly heretical and not a part of the true Christian faith.

The second is a matter of preference.

ZAB
Apr 28th 2009, 06:00 PM
I agree with you, bagofseed.

The old has been replaced by a new and better (much more effective) way. Hebrews 10:16-20 says, "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh..."

The Word of God describes our transference from being joined unto the Law (old covenant), to being joined unto the Lord (new covenant). In Romans 7, we see the analogy unfold. According to the law, any woman who had a husband was bound to that husband as long as he lived. If her husband died, she was then loosed from him, and permitted to be joined in marriage to another. But if she married another while her husband was still living, then she was committing adultery. Paul the apostle uses this law as an analogy to describe the believer’s union to the Lord Jesus. We now “are become dead to the law by the body of Christ…” (Romans 7:4). If Jesus hadn’t died under the law (Matthew 5:17; 3:15), then we, in effect, would still be under the law and unable to be joined and married to another, lest it be considered adultery. However, He was successful in “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross…” (Colossians 2:14). We have been crucified with Him (Romans 6:6), and the law only has dominion over a man as long as he lives (Romans 7:1). This death dissolves our marriage obligation to the law, leaving us at liberty to contract a new relation – to be joined to the risen One. We still serve, but not the law (Romans 7:6). We now serve the “new husband”, and the Spirit gives life, whereas “the letter killeth” ( 2 Corinthians 3:6). The covenant is a new one. Thanks be to God! Our marriage tie to the law has been dissolved by death. The law did not die, but rather the Lord Jesus died, being under the law. The law has not been destroyed, but fulfilled (Matthew 5:17). Thus, being separated from the former husband of sin (old covenant), for the knowledge of sin came through the law (Romans 7:7), we can now be married to the risen Christ (new covenant); we are now made able to partake of His betrothal.

Jesus said, "Behold, I make all things new..."

p.s. there's a book called "New Covenant Realities" by Kevin Conner that you might like.

keck553
Apr 28th 2009, 06:00 PM
Can anyone tell me whether King David was saved by grace or torah?

Slug1
Apr 28th 2009, 06:06 PM
The first is clearly heretical and not a part of the true Christian faith.

The second is a matter of preference.So then, when a matter of what is right (not sinful), or wrong (sin) is brought up in a discussion between two people who serve God... just one does it through His faith in Jesus and the leading of the Holy Spirit as God gave us for all in the New Covenant and the other does it thought following the laws of the Old Covenant instead... well, I don't even know how to ask my question cause a person's "preference" is to have faith in God through the Laws and not through Jesus and the leading of His Holy Spirit :hmm:... it's just confusing.

RabbiKnife
Apr 28th 2009, 06:06 PM
Can anyone tell me whether King David was saved by grace or torah?

You know I know the answer is grace.

keck553
Apr 28th 2009, 06:10 PM
You know I know the answer is grace.

Amen. The truth sets us free.

keck553
Apr 28th 2009, 06:12 PM
So then, when a matter of what is right (not sinful), or wrong (sin) is brought up in a discussion between two people who serve God... just one does it through His faith in Jesus and the leading of the Holy Spirit as God gave us for all in the New Covenant and the other does it thought following the laws of the Old Covenant instead... well, I don't even know how to ask my question cause a person's "preference" is to have faith in God through the Laws and not through Jesus and the leading of His Holy Spirit :hmm:... it's just confusing.


The confusion for me lies in the attempt to separate the Author from His Book.

Slug1
Apr 28th 2009, 06:13 PM
King David sinned. Was he saved by grace or torah? Which one?


It's an easy question. Was King David saved by grace or torah?


Can anyone tell me whether King David was saved by grace or torah?There's a thread elsewhere on this board debating if Jesus Christ Himself is under the Torah or not... if this question is answered here I'm afraid the board would blow up :lol:

keck553
Apr 28th 2009, 06:22 PM
I don't understand. I asked a question about David's salvation, not about Jesus.

RabbiKnife
Apr 28th 2009, 06:26 PM
The confusion for me lies in the attempt to separate the Author from His Book.

It's not confusing at all.

Anything done without faith is sin. Somethings done in faith can be sin.

No one is advocating "having faith in God through the Law." One can only have faith in God through Christ. Some choose to observe and attempt to keep certain aspects of the Torah because they believe that God is pleased by that action, just as some of us believe that God is pleased when I savor the flavor of bacon-wrapped shrimp.

Those that choose to attempt to observe some aspects of Torah do so in faith, just as those who choose not to attempt to observe some aspects of Torah do so in faith.

