Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Yom Kippur: Israel's Reconciliation
The B'rit Chadasha Pages | 9/29/06 | Michael D. Bugg

Posted on 09/29/2006 8:27:34 AM PDT by Buggman

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-292 last
To: Diego1618; kerryusama04
And now for a straight answer, Ellen G White was a self-proclaimed prophetess and founder of the modern Sabbatarian Adventist movement. Like many of the cult movements of the 19th century, she was considered a "restorationist" in that she believed and taught that authentic Christinity was lost for 1800 years or so. The evidence of this was the alleged rediscovery of seventh day sabbath practices. Also, like many of the cult groups of the 19th century, she taught that Jesus Christ would soon return for His remnant and take them to heaven.
251 posted on 10/16/2006 8:06:06 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; kerryusama04; DouglasKC; XeniaSt; Buggman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_G._White And now for a straight answer, Ellen G White was a self-proclaimed prophetess and founder of the modern Sabbatarian Adventist movement

Well.....she wasn't my precursor and prophetess, because I can find no record of her celebrating Passover....or for that matter...any other of God's Holy days.

Sorry Topcat....wrong time....wrong station! I'm sorry...I cannot even say "Nice Try" because it was pathetic.

252 posted on 10/16/2006 1:32:01 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
Semi-sabbatarians come in all stripes. Perhaps you are closer to these folks.

"God's annual Festivals are listed in Leviticus 23 and in Deuteronomy 16. These God-given holy days were commanded to be observed "forever" (Leviticus 23:14, 21, 31, 41). The Apostolic Church observed the annual Sabbaths (Acts 2; 12:3-4; 18:21; 20:6, 16; 27:9; 1 Corinthians 16:8). These Sabbaths will continue to be observed during Christ's millennial rule (Zechariah 14:1, 9, 16-19)."

253 posted on 10/16/2006 2:07:24 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

What is the deal with your Ellen White fetish? You're apparently the only one on the board interested in her.


254 posted on 10/16/2006 3:51:07 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; kerryusama04; HarleyD; Diego1618; DouglasKC; XeniaSt; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg
Okay, TC. Now I’ve listened to the sermon, and I can comment on it.

First, I note that Mr. Maoz engages in the age-old fallacy of trying to use the New Testament to unfavorably contrast Judaism and Christianity. For example, he quotes from Luke 18, claiming that the words of the Pharisee universally represent Judaism in the 1st century and beyond. He conveniently misses this obvious point: Both the publican and the Pharisee were Jewish followers of the faith of YHVH known as Judaism! Nowhere does Yeshua state or even hint that the publican was what we now call a Christian. One can only read such a conclusion back into the text by a careless bit of eisegesis.

Yeshua’s point was in contrasting the conditions of two hearts, the religiously proud versus the humble and repentant. One could tell the exact same parable as “The Reverend and the IRS Agent” and it wouldn’t change its meaning one iota.

So right off the bat, Maoz engages in very, very poor interpretation of the text. Fortunately, his speech improves as he goes on, but he so nearly sinks it at the beginning that it simply must be pointed out.

Now to his credit, Maoz is far more fair to Messianism than many. And he is not wrong that some Messianics make the error of falling into Rabbinic Judaism; there’s at least one example on this forum. However, this may no more be legitimately used as an argument against Messianism than the existence of Hyper-Calvinism may legitimately be taken as an argument against the whole system of Calvinism:

History teaches us that hyper-Calvinism is as much a threat to true Calvinism as Arminianism is. Virtually every revival of true Calvinism since the Puritan era has been hijacked, crippled, or ultimately killed by hyper-Calvinist influences. Modern Calvinists would do well to be on guard against the influence of these deadly trends.
--Phil Johnson
No system should be judged by its abuses, nor should the baby be thrown out with the bathwater.

Now, it is true that Judaism tends to emphasize works over faith, and in fact does not preach faith in line with the Gospel. This is due to two causes: First, a direct reaction to a “dead faith” Christianity which puts creeds above works. As I and others have observed before, for most of two millennia, Christianity and Judaism have both been guilty of defining themselves mostly in opposition to each other.

Second, it is due to the loss of the sacrifice and the Temple. Since there could be no more blood of the sacrifice to atone for sins, as required in Lev. 17:11, the rabbis sought out other means of atonement:

As Rabban Yohana ben Zakkai was coming froth from Jerusalem, Rabbi Joshua followed after him and beheld the Temple in ruins. "Woe unto us!" Rabbi Joshua cried, "that this, the place where the iniquities of Israel were atoned for is laid waste!" "My son," Yohanan said to him, "be not grieved; we have another atonement as effective as this. And what is it? It is ACTS OF LOVING KINDNESS, as it is said, 'For I desire mercy and not sacrifice (Hos. 6:6)" (Avot de Rabbi Nathan 4:18)
As noted in my original article, the need for blood atonement is still recognized in the “ultra-Orthodox” practice of killing a chicken on Yom Kippur, so while of necessity the emphasis in Judaism was transferred to works, the need for blood atonement has not vanished. Too, the idea that one is saved by God’s grace alone, not by “the works of the law” are deeply imbedded in Judaism, as reflected in the Avinu Malkeynu, quoted in my opening article:
Our Father and Our King
Our Father and Our King
Our Father and King
Be merciful to us
Be merciful unto us.

For we have done no deeds
Commending us unto You
For we have no deeds commending us to You
Be merciful, save us, we pray.

The rest of Maoz’s sermon isn’t all that objectionable other than the standard arrogant “only a Calvinist would understand” crack that all Calvinists seem obliged to make. But his main point, that we cannot in the least depend on our own works for salvation, nor can we sanctify ourselves, but must continually rest in the Messiah is spot on. This is 100% true. However, it also sidesteps the practical question which arises once one is already saved: “How now shall we walk?”

