HOW TO BE A PHARISEE

I wonder which commandments he is talking about?

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?. Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, this is the first and gratest commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and prophets (Matt.22:36-40)

See also Rom.13:8-10

The bible further defines what love of God is and love of neighbor is. Love of God is keeping the first four of the ten commandments. Love of our neighbor is keeping the last six. The new convenent writes those laws into our hearts.

Well, here's a guy who uses a lot of words to say remarkably little.

Worse, he avoids the real question: On what basis does a church say "no" to this, and "yes" to that, without falling prey to the Pharisaical dangers he's warning us about?

He doesn't really tell us anything that helps us address it.

These things always swing from extreme to extreme. The denunication of pharasaism in this essay has planted within it the hard unmistakable seeds of "holier than thou" self-righteousness of its own.

Liberal churches are filled with orchards of such trees bearing self-righteousness of a different species but of the same deadly taste. Search their affirmations and you will find them exulting in the self-righteousness of "tolerance" and "nonjudgmentalism" as they embrace and celebrate lawlessness and gross sexual deviancy and imagine themselves holier than the fundamentalists they despise because of it.

The more things change . . .

This probably strikes more of a chord with those of us who grew up through the "Holiness" movement. What unfortunately happened, as Reasoner points out was that certain forms were adopted - don't drink, don't smoke, don't swear, don't dance, women don't cut their hair, women don't wear pants, etc., etc. and those were equated with "holiness" when that's not at all the holiness God calls us to. Unfortunately many in the holiness movement still live and die by these outward signs.

But I disagree with the author when he says While they continue to subdivide and separate from each other they are making no impact upon American society.

We just have to look at The Salvation Army alone to see the error in that statement. In the first few weeks at Ground Zero, the Chaplain there, the one that prayed with the firefighters as bodies were removed, was a Salvation Army officer. I am personally acquainted with the former General of the Army. He relayed a story of one Sally worker at Ground Zero. She was standing there, taking a break. A rescue worker came up to her and said, "I've never believed in God. I feel like I need to pray, but I don't know how. Do you know how to pray?" The SA worker said, "yes I do and prayed with the worker and shared the gospel."

There are many other examples. Yes, there's been a lot of hurt in the name of "holiness." But not from those who grasp the real message of the movement.

Christian Holiness Partnership

We are still saved by grace through faith"

I do not understand your comment on this. Do you not believe we are saved by 'grace through faith' (Eph.2:8)?

Hmmm, probably is against water baptism too. "JUST BELIEEEEEEVE! Nothin' else!"

Do you believe you need 'water baptism' to be saved?

Laughable.

Not if you are denying that salvation is through faith and faith alone! That is how one is saved, trusting soley on the finished work of Christ (Rom.3:25)

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?. Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, this is the first and gratest commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and prophets (Matt.22:36-40) The bible further defines what love of God is and love of neighbor is. Love of God is keeping the first four of the ten commandments. Love of our neighbor is keeping the last six. The new convenent writes those laws into our hearts.

No new convenant is written on the Christian's heart. That is a promise made to Israel (Heb.8:8, Jer.31:31) for the Millnennial reign of Christ.

On the contrary, the Christian is commanded to remain under the control of the Holy Spirit, to 'yield to him' and not to sin (Rom.6:16,19) and to grow from being a 'babe in Christ' to an adult by going from the milk (1Pet 2:2) to meat (Heb.5:14) of the word of God.

Just believeing, nothing else, is right. And a person who believes, who is a born again washed in the blood of Jesus Christ christian will be obvious to the world because they keep the commandments because they are saved not to get saved. Keeping the commandments out of obedience, gratitude, and love means is a whole different concept then keeping them out of fear of hell or to get a reward and that difference shows in peoples lives.

Becky

>Liberal churches are filled with orchards of such trees bearing self-righteousness of a different species but of the same deadly taste.

I agree. But Conservative churches are filled with orchards of such trees bearing self-righteousness of a different species but of the same deadly taste. While they are not as "tolerant" at Liberal churches, they tend to be full of cock-sure answers, self-assured holyness and rightousness which often has no Biblical basis.

Well, here's a guy who uses a lot of words to say remarkably little. Worse, he avoids the real question: On what basis does a church say "no" to this, and "yes" to that, without falling prey to the Pharisaical dangers he's warning us about? He doesn't really tell us anything that helps us address it.

Well, I must disagree. I think he does sum up the issue nicely. A Christian does not need a list of do's and don'ts, he needs to learn the words of God (see the articles posted 'Up With Preaching' and 'Return to the Bible')

The list of 'do's and don'ts are good for babes who do not know any better, but one needs to grow out of that stage and see why things are wrong and get to the root of the issue.