Nothing confusing about that.

ZAB
Apr 28th 2009, 06:27 PM
Can anyone tell me whether King David was saved by grace or torah?

Personally, I believe that king David (as well as all the old testament saints) looked forward to the cross of Christ, just how we look back to it. They believed in faith that messiah would come and redeem them, and we believe in faith that He did come (and will come again). Hebrews 11 reveals the faith of many old testament saints. Verses 10 and 13 sum it up: "For he (Abraham) looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God... these all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrimson the earth." Abraham was indeed looking towards the redemptive cross in faith, not for the torah to save him. Hebrews 12:1-2 refers to us: "...let us run with patience the race that is set before us looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith..."

The torah could not then and cannot now save us. It was but a shadow of the true and coming substance: Hebrews 10:1 says, "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God."

Colossians 2:16-17 "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 [I]is of Christ."

Slug1
Apr 28th 2009, 06:32 PM
I don't understand. I asked a question about David's salvation, not about Jesus.I just want to see how people answer whether Jesus was under the Torah or grace... cause if Jesus was under the Torah and David not... or visaversa :confused

But, we read about David as well as many others from the OT times in Hebrews 11... so grace...

Edit: By faith!!!

keck553
Apr 28th 2009, 06:49 PM
Jesus is God. Grace extended to Him for salvation is not an issue. He did all His Torah required of Him to fulfill righteousness. I don't know how else to answer that. The statement we get from the Father is when Yeshua was standing with the Moses and Elijah, "listen to My Son, In whom I am well pleased..." (paraphrased) thus putting all authority - for Torah, for men, for everything under His feet.

So if David was saved by grace (looking forward or back has no real application other than positional), why did he delight in Torah? And was it wrong for him to delight in Torah? Was it wrong for David, saved by grace, to come before God and get his heart straight before giving his offering on the alter? You have to realize all David had was Torah and a couple prophets to come up with all these things we value in our Christian walk, like a contrite heart, humilty, and all the other messianic teachings in the Gospels we take for granted. David was truely prophetic. But a very poor parent and a horrible husband and as chief among sinners as all of us.

Still, David delighted in the LORD and His Torah. Apparently that didn't 'hurt' his salvation, nor make him a heretic.

RabbiKnife
Apr 28th 2009, 06:56 PM
I don't want to chase a rabbit here, but I'm not sure that Jesus "doing" anything fulfilled righteousness. Jesus is, ontologically, righteousness in his being.

keck553
Apr 28th 2009, 07:08 PM
I don't want to chase a rabbit here, but I'm not sure that Jesus "doing" anything fulfilled righteousness. Jesus is, ontologically, righteousness in his being.

Oh, I'm just saying what He said....you know when He went to get immersed what He told John. Or when Mariam went to the temple with a burnt offering and a sin offering after her 40 day waiting period. Or when Jesus went to the temple on Yom Kippur with a sin offering. Surely He didn't even sin unintentionally. It had to be to fulfill all righteousness.

Emanate
Apr 28th 2009, 07:13 PM
I don't want to chase a rabbit here, but I'm not sure that Jesus "doing" anything fulfilled righteousness. Jesus is, ontologically, righteousness in his being.

Matthew 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

Slug1
Apr 28th 2009, 07:14 PM
Jesus is God. Grace extended to Him for salvation is not an issue. He did all His Torah required of Him to fulfill righteousness. I don't know how else to answer that. The statement we get from the Father is when Yeshua was standing with the Moses and Elijah, "listen to My Son, In whom I am well pleased..." (paraphrased) thus putting all authority - for Torah, for men, for everything under His feet.

So if David was saved by grace (looking forward or back has no real application other than positional), why did he delight in Torah? And was it wrong for him to delight in Torah? Was it wrong for David, saved by grace, to come before God and get his heart straight before giving his offering on the alter? You have to realize all David had was Torah and a couple prophets to come up with all these things we value in our Christian walk, like a contrite heart, humilty, and all the other messianic teachings in the Gospels we take for granted. David was truely prophetic. But a very poor parent and a horrible husband and as chief among sinners as all of us.

Still, David delighted in the LORD and His Torah. Apparently that didn't 'hurt' his salvation, nor make him a heretic.Ummm, cause he was born before Jesus was :idea:

All he had was the Torah of his time (Old Covenant) ;)

If he was Born during the New Covenant, he'd be delighted in his faith in God through Jesus, not the Torah.