Theological platitudes like “walk by faith,” “walk in the Spirit,” “live in Christ” do not answer that question in any concrete form; indeed, without a foundation on the Rock of God’s Word, they are meaningless:

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of Mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of Mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. (Mat. 7:24-27)
There are four types of people:
1) Those who try to keep the commands of God in the Bible, but who do not really trust Him to forgive their sins. This sort becomes legalistic in deed and/or creed, judging everyone around them for not doing the right works or voicing the right creeds. Outwardly, they can seem smug, or even serene, but inside they are never at peace, because they know that they don’t measure up to God’s standards either, but hope by getting “close enough” that He’ll overlook the rest.

2) Those who “have faith,” but insufficient faith to change their lives. To this person, “faith” is “believing in” something contrary to fact, or in the absence of evidence. They think that by saying the right words, the sinner’s prayer or whatever, they get a free ticket into heaven. What they miss is trusting God enough to not only be able to rest assured of one’s salvation, but enough to want to do things God’s way. These are those who build their house on sand.

3) Those with neither faith nor works. ‘Nuff said.

4) Those who rest assured of their salvation in the Messiah, and trust Him enough to obey His words. Obedience is not done out of fear, as in the first type of person, but out of love. Again, I do not seek to keep the Torah in order to be saved, but because I am saved, and I want to be like my Savior in every way.

I don’t think Maoz would disagree with the above; in fact, he himself, though he’s primarily concerned with Type #1, acknowledges the necessity of being a Type 4 when he points out that those who truly love God naturally seek to do His will.

TC, you’ve several times made the accusation that those of us who observe the Sabbath and the other Feastdays are being legalistic. I deny the charge—not that Messianics and Sabbatarians are never legalistic, because some plainly are, but because not all of us are, nor is legalism a condition unique to our fellowships.

Legalism is a condition of the heart which reveals itself in the outward actions and attitudes, not a simple matter of keeping God’s Torah out of faith and love—or else the Apostles were all legalists of the first order. Because legalists are convinced in their hearts—whether they’ve thought it out in their heads or not—that if you don’t do or say such-and-such in just the right way, you’re not really saved, or a Christian. To quote Max Lucado, “Legalism turns my opinion into your boundary.”

Now with that in mind, TC, which of us is the legalist? I, who has only pointed out that the Bible never did away with the Feasts or Sabbath, and who started these threads simply to show what the Feast mean and why they still have value, since in the Apostle Sha’ul’s words, they “are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of the Messiah” (Col. 2:17). Or you who barge into this thread to condemn the rest of us for keeping practices which you aver are “not authorized” by the NT, even though you cannot show where the NT changes or forbids the keeping of the Feasts either? I who love and accept both Messianics and those who worship the Lord on Sunday as my brethren in the Lord? Or you who state without a hint of grace, “Christians do not keep the Sabbath.”

It was a good speech, TC. But you’ve evidentially missed Moaz’s real point in your joy at finding some criticism against Judaism and some (not all) Messianics in his words.

255 posted on 10/16/2006 3:59:43 PM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; kerryusama04; HarleyD; Diego1618; DouglasKC; XeniaSt; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg
It was a good speech, TC. But you’ve evidentially missed Moaz’s real point in your joy at finding some criticism against Judaism and some (not all) Messianics in his words.

Since I've not made any particular comments about what Maoz said, I'm not sure your conclusion is warranted. I was especially interested in your take on the issue of justification as he outlined it.

I'll have to go back and listen again with your comments in mind.

256 posted on 10/16/2006 5:52:00 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04
What is the deal with your Ellen White fetish?

Not a fetish, just trying to establish pedigree.

Besides, with all the beatings that the church fathers have taken either explicitly or implicitly (chants of "paganism" come to mind), surely a reference from Wikipedia to Ellen White's unique -isms can't be too objectionable.

257 posted on 10/16/2006 5:58:16 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Semi-sabbatarians come in all stripes. Perhaps you are closer to these folks

Closer....but yet, "No Cigar"!

258 posted on 10/16/2006 6:49:43 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Not a fetish, just trying to establish pedigree.

To what end? Why not argue scripture for scripture?

Besides, with all the beatings that the church fathers have taken either explicitly or implicitly (chants of "paganism" come to mind), surely a reference from Wikipedia to Ellen White's unique -isms can't be too objectionable.

I don't object, actually, I couldn't care less. But I have to wonder why you seem to want to take the debate away from scripture and on to extra-biblical sources.

I tried earlier in the thread or the last thread to get you to step back or move forward and tell us how you come to your beliefs. What is the end game of your theology? Mine is pretty simple - God does not change the rules, belief in Him changes men to follow them.

Since you want to make this about anything but scripture, and you refuse to post the scripture that repeals the 4th Commandment, I will go off on the tangential bait.

RE: ECF bashing:
Once I discovered all the errors that I had been taught, I set out to find out how did this happen? Even the Apostles had disagreements that made it into scripture. The ECF's had a huge challenge spreading the Gospel to the Nations. IMO, the early Church's purity was eroded the further they got away from Jerusalem. I think that in order to win converts, the first one's started compromising. Baptizing people en masse is risky business, no? This is clear in the Epistles as well as the rebukes the churches get in Revelation. Then as Paul's converts started converting others, and so on, the lines between paganism and Christianity started to become really blurred. Keep in mind, these guys couldn't possibly have the access to the scriptures that we enjoy.

It looks like it all came to a head at the Nicean Council, where purity was compromised for unity.

Anti-Semitism looks like a source of the apostasy. Hellenists and Gnostics weren't big on being judged. Another was Plato-ism and Neo-Plato-ism. These folks saw "truth" in every religion. This was re-inforced as civil Rome conquered land after land and kept running into gods that looked just like the one's back home. So these little nuances creep in, innocently, over time and become the norm. In broad terms, I do not subscribe to a notion that these things were part of a "vast Hellenist-wing conspiracy". I think it was all an accident.

The part that absolutely blows my mind is that here we are with our electronic Bibles and specials on the Discovery or History channels explaining the pagan origins of a whole lot of Christianity. With PhD level theologians who know full well the origins of the errors they teach, and yet they keep teaching them. But, then I remember it is all prophesied:

Dan 12:4 "But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase."

Isa 35:5 Then the eyes of the blind will be opened And the ears of the deaf will be unstopped.

259 posted on 10/16/2006 7:05:38 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Not a fetish, just trying to establish pedigree.