Scripture emphasizes the need of Love in everything the Christian does (1Cor.13) and Faith (Rom.14:23). The mature Christian must always be asking if what he is doing has both those elements.

'Pharisees' do neither.

No new convenant is written on the Christian's heart. That is a promise made to Israel (Heb.8:8, Jer.31:31) for the Millnennial reign of Christ.
On the contrary, the Christian is commanded to remain under the control of the Holy Spirit, to 'yield to him' and not to sin (Rom.6:16,19) and to grow from being a 'babe in Christ' to an adult by going from the milk (1Pet 2:2) to meat (Heb.5:14) of the word of God.

Christians are part of spiritual Israel.

In Romans 11, Paul compares Israel to natural branches of God's promises and gentiles as branches "grafted" on to that promise.

When Jesus said the "whole law" and the prophets hang up on the law of love, he was referring to the 10 commandments.

Paul understood this concept:

2Co 3:3 Being manifested, that you are the epistle of Christ, ministered by us, and written: not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God: not in tables of stone but in the fleshly tables of the heart.

He clearly made a comparasion between the letters written on the tables of stone with God's finger, the 10 commandments, to letters written in our hearts by God.

Though I do agree that there will be a thousand year kingdom and that the law will be at that time written in everyones heart.

On what basis does a church say "no" to this, and "yes" to that, without falling prey to the Pharisaical dangers he's warning us about?

The authors intent is plain. He does not want anyone criticizing anything for fear they will be considered a Pharisee. Typical Liberal tilt. No answers to any position only condemnation of those who take a position.

Scripture emphasizes the need of Love in everything the Christian does (1Cor.13) and Faith (Rom.14:23). The mature Christian must always be asking if what he is doing has both those elements.

Well and good. But from the perspective of a church, love and faith are the means by which one discerns a "yes" or a "no." Thus, Paul can preach faith and love in one place, and cast certain factions or people out of the church in no uncertain terms.

As a practical example, suppose that representative of some activist group -- the homosexual agenda folks are very active these days, as are the labyrinth crowd -- come into your church and begin agitating for their particular agenda.

The primary purpose of Churches is to safeguard and propagate Right Teaching, and to protect church doctrine. It implies not just faith and love, but also a set of rules to which the church adheres.

When confronted by activists, your church will have to say either yes or no. The question is: how does a church walk the fine line between pharisaism on the one hand, and abject surrender on the other?

The article is strangely silent on the matter.

Yes, there's been a lot of hurt in the name of "holiness." But not from those who grasp the real message of the movement.

Honestly, I think that next to no one in the Holiness movement in general, and perhaps a handful in the Conservative Holiness movement, have any real grasp of the message. Check out www.fwponline.cc, the website of the Fundamental Wesleyan Society, and the articles in the Armininian Magazine index page there, to see what I mean.

I think the Holiness movement lost sight of its message around the time it shifted the emphasis from Wesleyan entire sanctification that perfects us in love, to that of a second-blessing baptism in the Holy Spirit that enables us not to sin--the privilege of any Christian worthy of the name (see 1 Jn. 2:1, 3:7-10, 5:18, etc.).

But I have to say, the Salvation Army is probably the only one that still gets the message straight, at least as an organization. "Soap, Soup, and Salvation!"

These things always swing from extreme to extreme. The denunication of pharasaism in this essay has planted within it the hard unmistakable seeds of "holier than thou" self-righteousness of its own. Liberal churches are filled with orchards of such trees bearing self-righteousness of a different species but of the same deadly taste. Search their affirmations and you will find them exulting in the self-righteousness of "tolerance" and "nonjudgmentalism" as they embrace and celebrate lawlessness and gross sexual deviancy and imagine themselves holier than the fundamentalists they despise because of it.

The writers of the 'Arminian Magazine' seem to be conservative (so far as I can tell). They are decrying the departure of the Churches away from Scripture.

I would agree that 'liberalism' is as judgemental as any Pharisee. That is because they have rejected (like the Pharisee) the words of God, which is the only thing that can keep one humble and bearing 'fruit' (Gal.5:22-25).

The danger from being a Pharisee is that doctrinally they may be correct. The Pharisee's were far more 'biblical' then the Saducees or Herodians (believing in Angels, the Resurrection, Hell, Heaven, etc) but they had denied the most important thing-love (Mat.23:23,1Cor.13).

Now, when I say love, I do not mean 'sentimentality' but love that comes from the power of the Holy Spirit controlling your life (Rom.6:16)

The more things change . . .

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be, and that which is done is that which shall be done; and there is no new thing under the sun (Ecc.1:9)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.