Emanate
Apr 28th 2009, 07:17 PM
If he was Born during the New Covenant, he'd be delighted in his faith in God through Jesus, not the Torah.


Then again, maybe he would rejoice in Messiah as laid out in Scripture, not despite it.

Teke
Apr 28th 2009, 07:18 PM
Ummm, cause he was born before Jesus was :idea:

All he had was the Torah of his time (Old Covenant) ;)

If he was Born during the New Covenant, he'd be delighted in his faith in God through Jesus, not the Torah.

Those of the old covenant received salvation through Christ as well. Gal. 4:4 Tis also why He was born "under the law", to redeem them 'under the law'. Nothing left to chance, all is taken care of.:saint:

keck553
Apr 28th 2009, 07:21 PM
If he was Born during the New Covenant, he'd be delighted in his faith in God through Jesus, not the Torah.

That's a subjective statement. ALL the Apostles delighted in Torah after Jesus, what makes you think David would be any different?

Slug1
Apr 28th 2009, 07:33 PM
Then again, maybe he would rejoice in Messiah as laid out in Scripture, not despite it.What? :confused

Messiah = Jesus... right? Born after Jesus dies for our sins = faith in God through His Son... so why wouldn't David "not" rejoice through Jesus instead of the Torah... if born during the period of time of the New Covenant with God?

Look, ya gotta break it down to me, I serve the Lord through my faith in Jesus Christ, led by the Holy Spirit cause I'm in the New Covenant and don't understand why the laws for the Old Testement would be used the way many seem to use them.

For knowledge to understand the NT, sure... as much of the prophesy helps immensly. Especially explaining "why" Jesus was to come. But to serve God by what the Law says and not what Jesus says and by the leading of the Holy Spirit... confusing. Or mixing the two (re-newed)... even more confusion cause that seems to be really picking and choosing.

Slug1
Apr 28th 2009, 07:35 PM
That's a subjective statement. ALL the Apostles delighted in Torah after Jesus, what makes you think David would be any different?After God gave us His Holy Spirit (Acts 1) they did it through Jesus by the leading of the Holy Spirit.

keck553
Apr 28th 2009, 07:39 PM
I think the point that is trying to be made is that we are all saved by grace. And Torah, or God's laws are our response to salvation. God doesn't say obey Him to be saved. He says we obey Him because we love Him.

What does Jesus say to people after He heals them, or saves them from death? Stop sinning. Why does He heal first, then say 'stop sinning' after they are restored? It's really something to ponder.

What is sin? Transgression of Torah. It really isn't that complicated.

Slug1
Apr 28th 2009, 07:47 PM
What is sin? Transgression of Torah. It really isn't that complicated.But this is the New Covenant and that has been written in our hearts and now we are convicted by the Holy Spirit according to God's will.

keck553
Apr 28th 2009, 08:17 PM
After God gave us His Holy Spirit (Acts 1) they did it through Jesus by the leading of the Holy Spirit.

I don't see how that applies to the context of the subject.

keck553
Apr 28th 2009, 08:18 PM
But this is the New Covenant and that has been written in our hearts and now we are convicted by the Holy Spirit according to God's will.

What is written on our hearts? Let's see the applicable Scripture.

BroRog
Apr 28th 2009, 08:20 PM
I think the point that is trying to be made is that we are all saved by grace. And Torah, or God's laws are our response to salvation.

I believe your statement here goes back to the discussion between Slug1 and Rabbiknife concerning whether or not obedience to Torah is a requirement for salvation or a lifestyle choice.

In your statement above you say that we are saved by Grace but that Torah obedience is OUR response to salvation. When you say it this way, you are including the reader in your affirmation. By including the reader, you are saying more than "Torah observance is my lifestyle." You are saying "Torah observance should be every saved person's lifestyle.

You have found a third option, which attempts to create a distance from the idea that Torah observance is a matter of salvation, but insists that Christians are bound to Torah observance, as a matter of duty, not preference.

Slug was making the point that Christians have no real objection to those people who want to express their love for God through Torah obedience as long as they don't make Torah obedience a requirement of salvation. I think I can make that claim also, because the underlying assumption is that the Torah Observant folks are not suggesting that the rest of us must be Torah Observant. I can tolerate your lifestyle as long as you don't suggest that I am required to live it.

When you suggest that Torah Observance is a response to our salvation, then you have certainly crossed the line from preference to obligation. You aren't merely suggesting that you keep Torah because you prefer to do it, you are saying that you keep Torah in response to your salvation and that we should also share your perspective.