Why not just ask?

260 posted on 10/16/2006 7:09:33 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618; topcat54; kerryusama04; DouglasKC; XeniaSt; Buggman

What, TC is reduced to guilt-by-association arguments now?


261 posted on 10/17/2006 7:48:14 AM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; kerryusama04; HarleyD; Diego1618; DouglasKC; XeniaSt; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg
Since I've not made any particular comments about what Maoz said, I'm not sure your conclusion is warranted.

I'm basing it on your activities on this thread and the Rosh Hashanah thread: You have legalistically condemned the practice of observing the Appointed Times of the Lord on the supposed basis that they are "not authorized" in the NT. You have legalistically determined that keeping the Passover as the Lord and His disciples kept it is forbidden for Christians, since you write, "Christians do not celebrate the passover."

Every post in this thread that has demonstrated that the Bible never moved the Sabbath to Sunday and never ended the keeping of the Feasts has been in reaction to your legalistic demands that everyone worship according to your Calvinist tradition.

I did not author these articles in such a way as to make keeping the Appointed Times of the Lord a matter of salvation, fellowship, or maturity in a believer's walk. I wrote them to explain just why God commanded that they be kept, to show how they relate to both Israel's history and the eschaton. I wrote them to educate, not to mandate. If a few of my Sunday-brethren walked away with nothing but an enhanced understanding of an area of Scripture that they hadn't considered before, then I considered the article a success.

You are the one who came into both threads to pick a fight. You are the one who has cast judgment on another believer in a matter of observing certain days as holy in defiance of Rom. 14:5ff and Col. 2:16--and therefore in defiance of the very NT that you profess to obey. And you are the one who has elevated the traditions of men to a dogma, since your whole argument in favor of Sunday has been the supposed universal--even though we know from the ECF that it was not universal--observance of Sunday and forsaking of the Feasts in the Church in the post-NT era rather than on any careful and clear exegesis of the NT itself.

You have tried to turn your opinion into our boundary and our burden. That makes you, not us, the legalist.

It's interesting that Max Lucado penned those words (in his booklet, The Greatest Moments) at a time when he was under heavy fire from the Church of Christ for worshipping with other denominations as he traveled around the country on speaking engagements. Why? Because the Church of Christ does not use musical instruments in worship, and these other denominations do. What's up with that? you ask. Well, it's a funny thing, but nowhere in the NT is the use of musical instruments specifically authorized. The CoC, taking the, "we follow the New Testament, not the Old," to its logical extreme, therefore came to the conclusion that instruments were verboten in a church service. Some in the CoC were therefore passing judgment on Lucado for worshipping in a fashion not specifically authorized by the NT.

Sound familiar?

Now, while I thank you for all the hits and all the times you've bumped my articles, I think your time and intellect would be far better served discussing the material and interpretations of the articles themselves, rather than arguing that we should not be observing these times or even having these discussions on the basis of your particular interpretations of certain NT passages which we have shown there are other, equally or more viable interpretations for.

The former edifies the body. The latter is just legalism and Hellenizing, and denies that "All Scripture (not just the NT) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Ti. 3:16-17).

262 posted on 10/17/2006 8:25:29 AM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; Diego1618; kerryusama04; DouglasKC; XeniaSt; HarleyD; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg
What, TC is reduced to guilt-by-association arguments now?

Unfortunately, it seems to be a common practice in these quarters. You did see the "mullah Calvin" comment in reference to Pastor Maoz, didn't you? And the comment about Calvin "murdering" people, lots of people in fact?

Guilt by association at it's finest, even if it is based on lies about Calvin. (On my part I don't think I surfaced any lies about Ellen White, did I?)

I'm willing to try to rise about the pettiness that has been rampant on all sides in these discussions.

Shall we proceed in that spirit, or would that be expecting too much?

263 posted on 10/17/2006 8:43:23 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; kerryusama04; HarleyD; Diego1618; DouglasKC; XeniaSt; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg
I'm basing it on your activities on this thread and the Rosh Hashanah thread

Well, will we continue to act based on suspicions and assigning motives, or will we move beyond?

How is calling me a "legalist" or "pharisee" (in your eyes) different than your view that I claim you are a "judaizer"?

Perhaps you will come back and say, "but you are a legalist according to the way I use the word." Then we are back at the beginning quibbling over words and their meanings.

Is progress possible, or are we just once again going to fall back into (bad) habit patterns?

264 posted on 10/17/2006 9:08:47 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; topcat54; HarleyD; jude24
You have legalistically determined that keeping the Passover as the Lord and His disciples kept it is forbidden for Christians, since you write, "Christians do not celebrate the passover."

No, Christ determined that.

"No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse.

And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles." -- Mark 2:21-22


265 posted on 10/17/2006 9:35:16 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; Diego1618; kerryusama04; DouglasKC; XeniaSt; HarleyD; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg
You did see the "mullah Calvin" comment in reference to Pastor Maoz, didn't you?

Nope, missed that one. However, since you freely associate yourself with Calvin, and even call yourself by his name, that's not a guilt-by-association argument. It could be an ad hominem against Calvin, however.

On the other hand, given the natural Calvinist tendency to insist that only the elect can properly interpret Scripture, it's not entirely unfair to see if Calvin's life demonstrates that election, since otherwise he could simply be just an intellegent man who makes a good argument--you know, like the rabbis you reject as having anything to say of value.

It's not enough that Calvin called himself a Christian or proclaimed Christ:

Not every one that saith unto Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out devils? and in Thy name done many wonderful works?" And then will I profess unto them, "I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity." (Mat. 7:21-23)
Therefore, we are right to look at the personal lives of all who claim authority in the Lord's Name, for, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits" (vv. 15-16).

While I frankly find the whole matter extraneous to the conversation and not worth getting into, why is examining a particularly black mark on Calvin's personal record off-limits? Frankly, before you get upset about an ad hominem on John Calvin, you would have to take back all the ad hominems you've been making against the Jews.

I'm willing to try to rise about the pettiness that has been rampant on all sides in these discussions.