Your third rail, if you can dig it, is the unspoken association between salvation and obedience. While many Christians will openly claim that obedience is not a matter of salvation, there are some Christians who acknowledge that a refusal to obey is grounds to suspect that salvation has not happened in the first place. Many Christians openly say that God looks at the heart, while other Christians acknowledge that behavior and words serve as a litmus test for the attitudes that lay deep in the heart.

And so, we get these many, many threads all asking the same question, "why does anyone object to my keeping the Torah?" The simple answer is, "we have no objection." But during these discussions it becomes very clear that the hidden question is, "why aren't you being obedient to God like we are?"

keck553
Apr 28th 2009, 08:43 PM
I believe your statement here goes back to the discussion between Slug1 and Rabbiknife concerning whether or not obedience to Torah is a requirement for salvation or a lifestyle choice.

In your statement above you say that we are saved by Grace but that Torah obedience is OUR response to salvation. When you say it this way, you are including the reader in your affirmation. By including the reader, you are saying more than "Torah observance is my lifestyle." You are saying "Torah observance should be every saved person's lifestyle.

God said that, not me. God said if we love Him (why would we love Him? Because He saves!!) we will obey His commandments. You may have to take that one up with God, I'm just a poor servent. God gives you free choice. You're free to choose whatever lifestyle you want. If God allows you free choice, then why should I oppose that? I'm not your father or your teacher.



You have found a third option, which attempts to create a distance from the idea that Torah observance is a matter of salvation, but insists that Christians are bound to Torah observance, as a matter of duty, not preference.

I found a third option? It's not an option, it's the truth. Torah was never a means to salvation. Like I said, God gives you free choice. He gies everyone the freedom to pick and choose whatever they want to follow or believe.



Slug was making the point that Christians have no real objection to those people who want to express their love for God through Torah obedience as long as they don't make Torah obedience a requirement of salvation. I think I can also make that claim because the underlying assumption is that the Torah Observant folks are not suggesting that the rest of us must be Torah Observant. I can tolerate your lifestyle as long as you don't suggest that I am required to live it.

I don't object to any believer's lifestyle. You may try and mince words to create that illusion, but the fact is that your relationship with God is none of my business, and vice versa. I could care less about anyone's objections or tolerance. Like anyone, I have to choose whether to obey God or please men. I choose the former.[/quote]


When you suggest that Torah Observance is a response to our salvation, then you have certainly crossed the line from preference to obligation. You aren't merely suggesting that you keep Torah because you prefer to do it, you are saying that you keep Torah in response to your salvation and that we should also share your perspective.

Joh 14:15
(15) "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. I didn't say it. God did. I'm not that smart.


.

Your third rail, if you can dig it, is the unspoken association between salvation and obedience. While many Christians will openly claim that obedience is not a matter of salvation, there are some Christians who acknowledge that a refusal to obey is grounds to suspect that salvation has not happened in the first place. Many Christians openly say that God looks at the heart, while other Christians acknowledge that behavior and words serve as a litmus test for the attitudes that lay deep in the heart.

I'm not the judge of your heart. You seem to want me to think something I really don't think about. Why? I am far, far past that kind of juvenile evaluation of others. We all look in the mirror dimly. I am no more or less than anyone else. It has no value or profit in the Kingdom of God.


And so, we get these many, many threads all asking the same question, "why does anyone object to my keeping the Torah?" The simple answer is, "we have no objection." But during these discussions it becomes very clear that the hidden question is, "why aren't you being obedient to God like we are?"

Perhaps it's just a mis-communication. I am not seeking your approval, nor anyone elses. If these discussions however, are causing this kind of conviction in you, then all I can say is that only the Spirit of God can show you an answer to that.

Emanate
Apr 28th 2009, 10:01 PM
And so, we get these many, many threads all asking the same question, "why does anyone object to my keeping the Torah?" The simple answer is, "we have no objection." But during these discussions it becomes very clear that the hidden question is, "why aren't you being obedient to God like we are?"


My question would be more along the lines of "Why would you not subject yourself to what Scripture calls a 'delight'?

BroRog
Apr 28th 2009, 10:20 PM
God said that, not me. God said if we love Him (why would we love Him? Because He saves!!) we will obey His commandments.

We've been over this. You think he meant all of his commandments regardless of whether he said them to Israel or not. I'm keeping the commandments he spoke to me. You are keeping the commandments he spoke to Israel.


You may have to take that one up with God, I'm just a poor servent. God gives you free choice. You're free to choose whatever lifestyle you want. If God allows you free choice, then why should I oppose that? I'm not your father or your teacher.


Did you not say that keeping God's law is "our response to salvation?" I think you did. And since you include me in your affirmation, you oppose my lifestyle. If this was simply a lifestyle choice on your part, you would say, "keeping God's commandments is my response to salvation", thus making it a statement of personal preference.


I found a third option? It's not an option, it's the truth. Torah was never a means to salvation. Like I said, God gives you free choice. He gies everyone the freedom to pick and choose whatever they want to follow or believe.


I understand. You agree that Torah is not a means to salvation. But you also say that Torah is a response to salvation. As for freewill, I think you are dodging the main issue. You point out God's statement that "if we love him, we will keep his commandments", which amounts to "if we don't keep Torah we don't love him." And since I don't keep Torah as you do, you must logically conclude that I don't love God. I'm not attempting to put words in your mouth, but the logic of your statements is inescapable.


Like anyone, I have to choose whether to obey God or please men. I choose the former.

Here again, how do I relate to your statement? It goes without saying that we all must choose whether to obey God or not. But why would you insert this idea into the conversation if you didn't think that you were obeying God by keeping Torah while I am not?

Why even bring it up on a Christian message board? What kind of response would you get if you simply said, "Hi everyone, I'm keeping Torah." We would all say, "Hi Keck, good for you. Have a nice day." But when you say, "I keep Torah out of a love for God and a response to being saved," then you are asking me to figure out how to relate to what you are saying.


I'm not the judge of your heart. You seem to want me to think something I really don't think about. Why? I am far, far past that kind of juvenile evaluation of others. We all look in the mirror dimly. I am no more or less than anyone else. It has no value or profit in the Kingdom of God.

This isn't about judging anyone's heart. This is about claims being made concerning alleged exposed heresies. The heterodox are those who subscribe to false teaching or teach certain false doctrines. And so, the issue is not whether we are good hearted or have bad motives. The issue centers around God's word. What did he actually say and teach?

When you say that keeping Torah is a response to our salvation, I assume, perhaps incorrectly, you are making a doctrinal statement concerning Christian belief and practice. Otherwise why would you talk about this subject in the collective (plural) sense?


Perhaps it's just a mis-communication. I am not seeking your approval, nor anyone elses. If these discussions however, are causing this kind of conviction in you, then all I can say is that only the Spirit of God can show you an answer to that.

Again, why would you say this? Why would you think that I am being convicted of anything? And Why do you think I should be? If this is simply a cultural exchange where we each talk about our personal lifestyle, then conviction wouldn't be an issue.

BroRog
Apr 28th 2009, 10:30 PM
My question would be more along the lines of "Why would you not subject yourself to what Scripture calls a 'delight'?

What are we talking about? The conversation seems to remain hovered vaguely around the topic of "Torah instruction", which no one has defined to my satisfaction.

In the book of Acts we read about some Pharisees that insisted that the Gentiles get circumcised and obey the law of Moses, which is what is being advocated in threads like this. James reminds those in attendance that keeping the law of Moses was an unbearable yoke.

I'm trying to figure out why people today recommend that we put this yoke on ourselves? If James, Peter, and Paul were not willing to bear it, why should we?

Brother Mark
Apr 28th 2009, 11:17 PM
IMO, the whole thing can be better understood when we live by the Spirit of the law and not the letter. When Jesus spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, his words were spirit and life. He did not intend for us to literally drink his blood and eat his flesh. The same can be said now for the Torah as we don't live by the oldness of the letter but rather the newness of the Spirit.

So when the Torah says "Do not cook a kid in it's mother's milk" God is not so concerned about the kid and milk. What he is concerned about is that we do not use the milk of the word to cook a young kid in the Lord. That which is meant to be life should not be used to bring death. The law is still there. But we apply it differently now. We look for the spiritual meaning of the law now.

Dani H
Apr 29th 2009, 12:16 AM
I'ma tell you what:

The Levitical Law cannot ever discern motives and intents of the heart, and so please do beware lest you think that keeping some law is somehow more righteous than walking in true grace, which as a work of the Spirit, bores through you like a laser beam and doesn't let up until you're good and proper on your knees repenting until every last bit of you has been scrubbed clean. And no, He does not take the Sabbath day off.

Better Covenant?

You bet.

Not one spot or wrinkle by the time He is done.

No hefers and birds and keeping of days can accomplish that. It simply cannot.