I won't speak of "all sides," but I don't think that I've personally been in the least petty in this debate. I've treated you with respect and I've given full and supported answers to your questions and objections. I have never questioned your faith, and despite your attempts to goad me into saying otherwise, I have never said that what I perceive as an honest error on your part in any way invalidates your love for the Lord. I have in fact said several times on many threads that I know you have a genuine love for the Lord, and I have even gone as far as calling down "my" side on this thread for even implying that God's Appointed Times are a matter of salvation.

If you believe that I have personally wronged you in some way, then please quote the specific post and explain what I did so that we can come to a reconciliation.

Now, I'm all for proceding in the Spirit, but let's get one matter out of the way first: Is it in fact your contention that someone saying that we should keep the Feasts is legalism, but someone saying that we must not keep the Feasts is not legalism? That seems to be a curious double-standard to me.

266 posted on 10/17/2006 9:57:28 AM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; topcat54; kerryusama04; HarleyD; Diego1618; DouglasKC; XeniaSt; jude24

Nice try, but no, that's not what He was talking about. Check the context; what events led up to that parable?


267 posted on 10/17/2006 10:00:30 AM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; Diego1618; kerryusama04; DouglasKC; XeniaSt; HarleyD; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg
Your tone here doesn't give me hope, but let's see where we can go. I will forgo any comments on Bro. Calvin since you seemed to have missed the intent of the "mullah" statement. It was clearly guilt by association against Pastor Maoz, i,e, Calvin was a murderer so therefore "mullah Calvin" (Maoz) must also be a murderer at heart (see #222).

Now, I'm all for proceding in the Spirit, but let's get one matter out of the way first: Is it in fact your contention that someone saying that we should keep the Feasts is legalism, but someone saying that we must not keep the Feasts is not legalism? That seems to be a curious double-standard to me.

What I have always said is that keeping the feasts/dietary laws/circumcision/etc is a matter of adiaphora as far as individual believers are concerned. I would say the same of people who wish to exchange gifts on December 25 and call it "Christmas".

My objection is when folks bring these things into the church as normative worship practices for a congregation of baptized believers (Jews/gentiles/both, doesn't matter). In my understanding of Scripture, under the new covenant God could care less if we have a roast pork dinner at a church gathering, where clothing of mixed material, cut or beards a certain way, or do not remember the "passover" or "yom kippur". In fact, what would be offensive to God is if we insist on doing these things which are personally adiaphora in the context of corporate worship among other brothers and sisters who believe they have been set free from these thing in Christ. To force adiaphora on the church would be denying them their liberty since they do not constitute the "commands of Christ".

So, far from being "legalism" in any true sense of the word, the objection is to the sense of spiritual superiority that comes from "messianic judaism" v. "gentile christianity" based on the idea that keeping what were admittedly laws pertaining to Israel as a nation in a particular time and place that are somehow normative for the universal church under the new covenant.

Or, to put it another way, if you believe that for me (or anyone else who calls himself a Christian) to keep these laws or not keep these laws is a matter of absolutely moral indifference (adiaphora), then we are OK. But, if you insist that I will be better off spiritually and truly pleasing to God by devoting myself to keeping these things in as scrupulous a manner as can be defined in this day and age, then I call that "legalism" and a judaizing of the church.

So that is where I stand on the ceremonials.

The weekly sabbath is a different issue in my mind since it involves the moral law (the 4th of the "Ten Words") and is not the strictly ceremonial. I have a difficult time thinking that God has left the day of the week for worship by His body a matter of adiaphora. I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem to be the case. So we are left with trying to understand based on all that is given to us in the Bible what was God's intention for weekly sabbath worship under the terms of the new covenant within the universal body of Christ. Obviously, we disagree on the proper interpretation of certain Scripture passages. You think I'm wrong and I think you're wrong. Sometimes it escalates to outright name calling; "legalist" v. "judaizer".

I'm not sure if this question is useful, but let me ask anyway. When we talk about the fact that "Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:3), I assume you believe that means that if a person were an actual murderer, then Christ died for the particular act of murder in that person's background. Would it also be your belief that for a Christian from a gentile background that means that Christ died for the sin of eating swine flesh or not properly worshipping on the "passover"?

268 posted on 10/17/2006 1:34:51 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: All
where clothing of mixed material,

Yes, I know where my clothes are that I need to wear.

269 posted on 10/17/2006 1:37:17 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; Buggman; Diego1618; kerryusama04; DouglasKC; XeniaSt; HarleyD; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg
I'm not sure if this question is useful, but let me ask anyway. When we talk about the fact that "Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:3), I assume you believe that means that if a person were an actual murderer, then Christ died for the particular act of murder in that person's background. Would it also be your belief that for a Christian from a gentile background that means that Christ died for the sin of eating swine flesh or not properly worshipping on the "passover"?

Although not specifically addressed to me, I would like to respond to this question.

Christ died for every sin that we can commit. Deliberately disobeying God breaks at least two commandments:

Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

In the case of eating unclean animals, Christianity has instituted it's own ideas about what to eat as opposed to God's wishes. They have put their religious beliefs ahead of God...they have another god before God. Same thing with not observing Passover or any other holy day.

It also violates that 5th commandment:

Exo 20:12 Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

God, our father, is not being honored when he specifically tells us, his children, to not eat the flesh of certain animals...or when we disregard his instructions on the holy days.

As a father, God does things for reasons we might not understand for a while. We obey on faith. I know that there are profound spiritual rewards for obeying God on these points, but I had to step out on faith and do them without knowing exactly what those rewards might be.

It's like a father telling a little kid not to play in the road. The kid doesn't have a clue what the actual consequences of disobedience might be, but the father knows it may end up killing the kid. The kid can rationalize all day that the traffic is light, that the drivers will see him and stop in time, the speed limit is low, that he's fast enough to get out of the road, etc., etc. ...and may consider his fathers rules to be restrictive and stupid. But the father has seen plenty in his lifetime and KNOWS what the best course of action is.

It's the same with God. He's been around longer than forever. He knows the dangers to humans in the world. He knows how are bodies are designed and what the best and safest fuel for them is. He knows how to build our spiritual character. When we disregard his instructions, there are always consequences.