I am, forever, a slave of grace. :)

bagofseed
Apr 29th 2009, 12:50 AM
IMO, the whole thing can be better understood when we live by the Spirit of the law and not the letter. When Jesus spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, his words were spirit and life. He did not intend for us to literally drink his blood and eat his flesh. The same can be said now for the Torah as we don't live by the oldness of the letter but rather the newness of the Spirit.

So when the Torah says "Do not cook a kid in it's mother's milk" God is not so concerned about the kid and milk. What he is concerned about is that we do not use the milk of the word to cook a young kid in the Lord. That which is meant to be life should not be used to bring death. The law is still there. But we apply it differently now. We look for the spiritual meaning of the law now.
Sweet. .

Slug1
Apr 29th 2009, 01:34 AM
What is written on our hearts? Let's see the applicable Scripture.See post #7 in this thread and verse 10 specifically.

I read all that and don't understand why people who put faith in God want to continue to do it through the old way when He provided a new way. I understand that people have a choice but shouldn't we move "forward" with God and not hold Him back with something even He called "faulty", "old", "obsolete", and "ready to vanish away"?

Why stay "bound" or as brought out above... "yoked" by it? Let's all move forward with Jesus...

keck553
Apr 29th 2009, 02:22 AM
Um, ever think that perhaps The Holy Spirit taught me through the scriptures?

I had no ideal God is seen as a yoke to others. Really, I didn't. Is God really a yoke for you?

And since Jesus IS God, I don't think we've strayed from Him.

Slug1
Apr 29th 2009, 02:29 AM
Um, because 'we people' choose to love Him the way He told us to?

I had no ideal God is seen as a yoke to others. Really, I didn't. Is God really a yoke for you? And I didn't know God is 'the old way' either. Sounds kinda strange how an eternal being could be relatied to age.

And since Jesus IS God, I don't think we've strayed from Him.What would you call it then when a person chooses something that God calls obsolete? God fixed it and people still choose what is obsolete?

Let go and be free of it instead.

Galatians 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

bagofseed
Apr 29th 2009, 02:40 AM
Marriage is of the old way.
It is an earthly representation of a spiritual truth.

I am not against earthly representations.

We our selves are earthly representations for the world to see.

All truths are first spiritual, natural.

Out of that right nature comes many forms of earthly expression.

The fleshly can learn by looking into the expression of Gods nature in the law of Moses.

The fleshly can also learn by looking into the expression of Gods nature in his children.

Emanate
Apr 29th 2009, 02:43 AM
What would you call it then when a person chooses something that God calls obsolete? God fixed it and people still choose what is obsolete?

Let go and be free of it instead.


Scripture? Where does God call any of his Words obsolete?

Slug1
Apr 29th 2009, 02:45 AM
Scripture? Where does God call any of his Words obsolete?See post #7 and #89.

edit: actually read Romans, Hebrews, and Galatians and it'll be clear. Particularly Hebrews 7 & 8.

edit on 29 Apr 09: Not only obsolete but a curse, Read Galatians chapter 3. In chapter 4 we're told to be free: 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free

bagofseed
Apr 29th 2009, 02:46 AM
Scripture? Where does God call any of his Words obsolete?
Heb (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Heb&chapter=8#13) 8:13 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Heb&chapter=8&verse=13)http://net.bible.org/images/advanced.gif
When he speaks of a new covenant, 1 (http://net.bible.org/search.php?search=obsolete&mode=&scope=#) he makes the first obsolete. Now what is growing obsolete and aging is about to disappear.

Dani H
Apr 29th 2009, 03:02 AM
Heb (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Heb&chapter=8#13) 8:13 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Heb&chapter=8&verse=13)http://net.bible.org/images/advanced.gif
When he speaks of a new covenant, 1 (http://net.bible.org/search.php?search=obsolete&mode=&scope=#) he makes the first obsolete. Now what is growing obsolete and aging is about to disappear.

Yup. We can't keep that which no longer exists. I mean, we can try, but there's no point, is there? Why go backwards and then go forward, when you can just go forward?

forum lurker
Apr 29th 2009, 07:37 AM
From the same chapter:

10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.

It's not so much about the law made obsolete, it's about the old covenant made obsolete.

bagofseed
Apr 29th 2009, 07:58 AM
From the same chapter:

10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.

It's not so much about the law made obsolete, it's about the old covenant made obsolete.
The laws of Gods nature is one
Out of that come physical laws for evil fleshly men.
Physical laws would be unfit for God.
Laws to govern evil fleshly men would be unfit to govern righteous men who have Gods nature.