270 posted on 10/17/2006 2:04:41 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; Diego1618; kerryusama04; DouglasKC; XeniaSt; HarleyD; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg
Okay, let's clarify some terms before I answer your post, since I don't want to miss your points. If you wouldn't mind answering a few questions:

1) What is the Biblical definition of sin, as you understand it?

2) You keep objecting against keeping the Appointed Times of the Lord becoming the "normative worship practices for a congregation of baptized believers." What do you mean by that exactly? Are you objecting to the very existence of congregations that choose to observe the Appointed Times of the Lord in lieu of Sunday, Christmas, etc.?

3) If you object to a perceived "spiritual superiority" among Messianics, then should my perception of a superiority complex among Calvinists cause me to a priori reject your tenants as you reject ours?

And to answer your question:

Would it also be your belief that for a Christian from a gentile background that means that Christ died for the sin of eating swine flesh or not properly worshipping on the "passover"?

I have already stated my ambivalence over whether eating pork is a sin for a Gentile believer since there are (to my mind) caveats for Gentiles built into the Torah itself, so my answer to the first part would be, "If eating pork is indeed a sin for a Gentile believer, then yes."

My answer to the second question is also yes, with the caveat that I have said nothing about worshipping "properly" outside of keeping the specific commandments associated with the Passover. I believe that within the framework of the written Torah (and by extension, all Scripture) there is plenty of room for individual expressions of worship and cultural traditions. Even though I observe these Feasts from within a Jewish cultural tradition, I also recognize the need for modification to reflect our New Covenant belief; e.g., the Passover is no longer solely about the Exodus from Egypt, but also our Exodus from sin in our Lamb Yeshua, and the Seder needs to express that.

As for why I would consider such things sins, I'll explain that in more detail when you answer my question #1, since my answer will be tailored according to yours. Fair enough?

271 posted on 10/17/2006 4:33:32 PM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; Buggman; Diego1618; DouglasKC; XeniaSt; HarleyD; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg
Se llame el pastor "Mullah Calvin" porque el habla que salvacion es possible solamente con gente que cree como el. Como yo decia antes, no escuchando nunca oyendo un sermon como esto.El sonida mucho como este hombre.
272 posted on 10/17/2006 4:37:00 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; Diego1618; DouglasKC; XeniaSt; HarleyD; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg; Buggman
"Calvinist":

1Co 1:11 For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brothers, by those of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 1Co 1:12 But I say this, that every one of you says, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. 1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 1Co 1:15 lest any should say that I had baptized in my own name.

1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

273 posted on 10/17/2006 5:03:20 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; Diego1618; kerryusama04; DouglasKC; XeniaSt; HarleyD; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg
I will answer your questions by making some statements. I assume the purpose is to clarify and not argue.

1) What is the Biblical definition of sin, as you understand it?

Sin is defined in terms of our obedience or disobedience to the moral law of God. As my catechism says, "Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any [moral] law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature." As John says, "Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness."

The moral law of God is summarized in the "Ten Words" written by the finger of God. Thus they are eternal and applicable to all men in all ages. When the books are opened and the deeds examined, the deeds for all men are related to this eternal, moral law.

In addition to this moral law, there was, for a time, certain positive commandments, such as the commands given by God to the Israelites to drive the Canaanites from the land, or the law of kings to not "multiply horses" (Deut. 17:16). These were binding on Israel and the Jewish kings, and, as they were the command of God to disobey would be sin for Israel. Also, the law given to cultic Israel which was temporary (such as the food laws and clothing laws, the laws of sacrifice, the priesthood, and the annual festivals, etc) were binding on that people for that time, but no other.

2) You keep objecting against keeping the Appointed Times of the Lord becoming the "normative worship practices for a congregation of baptized believers." What do you mean by that exactly? Are you objecting to the very existence of congregations that choose to observe the Appointed Times of the Lord in lieu of Sunday, Christmas, etc.?

What the Old Testament (2 Cor. 3:14) describes as the "appointed times" was part and parcel with that last category of cultic laws given to Israel as a national/religious entity. Their purpose was as a shadow to point people to the Redeemer to come. They were only binding on the people of Israel, and we abrogated with the appearance of Christ, the perfect Lamb of God.

Since they were nationalistic and temporary, they are no longer appropriate or normative for the universal church of Jesus Christ, made up of Jew and gentile without distinction. Therefore, to enforce those practices as normative within the gathered people of God, the church, is to do violence to the liberty purchased for us by the blood of Christ (Gal. 5:1).

Or, as Paul put the question to Peter, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?" Peter knew he was perfectly free in Christ from the old covenant strictures according to Acts 10 and other passages. And apparently he lived that way for a time when among the gentiles in Galatia. Further, as far we know he never actually tried to compel any gentile to live like a Jew. But Paul was clear that his hypocrisy by withdrawing from the gentile brethren at the coming of "certain men came from James" had this very effect on the gentiles.

3) If you object to a perceived "spiritual superiority" among Messianics, then should my perception of a superiority complex among Calvinists cause me to a priori reject your tenants as you reject ours?

Perhaps, the difference being that Calvinists do not claim any superiority based on their behavior. We do not distinguish ourselves by the clothing we wear or the food we eat or the annual festivals we observe.

Now, if someone wishes to observe a festival day without stating that it is a moral imperative and thus applicable to all people, that it is adiaphora, as I said I have no problem. There is liberty. Just as Peter and Paul had personal liberty in Christ to eat or not eat all manner of food, or to observe or not observe "a festival or a new moon or sabbaths", so do we.

When you cross the line and say "you ought" because these laws are perceived to still be in place and expanded to include gentiles, that is where the objection is made. I do not perceive the position of the messianics to be one of liberty, one of adiaphora. Otherwise, I do not think we would be having this conversation.

Or, to put it another way, I do not consider you to be spiritually inferior because you are not a Calvinist. Neither do I consider myself to be spiritually superior. There is no particular eternal blessing, no higher place in heaven, associated with being a Calvinist or Arminian. Jesus did not say, "If you love me you will be a Calvinist." He said, "If you love me you will keep my commandments." I understand "commandments" to be the moral law as summarized in the Ten Words and Jesus' statement, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself." "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." Jesus said, "a tree is known by its fruit." When you include matters of the ceremonial law as articles of fruit, I, and most Christians, will object.

Again, I'm merely answering your questions to clarify my position.

274 posted on 10/17/2006 8:09:37 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC; Buggman; Diego1618; kerryusama04; XeniaSt; HarleyD; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg
In the case of eating unclean animals, Christianity has instituted it's own ideas about what to eat as opposed to God's wishes. They have put their religious beliefs ahead of God...they have another god before God. Same thing with not observing Passover or any other holy day.

OK, I'll play along for a minute.

Here's is the bulk of the OT law regarding the keeping of the Passover:

Now the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, "This month shall be your beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year to you. Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying: 'On the tenth day of this month every man shall take for himself a lamb, according to the house of his father, a lamb for a household. And if the household is too small for the lamb, let him and his neighbor next to his house take it according to the number of the persons; according to each man's need you shall make your count for the lamb. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats. Now you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month. Then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at twilight. And they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the houses where they eat it. Then they shall eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. Do not eat it raw, nor boiled at all with water, but roasted in fire--its head with its legs and its entrails. You shall let none of it remain until morning, and what remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire. And thus you shall eat it: with a belt on your waist, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. So you shall eat it in haste. It is the Lord's Passover. For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord. Now the blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you; and the plague shall not be on you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt. So this day shall be to you a memorial; and you shall keep it as a feast to the Lord throughout your generations. You shall keep it as a feast by an everlasting ordinance. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses. For whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel. On the first day there shall be a holy convocation, and on the seventh day there shall be a holy convocation for you. No manner of work shall be done on them; but that which everyone must eat--that only may be prepared by you. So you shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this same day I will have brought your armies out of the land of Egypt. Therefore you shall observe this day throughout your generations as an everlasting ordinance. In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty-first day of the month at evening. For seven days no leaven shall be found in your houses, since whoever eats what is leavened, that same person shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is a stranger or a native of the land. You shall eat nothing leavened; in all your dwellings you shall eat unleavened bread.' " (Exo. 12)

"You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leaven, nor shall the sacrifice of the Feast of the Passover be left until morning." (Exo. 34)

"'These are the feasts of the Lord, holy convocations which you shall proclaim at their appointed times. On the fourteenth day of the first month at twilight is the Lord's Passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the Lord; seven days you must eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall do no customary work on it. But you shall offer an offering made by fire to the Lord for seven days. The seventh day shall be a holy convocation; you shall do no customary work on it.' " (Lev. 23)

(Feel free to add anything I have missed.)

Now, tell us plainly, while carefully observing all the "jots and tittles" and "least of these commandments" (Matt. 5:18,19), how does one observe this "passover" today?

275 posted on 10/17/2006 8:27:56 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; Buggman; Diego1618; kerryusama04; XeniaSt; HarleyD; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg
Now, tell us plainly, while carefully observing all the "jots and tittles" and "least of these commandments" (Matt. 5:18,19), how does one observe this "passover" today?

Under the new covenant, we observe Passover as God in the flesh observed it and as his disciples observed it. We follow the example set forth in scripture:

1Jo 2:6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

1Co 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

How did Christ observe Passover?

Lev 23:5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD's passover.

Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

We know that Paul, an imitator or Christ, did the same thing:

1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.

Jesus, God in the flesh, also gave another command to be observed at Passover under the new covenant:

Joh 13:12 So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?
Joh 13:13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.
Joh 13:14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
Joh 13:15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

As far as the animal sacrifices you listed, the new testament clearly teaches that under the new covenant Christ is the sacrifice:

1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us

Heb 9:9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
Heb 9:11 But Christ being come a high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Now do I observe the Passover perfectly? Not by any means. I also don't observe the sabbath perfectly. In fact, I don't observe any commandment perfectly. But that doesn't mean you throw you your hands and say "I can't do it". It means that you submit yourself to the will of Christ, living in you, and overcome, build TOWARD perfection by letting his spirit work through you:

Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
Heb 13:21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

These are the feasts of the Lord, holy convocations which you shall proclaim at their appointed times. On the fourteenth day of the first month at twilight is the Lord's Passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the Lord; seven days you must eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall do no customary work on it. But you shall offer an offering made by fire to the Lord for seven days. The seventh day shall be a holy convocation; you shall do no customary work on it.' " (Lev. 23)

There is a biblical distinction between Passover and the days of unleavened bread, but if you would like me to tell you how to observe that festival I will be glad to share.

276 posted on 10/18/2006 6:53:50 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; Buggman; Diego1618; DouglasKC; XeniaSt; HarleyD; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg
Sin is defined in terms of our obedience or disobedience to the moral law of God. As my catechism says, "Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any [moral] law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature." As John says, "Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness."

I notice you insert the adjective "moral" before Law of God - even in your catechism. What scripture do you cite that permits such a qualifying term? What scripture divides the Law into pieces?

277 posted on 10/18/2006 7:16:05 AM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; Diego1618; kerryusama04; DouglasKC; XeniaSt; HarleyD; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg
Sin is defined in terms of our obedience or disobedience to the moral law of God.

Where does the Bible say "moral law"? 1 Jn. 3:4 simply says, "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law" (KJV) or "Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness, for sin is lawlessness" (MKJV). You are making an artificial distinction that the Bible itself does not make.

The moral law of God is summarized in the "Ten Words" written by the finger of God.

I have to disagree that the Ten Words is all "moral" law: The commands against idolatry and to keep the Sabbath would have to fall under the definition of "ceremonial law" in anything even approaching a natural distinction. To say that keeping the Sabbath is a moral commandment, but that keeping the other Feasts--which are grouped together with the Sabbath in Lev. 23, as well as in Col. 2:16-17--is a "ceremonial law" that has somehow been done away with in the Cross is pure arbitrariness on your part.

Also, the law given to cultic Israel which was temporary (such as the food laws and clothing laws, the laws of sacrifice, the priesthood, and the annual festivals, etc) were binding on that people for that time, but no other.