Walstib
Apr 29th 2009, 10:47 AM
HI Keck,

Websites are only like covers of books. Anyone can have a belief statement that looks innoculous. The pastor at one of the Church of God congregations forbade my wife to read the Old Testament. Jehovah's witnesses deny the echad of Father and Son. Many mainstream congregations teach we are in an 'age of grace' as if God the Father had no grace 'before'. All these heresy's chase people away from God, not draw them near. Perhaps Rabbiknife can relate some of his experiences to you too. You know, it takes a large part of one's life to root out all the lies and man made religion from our lives. Posters here like TomLane who have lived that life just might have something to offer that us younger folks haven't experienced. It would be wise for us to take heed and respect our elders. Exposing heresies are part of our walk. I think Jesus said something about that.
You are doing exactly what I posted about. Throwing out some agreed upon heresies and then making this imaginary group of people that deny God has always had grace, lumping them all in together. All these heretical mainstream people…. You want to be free from persecution for the way you worship our Father yet there is no freedom for others in your words. Do you figure it is heresy to attend every mainstream congregation? Come right out and say it if you do rather than tap dancing around it. If not give up on all this propaganda please.

No one has proposed any such thing. In fact I posted quite the opposite yesterday. I think you may consider if there are any preconceptions that may be tainting a true judgment.
You just did the exact thing in your opening paragraph.
I am not new here. We all have an agenda. It comes through in what topics we respond to and our attitude. Doublespeak only makes it more evident.

Now I ask you to provide physical evidence of any believer in Messiah who has proposed such a condition. To my knowledge, not one believer in Messiah here has ever proposed salvation is through works. The Bible is chock full of healing, saving and deliverance before 'sin no more' is commanded to the healed, the saved and the delivered. Not one person in the Bible was delivered, healed or saved through works. Not one. If anyone posted such nonsense, all of us would teach that person in a loving way the truth. However, that is not the case. That leads me to think this 'salvation through works' dogma is used as a theological club to beat people over the head with. It's wrong and it's sin to leverage such an accusation against a faithful servent of God. I say that for the benefit of those who would use such a tactic, not as a complaint.
What I was pointing out is that I know this is a battle cry of the messianic movement. Every one agrees salvation is not by works alone so why draw the line of division. I have no problem with the way you want to worship God. Worship in faith it is not sin. All the glory to God, hallelujah! In our agreement, because “your camp” feels so persecuted with this false label, why not extend that same grace towards those who may be in “mainstream congregations”?

I understand that. It's about the same as those who use the above stated club to legalistically limit my freedom in Messiah to obey God. We have choices to respond to such legalism, either in pride or in love. Or perhaps a challenge that will stir prayer and study in God's Word. Sometimes those challenges convict; many times they conflict with our doctrine. The answer of course is to ask God in the Name of His Son to reveal the truth. That's the challenge.
Both sides man, both sides. Why use what you don’t like as a tactic against others? I could come up with man made traditions in a messianic home worship group after two meetings. The guy on guitar only knows five songs. Same with one guy sitting alone at home. whatever ;) I don’t want to condemn you for how you worship, why post after post condemning me? My point being I feel included in your condemnation of man made traditions, because of how you present your case. And it is as baseless an accusation against me as it would be for me to say you believe in works alone salvation.

Just seems to me you spend most of your time here trying to draw a line of division instead of seeking unity. If you can’t see it from within I am telling you what it looks like from the outside.

Compromise is a precept? Show me.
And, believe me, the super-imposition (is that a word?) of extremist views onto my faith in God is a daily occurance. I just don't make it my issue. :)
I was not talking about compromise, I was talking about pigeonholing family members. I does seem like it is your issue here, make others who disagree with your personal relationship look like Plato worshiping heathens following man and pagan ideals. Some imaginary corrupted westernized wolf pack in need of what you have. Tell me I am misunderstanding you all you want, After a thousand sarcastic one liners it will take some time to convince me otherwise.

In peace,
Joe

keck553
Apr 29th 2009, 03:43 PM
HI Keck,

You are doing exactly what I posted about. Throwing out some agreed upon heresies and then making this imaginary group of people that deny God has always had grace, lumping them all in together. All these heretical mainstream people…. You want to be free from persecution for the way you worship our Father yet there is no freedom for others in your words. Do you figure it is heresy to attend every mainstream congregation? Come right out and say it if you do rather than tap dancing around it. If not give up on all this propaganda please.

I am free, whether I am persecuted or not makes no difference to me. Like I said, you are free to choose any lifestyle you please. God won't stop you, so why should I? By the way, I am a member of a "mainstream congregation". Perhaps if my 'words' are taken at face value instead of being twisted to fit some preconcieved judgement of my intent and measure of faith (not necessarily coming from you), we could all learn something here. This is not intended to be a contest. The only winners are going to be the ones who uncover another treasure from God and get to know Him better and draw nearer.


You just did the exact thing in your opening paragraph.
I am not new here. We all have an agenda. It comes through in what topics we respond to and our attitude. Doublespeak only makes it more evident.

The evidence needs to be clearly presented. Just saying something doesn't make it so.


What I was pointing out is that I know this is a battle cry of the messianic movement. Every one agrees salvation is not by works alone so why draw the line of division. I have no problem with the way you want to worship God. Worship in faith it is not sin. All the glory to God, hallelujah! In our agreement, because “your camp” feels so persecuted with this false label, why not extend that same grace towards those who may be in “mainstream congregations”?

We all have lines of division by nature of our journey. Not all of us are in the same spot. God works things out in one person that are totally unrelated to His work in another person. Each may become more mature than the other in that particular area, but that doesn't make either one any more or less a servant to God's purposes. By the way, you can put your tin foil hat away; I'm not part of a conspiracy.


Both sides man, both sides. Why use what you don’t like as a tactic against others? I could come up with man made traditions in a messianic home worship group after two meetings. The guy on guitar only knows five songs. Same with one guy sitting alone at home. whatever ;) I don’t want to condemn you for how you worship, why post after post condemning me? My point being I feel included in your condemnation of man made traditions, because of how you present your case. And it is as baseless an accusation against me as it would be for me to say you believe in works alone salvation.

Tactic? You mean like the tactics used and never addressed like 'why follow an obsolete way' or 'don't you know you are saved by grace and not works' or 'why are you trying to be a Jew' or the plethora of other 'tactics' used? Why the inbalance? Does one 'side' get a free pass to start a thread on heresy related to Torah observant believers? Yes. Would i get a free pass to start a thread on heresy regarding say, a charismatic doctrine? No way! (and no, I wouldn't throw a stumbling block like that in the path of a believer) So let's call it what it truely is.


Just seems to me you spend most of your time here trying to draw a line of division instead of seeking unity. If you can’t see it from within I am telling you what it looks like from the outside.

Come on now. Every thread here has a line drawn. I've seen it over the drinking of wine, over the trinity, over tongues, but somehow that's not division and this is?


I was not talking about compromise, I was talking about pigeonholing family members. I does seem like it is your issue here, make others who disagree with your personal relationship look like Plato worshiping heathens following man and pagan ideals. Some imaginary corrupted westernized wolf pack in need of what you have. Tell me I am misunderstanding you all you want, After a thousand sarcastic one liners it will take some time to convince me otherwise.

In peace,
Joe


I have posted more than just one-liners here. I have posted studies that contain well over 1000 characters many times. If a poster posts something that points to a teaching of Plato, then that is what it is. Avoiding the truth always leads to error. I don't understand. If someone is standing firm on a doctrine that is rooted in Plato and Soccrates, why wouldn't they want to know that? Would you allow someone you're commanded to love believe something that is wrong? Sometimes the truth hurts, and more often than not, telling the truth hurts even more.

Emanate
Apr 29th 2009, 04:55 PM
You are doing exactly what I posted about. Throwing out some agreed upon heresies and then making this imaginary group of people that deny God has always had grace, lumping them all in together. All these heretical mainstream people…. You want to be free from persecution for the way you worship our Father yet there is no freedom for others in your words. Do you figure it is heresy to attend every mainstream congregation? Come right out and say it if you do rather than tap dancing around it. If not give up on all this propaganda please.


Walstib, the focus of this thread is that Messianics are heretics. You obviously have no problem with that, so why would it matter if we call any other christian groups heretics? Are messianics truly the only heretics on this board?

Pilgrimtozion
Apr 29th 2009, 05:11 PM
I am closing this thread; this has gone far enough. I want to encourage those to whom it may apply to do some serious soul-searching. Discussing in Bible Chat is not about flaunting your knowledge, bashing other groups with whom you don't agree, calling people heretics, or getting personal. Bible Chat is about discussing and learning. If you're not willing to be open and learn from other participants, then don't participate until you are willing and able to come in and do that.

As a board, we do not condone calling Messianics or any other mainstream Christian group heretics. Any post doing so in the future will be deleted and the person involved infracted accordingly. Discussing and debating is fine, but in the Spirit of Christ and with love and respect.

Your Advert here


Hosted by Webnet77