While I needn't disagree with your point about the sacrificial system, since the High Priesthood has been transferred (metatithemines, Heb. 7:12) to Yeshua (though I maintain that there will be a return of an earthly Temple in the eschaton), even agreeing to that, the NT says nothing about the transferrance, change, or removal of the food, clothing, or Appointed Times laws. You're simply reading back your traditions into the text, and stretching Hebrews to say far more than it actually does.

They were only binding on the people of Israel, and we abrogated with the appearance of Christ, the perfect Lamb of God.

You keep repeating that, but you've not yet proved it. I wrote a lengthy post (#102) refuting your arguments which you have thus far declined to answer. Therefore, you have no grounds on which to object to keeping the Feasts being part of a congregation's normative practice.

Or, as Paul put the question to Peter, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?"

There is a valid interpretation of that passage that do not require Kefa to have given up a Torah-observant lifestyle. Remember that Kefa was from Galilee, while Sha'ul was a Pharisee who was educated in Jerusalem at the feet of Gameliel. The Judeans regarded the Galileans as being renegades and half-Gentile because while they kept the Torah, they were not as concerned with the minutae of the Law nor with the Oral Law, the traditions. Therefore, Sha'ul could have been gigging Kefa for not being "as Jewish" as Sha'ul himself: "Look, if you as a Jew are going to ignore the rulings and traditions of Judea like most Galileans, where do you get off forcing these Gentiles to become observant Jews?"

Now, why is my interpretation superior to yours? Continue through the letter to Gal. 5:3 - "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole Torah." Kefa was circumcised--i.e. Jewish--and he was therefore under obligation to keep the whole Torah, including those parts specific to the Jews, including, in my view and for example, the kosher laws. There is therefore no reason to believe that Kefa was flouting any part of the Torah.

Perhaps, the difference being that Calvinists do not claim any superiority based on their behavior.

No, just their "superior" understanding of Scripture. If you'll excuse the thread-hopping for a moment, these are just two recent quotes from the PREDESTINATION: LETTING GOD BE GOD thread:

Forest Keeper (post #3202): "It is through sanctification that the greater truth of Calvinism can be known..... OR, is it a specific grace that the Holy Spirit only reveals to some among believers?"

Lord_Calvinus (post #3201): "As much as I'd like for the Lord to simply zap all spirtual babes with maturity so we don't have to have these insane spats with the non-Calvinists, the Lord has been pleased to let most of us wander in a self-centered conceit for a time."

And you yourself write over on the Rosh Hashanah thread (post #154):
Christmas and Easter and just as inappropriate for the new covenant as Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. All of these feast days are a denial of the simplicity of new covenant worship as given to us in the Bible. Both sets are based on the traditions of men; one group is Roman syncretistic traditionalists and the other is Judaizing traditionalists who have not quite made it all the way into the freedom of the new covenant.
Funny, that looks like boasting based on behavior to me, not to mention boasting based on just being a Calvinist from your fellows. I do believe that there is a saying about stones and glass houses that is appropriate here.

In any case, one cannot make a legitimate argument based on the perceived arrogance of the other side; that's just a type of ad hominem. Ultimately, this discussion is not about us, it's about God's Word and how we understand and interpret it. So stop making it about us, and stop making snap judgments based on your feelings.

When you cross the line and say "you ought" because these laws are perceived to still be in place and expanded to include gentiles, that is where the objection is made.

But you don't cross the line when you say, "You ought not . . ."? Or when you say that Sunday-worship is a New Covenant requirement? Again, you're employing a double-standard.

And I'm sorry if it bugs you, but the fact is that in the Torah, God commands certain days to be observed forever. We have successfully countered all of your arguments to the contrary from the NT, and have shown that keeping the Torah was the normative practice among, at the least, the Jewish believers. Therefore, why shouldn't we say that we ought to be observing certain days and employing certain symbols that God Himself gave us?

Now, back to some issues in post #268:

In my understanding of Scripture, under the new covenant God could care less if we have a roast pork dinner at a church gathering, where clothing of mixed material, cut or beards a certain way, or do not remember the "passover" or "yom kippur".

And we in the Messianic movement understand differently. We also understand that honest disagreement and error is covered by the blood of the Messiah on either side, and that we share in one Spirit regardless.

But, if you insist that I will be better off spiritually and truly pleasing to God by devoting myself to keeping these things in as scrupulous a manner as can be defined in this day and age, then I call that "legalism" and a judaizing of the church.

I insist that these are God's commandments; I would be lying if I called them anything else. Now, if God commands something, wouldn't you be better off spiritually to obey Him?

Now, the second part of your sentence, "and truly pleasing to God," is where you, not I, fall into legalism. We are both agreed that only in Yeshua HaMashiach are we made in any way, shape, or form made pleasing to God: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Yeshua HaMashiach, even we have believed in Yeshua HaMashiach, that we might be justified by the faith of the Messiah, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Gal. 2:16).

Perhaps a Calvinist believes in his heart of hearts that by being a Calvinist, and emphasizing God's sovereignty in his particular manner, he is somehow more pleasing to God. And doubtless there are many Messianics who labor under the mistaken belief that it is by keeping the whole Torah they can be made pleasing or more pleasing to God.

I, however, am not one of them. I am far too well aware of my own sin--how can someone who misses the mark so often take pride that his target (yarah) is a little narrower than someone else's?

This is not about winning points "by the works of the law." It is about obeying a beloved Father--not to win His favor, but simply because we love Him.

It is also about regaining a lost blessing. You keep talking about the Feasts as if they were some horrible, onerous burden that Christ came to free us from. They're not. They're for our pleasure, our good. "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27). They are times of refreshing, foretastes of the things to come, and memorials of God's grace.

Even if the Feasts were adiaphora, why wouldn't I want to celebrate and share them?

Now, go back and read the original article. Do I at any point even bring up my belief that we should be observing these Appointed Times? No. All I do is explain what Yom Kippur is about and how I believe it will be fulfilled in the End Times, when the High Priest will emerge from the Holy of Holies to show all Israel that His sacrifice on their behalf has been accepted.

Why you find that threatening, I have no idea.

278 posted on 10/18/2006 8:50:19 AM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; topcat54
Therefore, Sha'ul could have been gigging Kefa for not being "as Jewish" as Sha'ul himself:

Pure speculation at best - and contradicted by Paul's own dissimssive attitude towards his Pharisaical bona fides in Philippians 3.

279 posted on 10/18/2006 8:55:16 AM PDT by jude24 ("I will oppose the sword if it's not wielded well, because my enemies are men like me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; topcat54
Even if the Feasts were adiaphora, why wouldn't I want to celebrate and share them?

Because they are the sacraments of an old, imperfect covenant which has vanished and passed away, along with its regulations for worship and earthly place of holiness (Heb. 8:13-9:1).

280 posted on 10/18/2006 8:58:49 AM PDT by jude24 ("I will oppose the sword if it's not wielded well, because my enemies are men like me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04; topcat54; Buggman
What scripture do you cite that permits such a qualifying term?

That's a fallacious argument. Scripture may be the only infallible rule of faith and of life, but that doesn't mean that an argument requires a succint sound-byte citation to verify it. Topcat, being Reformed, subscribes to the "good-and-necessary-inference" rule.

281 posted on 10/18/2006 9:00:40 AM PDT by jude24 ("I will oppose the sword if it's not wielded well, because my enemies are men like me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; Lord_Calvinus; Forest Keeper; topcat54

Usually it's good form to ping a FReeper when you quote them by name in a post as you did here.


282 posted on 10/18/2006 9:04:29 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: jude24; topcat54; HarleyD
Because they are the sacraments of an old, imperfect covenant which has vanished and passed away, along with its regulations for worship and earthly place of holiness (Heb. 8:13-9:1).

Amen.

"And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom." -- Mark 15:38

283 posted on 10/18/2006 9:09:17 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: jude24; topcat54
Because they are the sacraments of an old, imperfect covenant which has vanished and passed away, along with its regulations for worship and earthly place of holiness (Heb. 8:13-9:1).

Already answered a long time ago on multiple occasions, Jude. The New Covenant specifically includes this little proviso: "I will put My Torah in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts" (Jer. 31:33, Heb. 8:11).

"My Torah"--not another Torah, there is only one.

And because I grow weary of retyping the same arguments over and over again, I'll just point you to the article on my blog, Why the New Covenant Doesn’t Do Away with the Torah.

None of the Apostles, least of all Sha'ul, made the artificial distinction of the "moral law" and "ceremonial law." They only spoke of "the Law."

All of the arguments on this have been made at length on this thread; I think you're being a bit unfair trying to jump in with a soundbite response which doesn't take those arguments into account at all.

284 posted on 10/18/2006 9:13:22 AM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; Lord_Calvinus; Forest Keeper; topcat54

You are absolutely correct, and it's something that I've called you down for before so that's particularly bad of me. I apologize for not doing so; I just didn't think to go back up and amend the ping list (usually the first thing I paste) when I quoted Forest Keeper and Lord_Calvinus.


285 posted on 10/18/2006 9:16:00 AM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
and it's something that I've called you down for before

LOL. I'm going to remember that line next time I make a mistake.

286 posted on 10/18/2006 9:29:00 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: jude24; topcat54; Buggman
That's a fallacious argument. Scripture may be the only infallible rule of faith and of life, but that doesn't mean that an argument requires a succint sound-byte citation to verify it. Topcat, being Reformed, subscribes to the "good-and-necessary-inference" rule.

fallacious
–adjective 1. containing a fallacy; logically unsound: fallacious arguments. 2. deceptive; misleading: fallacious testimony. 3. disappointing; delusive: a fallacious peace.

What definition are you using?

What is the "good-and-necessary-inference" rule?

My faith is grounded in scripture. New ideas cannot contradict scripture because, well that would contradict scripture. If TC can show me how he comes to his conclusions from scripture, that would level the playing field alot and perhaps show me the error of my ways.

287 posted on 10/18/2006 9:34:44 AM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

I meant that as conciliatory, Ecks--since I've called you down for that, it's that much more incumbant that I not do the same. I was acknowledging a higher guilt, not trying to mitigate--my apologies if it seemed like the latter.


288 posted on 10/18/2006 10:38:29 AM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: jude24
Even if the Feasts were adiaphora, why wouldn't I want to celebrate and share them?.....Buggman

Because they are the sacraments of an old, imperfect covenant which has vanished and passed away, along with its regulations for worship and earthly place of holiness (Heb. 8:13-9:1)......jude24

How then do you feel about the second, third, and fourth generation disciples of the last living Apostles, John and Phillip, celebrating Passover well into the fourth century? Polycrates

Council of Antioch

289 posted on 10/18/2006 2:45:00 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Buggman

I'm sorry.....I forgot to ping you to my last post....also. You were quoted. #289


290 posted on 10/18/2006 3:00:07 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; Dr. Eckleburg; Lord_Calvinus; topcat54; P-Marlowe
I just didn't think to go back up and amend the ping list (usually the first thing I paste) when I quoted Forest Keeper and Lord_Calvinus.

Apology accepted (happens to everyone), and if you follow the conversation I'm still having with Marlowe about this, I defend against it being boasting. We are all defending positions we believe are right. I'm just giving credit to God for my position because I consider it part of my sanctification. You could do the same if you think your position came from Him. If I thought I came to my current understanding on my own, then it would be boasting. That's not what I'm saying.

Thanks for the alert, Dr. E. :)

291 posted on 10/18/2006 5:18:19 PM PDT by Forest Keeper (Vote NO on MO Amend. 2. Out-of-staters, come to St. Louis to make sure your vote counts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; Dr. Eckleburg; Lord_Calvinus; topcat54; P-Marlowe
That's fine, and I'll let you and Marlowe hash that out. I just wanted to point out to TC that this perception of arrogance thing goes both ways in the hopes that he'll stop trying to impute motives and get back to discussing Scripture.

God bless.

292 posted on 10/18/2006 6:45:08 PM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-292 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson