|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/15/2009 8:27:36 AM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 417
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Having said that, in an earlier post, I did say that for both Jewish and Gentile believers, the Holy Spirit is the law written on our hearts. Therefore both are free to obey the Spirit as they are led. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind elaborating on this a little further.What do you mean when you say the Holy Spirit is the law written on our hearts?
Does this differ in some regard to the ten commandments?Or is it one and the same?Or let me not put words in your mouth.If you wouldn't object,could you just elaborate on this statement please.Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/15/2009 1:42:25 PM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 417
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
This comment/question goes out to anyone who might want to comment.I understand that it is my duty to follow the conviction of the Spirit of God within,which will lead me into all truth.I would still like to benefit from the wisdom of others in considering my stance on the matter.
13 You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. 14 The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 15 If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other. 16 So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature.
I'm wondering if this is all God requires in regards to the keeping if you will of all Ten Commandments.
I'm also wondering if keeping/remembering Sabbath, is something God would be pleased with,or is it a slippery slope that could lead one to being under the law.
I'm talking specifically the seventh day,not Sunday.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/15/2009 6:56:34 PM
|
|
|
JStucki76
Posts: 130
Joined: 12/14/2006
Status: offline
|
I don't have a Bible with me, so excuse me for not giving direct references. When Jeremiah prophesies about the New Covenant, God says "...I will write my law on their hearts." Pentecost is the Jewish commemoration of the giving of the law at Sinai. In Acts 2, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is given to believers at Pentecost. This is the fulfillment of Pentecost and that is why I called the Holy Spirit "the law written on our hearts." The Holy Spirit is not codified, though. :)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/15/2009 6:57:40 PM
|
|
|
JStucki76
Posts: 130
Joined: 12/14/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sunofone
I'm also wondering if keeping/remembering Sabbath, is something God would be pleased with,or is it a slippery slope that could lead one to being under the law.
I'm talking specifically the seventh day,not Sunday.
My inclination is that getting hung up on which day of the week one should rest is missing the point.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/15/2009 7:12:23 PM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 417
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
My inclination is that getting hung up on which day of the week one should rest is missing the point. I'm leary of this as well.My hang up right now if you will,is not a new argument,rather a position that most adventist hold.
That is that God specifically blessed and sanctified the seventh day.So the line of reasoning if you will is that if God has written the law in our minds and on our hearts,and the law is the ten commandments.
How do we keep or observe the fourth commandment.I know some hold to the position that only nine of the ten commandments have been carried over into the new,while others believe that all ten still apply,but God changed the Sabbath to Sunday.
I personally believe that God in the Old testament asked us to remember the Sabbath and Jesus in the New Testament asked us to participate in communion in Remembrance of him.
If we're going to hallow a day,which for the most part we do on Sunday,why not hallow the day that God said he blessed and sanctified and asked that we remember?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/16/2009 2:27:13 AM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 3043
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sunofone
quote:
My inclination is that getting hung up on which day of the week one should rest is missing the point. I'm leary of this as well.My hang up right now if you will,is not a new argument,rather a position that most adventist hold.
That is that God specifically blessed and sanctified the seventh day.So the line of reasoning if you will is that if God has written the law in our minds and on our hearts,and the law is the ten commandments.
How do we keep or observe the fourth commandment.I know some hold to the position that only nine of the ten commandments have been carried over into the new,while others believe that all ten still apply,but God changed the Sabbath to Sunday.
I personally believe that God in the Old testament asked us to remember the Sabbath and Jesus in the New Testament asked us to participate in communion in Remembrance of him.
If we're going to hallow a day,which for the most part we do on Sunday,why not hallow the day that God said he blessed and sanctified and asked that we remember?
You ask very good questtions. Along with the singling out of the fourth commandment, is the presumption that a new principle of "communion" was established at the Pesach meal prior to The Sacrifice. The bread and cup Yeshua refers to are specific items in the traditional rabbinic seder for Pesach. There are a multitude of sedur, however, these two blessings are common to most of them. Now, the "whenever" of Yeshua"s instructions is undefined in the Apistolic Writings. Therefore, one must look at that term in context to determine its meaning. I believe, He is refering to Pesach when He says, whenever. He does not say, when you eat this bread and drink this cup at Pesach, because there are three times when Pesach can be observed, the evening Yeshua observed it, the evening He died or one month hence, if one were unable to make sacrifice due to being unclean. The reasons some give for seperating the bread and the cup from Pesach is, in my opinion, similar to the reasons why some say Shabbat changed.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have erred and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/16/2009 3:11:49 AM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 3043
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JStucki76
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
ORIGINAL: JStucki76
I'm not sure what is meant by "two house view."
The two house view is that there are two sets of rules, one for the jew and another for the gentile. Thus, in Adonai's Kingdom there would be two houses.
Well, I wouldn't put it that way. At any rate, I certainly don't think that in the kingdom (I assume you mean heaven) it will make any difference whether one was Jewish or not.
I believe that the Jewish people will always be the chosen, in rejection of either replacement or covenant theology. I am not a dispensationalist either, but that's another story. The Jewish people were given the law, and were never told to stop following it, even after Jesus' death. The Gentiles were never expected to follow said law in the first place.
Having said that, in an earlier post, I did say that for both Jewish and Gentile believers, the Holy Spirit is the law written on our hearts. Therefore both are free to obey the Spirit as they are led. If one Jewish believer feels he should keep kosher and another one doesn't, that's fine, provided both act for the glory of God and not for salvation.
Sorry, I had to step away for a bit. I don't believe that being Jewish or not affects one's standing before God from a salvific point of view. I do believe that God is not done yet with the physical nation of Israel and that they are distinct and remain his chosen people until this world ends.
I do not mean just heaven when I say Adonai's Kingdom. This is indeed one usage of this idiom. However, I am talking of Adonai's Kingdom in the here and now. We have been grafted into Israel and therefore are full citizens subject to the same requirements in this life. I am not talking salvation, for salvation has always been by grace through faith apart from works.
The purpose of Ha Torah is to lead us to Adonai, as a school bus driver leads children to school. This is not replacement theology, I believe Adonai's promises to Israel still stand. However, we have been grafted in. We have not replaced Israel, but are joined to her blessings and curses. We are no less subject to Adonai's commands than are those who are genetically, jews. That same principle is why Yeshua was a full heir of Joseph, He was adopted by Joseph. If adopted children are not equal heirs and subject to the same house rules, they are children of a different house. Thus, there are two houses, if those grafted in are not treated the same. Therefore, if one believes that Ha Torah has changed, it has to have changed so that the jew is only subject to the same house rules as the gentile. However, if it has not changed, the house rules are the same for both the gentile and the jew.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have erred and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/16/2009 5:42:35 AM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 417
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Now, the "whenever" of Yeshua"s instructions is undefined in the Apistolic Writings. Therefore, one must look at that term in context to determine its meaning. I believe, He is refering to Pesach when He says, whenever. He does not say, when you eat this bread and drink this cup at Pesach, because there are three times when Pesach can be observed, the evening Yeshua observed it, the evening He died or one month hence, if one were unable to make sacrifice due to being unclean. The reasons some give for seperating the bread and the cup from Pesach is, in my opinion, similar to the reasons why some say Shabbat changed.
I'd like to hear a little more info on Holy communion here Blue.I've been studying this issue as well and it seems that the early Church had a great deal of flexibility around when they could partake of the supper.The biggest hang up or stipulation seemed to center around taking it unworthily.
I know that there are at least two running threads on communion right now,so if it's more appropriate to discuss there please share with me in that discussion.Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/16/2009 5:55:55 AM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 417
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
ORIGINAL: JStucki76
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
ORIGINAL: JStucki76
I'm not sure what is meant by "two house view."
The two house view is that there are two sets of rules, one for the jew and another for the gentile. Thus, in Adonai's Kingdom there would be two houses.
Well, I wouldn't put it that way. At any rate, I certainly don't think that in the kingdom (I assume you mean heaven) it will make any difference whether one was Jewish or not.
I believe that the Jewish people will always be the chosen, in rejection of either replacement or covenant theology. I am not a dispensationalist either, but that's another story. The Jewish people were given the law, and were never told to stop following it, even after Jesus' death. The Gentiles were never expected to follow said law in the first place.
Having said that, in an earlier post, I did say that for both Jewish and Gentile believers, the Holy Spirit is the law written on our hearts. Therefore both are free to obey the Spirit as they are led. If one Jewish believer feels he should keep kosher and another one doesn't, that's fine, provided both act for the glory of God and not for salvation.
Sorry, I had to step away for a bit. I don't believe that being Jewish or not affects one's standing before God from a salvific point of view. I do believe that God is not done yet with the physical nation of Israel and that they are distinct and remain his chosen people until this world ends.
I do not mean just heaven when I say Adonai's Kingdom. This is indeed one usage of this idiom. However, I am talking of Adonai's Kingdom in the here and now. We have been grafted into Israel and therefore are full citizens subject to the same requirements in this life. I am not talking salvation, for salvation has always been by grace through faith apart from works.
The purpose of Ha Torah is to lead us to Adonai, as a school bus driver leads children to school. This is not replacement theology, I believe Adonai's promises to Israel still stand. However, we have been grafted in. We have not replaced Israel, but are joined to her blessings and curses. We are no less subject to Adonai's commands than are those who are genetically, jews. That same principle is why Yeshua was a full heir of Joseph, He was adopted by Joseph. If adopted children are not equal heirs and subject to the same house rules, they are children of a different house. Thus, there are two houses, if those grafted in are not treated the same. Therefore, if one believes that Ha Torah has changed, it has to have changed so that the jew is only subject to the same house rules as the gentile. However, if it has not changed, the house rules are the same for both the gentile and the jew.
Blue my question for you here is not for argument sake,rather clarity.I'll warn you up front,I learn better when I engage a topic or person with vigor and confrontation.
I heard and believe I understand your post,and I am led to believe that while I agree Gentiles have been grafted in and not replaced the literal nations of Israel.We have at the same time become a part of the spiritual Israel.
We are through faith and by the blood of Jesus children of Abraham.I believe that there is one faith,that this faith ties and binds both the Jew and Christian Gentile together.
I don't believe that we are tied into the same blessings and cursings of the Jews,rather God through Jesus has established a better covenant,and has been enacted through better promises.
So I don't see where Gentiles are to get in line with the Old Covenant that God gave the Jews,rather Jew and Gentile alike are to participate in the one and only binding Covenant of the new.
Where am I off and why please.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/16/2009 8:41:03 AM
|
|
|
LBolt
Posts: 706
Joined: 11/30/2007
Status: offline
|
May I chime in here?
As a American or as a person with a western mindset, it's hard for me to join the natural and the spiritual. I tend to compartmentalise the two. I beginning to understand that the 2 are integrated. How you go about your everyday dealings is spiritual. How you work your job (if you are working) is spiritual. How you manage your money is spiritual. I think you get the gist of what I'm saying.
What does it mean to be "children of Abraham?"
I mention this in another thread I started called, "calling all Bible wizzes", where I addressed the phrase "son of ..." It was a very basic address however in Semitic cultures carries a lot of nuances.
The point is this, you say that we are "spiritual Israel" because we have the New Covenant. To my understanding, the "new Covenant" was always available. This may come as a shock to most reading but the New Covenant was and is a circumcised heart in which Torah is written. It is a heart that at it's foremost, dedesires to love God with all ones heart, mind and strength.
The scriptures where Jesus says, "A new commandment I give to you that you love one another."
Was this really a "new commandment" as we think of it as new or was this a echoing of an earlier statement?
When those of us who believe in speaking in new tongues, are we really speaking in "new tongues" or could this be a language we are not acquitanted with but are given a supernatural grace to utter for a divine purpose?
My focus is still on the word new. You see, it is only new in the sense of it being renewed. It is also new. The people at Sinai had a stiffnecked or uncircumcised heart. THe more the meditated on God's word, the hearts was supposed to be pliable and trusting toward God. Deut. 5:29, I think this is the verse expresses God's heartfelt sentiments that they have a heart to serve God.
One of David's heartfelt psalms in the 51st division expresses a heart that was truly circumcised. We still marvel at this (and for those who geniunely love God) are moved to tears when we read this verse. This was the New Covenant my friend. Christ died so that we could be forgiven and so that we can have a clean heart. At least this is one of the reasons He died. Guess what? He found forgiveness of sins and a renewed heart and relationship with God. This was in the "Old Testament!"
So I think we need to rethink our position with regards to what is the Old Covenant and what is the New Covenant. I don't say I know all of it but I do think it is more than what we've been taught it means.
Take care and Shalom!
_____________________________
Wisdom is the principle thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding...she shall give to thine head an ornament of grace..---Proverbs 4:7
www.tatepublishing.com/bookstore/book.php?w=978-1-60604-743-9
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/16/2009 9:18:56 AM
|
|
|
JStucki76
Posts: 130
Joined: 12/14/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
I do not mean just heaven when I say Adonai's Kingdom. This is indeed one usage of this idiom. However, I am talking of Adonai's Kingdom in the here and now. We have been grafted into Israel and therefore are full citizens subject to the same requirements in this life. I am not talking salvation, for salvation has always been by grace through faith apart from works.
The purpose of Ha Torah is to lead us to Adonai, as a school bus driver leads children to school. This is not replacement theology, I believe Adonai's promises to Israel still stand. However, we have been grafted in. We have not replaced Israel, but are joined to her blessings and curses. We are no less subject to Adonai's commands than are those who are genetically, jews. That same principle is why Yeshua was a full heir of Joseph, He was adopted by Joseph. If adopted children are not equal heirs and subject to the same house rules, they are children of a different house. Thus, there are two houses, if those grafted in are not treated the same. Therefore, if one believes that Ha Torah has changed, it has to have changed so that the jew is only subject to the same house rules as the gentile. However, if it has not changed, the house rules are the same for both the gentile and the jew.
If you mean that Gentiles should be following the whole law of Moses, what do you do with Acts 15?
If you don't mean that, please clarify.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/16/2009 9:20:27 AM
|
|
|
JStucki76
Posts: 130
Joined: 12/14/2006
Status: offline
|
LBolt, I think I agree with you, at least somewhat. I don't think a single new concept is introduced in the entire NT.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/16/2009 9:45:12 AM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 417
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LBolt
May I chime in here?
As a American or as a person with a western mindset, it's hard for me to join the natural and the spiritual. I tend to compartmentalise the two. I beginning to understand that the 2 are integrated. How you go about your everyday dealings is spiritual. How you work your job (if you are working) is spiritual. How you manage your money is spiritual. I think you get the gist of what I'm saying.
What does it mean to be "children of Abraham?"
I mention this in another thread I started called, "calling all Bible wizzes", where I addressed the phrase "son of ..." It was a very basic address however in Semitic cultures carries a lot of nuances.
The point is this, you say that we are "spiritual Israel" because we have the New Covenant. To my understanding, the "new Covenant" was always available. This may come as a shock to most reading but the New Covenant was and is a circumcised heart in which Torah is written. It is a heart that at it's foremost, dedesires to love God with all ones heart, mind and strength.
The scriptures where Jesus says, "A new commandment I give to you that you love one another."
Was this really a "new commandment" as we think of it as new or was this a echoing of an earlier statement?
When those of us who believe in speaking in new tongues, are we really speaking in "new tongues" or could this be a language we are not acquitanted with but are given a supernatural grace to utter for a divine purpose?
My focus is still on the word new. You see, it is only new in the sense of it being renewed. It is also new. The people at Sinai had a stiffnecked or uncircumcised heart. THe more the meditated on God's word, the hearts was supposed to be pliable and trusting toward God. Deut. 5:29, I think this is the verse expresses God's heartfelt sentiments that they have a heart to serve God.
One of David's heartfelt psalms in the 51st division expresses a heart that was truly circumcised. We still marvel at this (and for those who geniunely love God) are moved to tears when we read this verse. This was the New Covenant my friend. Christ died so that we could be forgiven and so that we can have a clean heart. At least this is one of the reasons He died. Guess what? He found forgiveness of sins and a renewed heart and relationship with God. This was in the "Old Testament!"
So I think we need to rethink our position with regards to what is the Old Covenant and what is the New Covenant. I don't say I know all of it but I do think it is more than what we've been taught it means.
Take care and Shalom!
Welcome back L.I'm inclined to agree with the gist of your post;however according to my understanding of Hebrews the New is in fact new,and the old is in fact old and vanished away.
Hebrews 9beginning at verse 15 does a great job of explaining the basic legalities of a will.
If in the natural I make a will,it can only be enforced after I die.It is also possible in the natural for me to amend my will,or to completely change it altogether.
Hebrews 8 beginning in verse 7 does an excellent job of describing the prerogative of God to change or amend his will.
The New Covenant is no different than a new or amended will.It can include every aspect of the old will,with some new directives.It can completely change the entire will altogether,or it can be a combination of the two.
My understanding is,that God did not throw out the Old Covenant in it's entirety,for he said in establishing the New Covenant that he would write his Laws on our hearts,and put his laws in our minds.These laws are part of the Old Covenant.
He has at the same time made changes in the ministration of the laws.Romans 3 vs6-11.
C.I. Scofield"Here in chp 3 is presented a series of contrast between law and Spirit,between the Old Covenant and the New.The contrast is not between two methods of interpretation,literal and Spiritual,but between two methods of Divine dealing:one,through Law;the other, through the Holy Spirit."
“God's moral law proceeds from the righteousness of God and can never be abolished.The Mosaic Law as an expression of this moral law,has been “done away” in that it has been supersede by another law,i.e. The standards of grace revealed in the N.T. The believer is now under laws.(Romans 8:2-4,1 Cor;9:21)
The Mosaic law still constitutes a revelation of the righteousness of God and remains as a part of scripture which is profitable for doctrine,for reproof,for correction,for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect,thoroughly furnished unto all good works”(2 Tim.3:16-17,Romans.15:4
So by stating that we have a new Covenant,the scriptures are not declaring that all contents of the Old are annulled.
< Message edited by sunofone -- 3/16/2009 9:57:10 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/16/2009 11:00:32 AM
|
|
|
SpongeBlog
Posts: 699
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JStucki76
LBolt, I think I agree with you, at least somewhat. I don't think a single new concept is introduced in the entire NT.
How 'bout eating the blood of the sacrifice?
The once forbidden blood of the sacrifice (in which the life is found) is now consumed along with the sacrifice. I see this as an illustration of the superiority of the New Covenant sacrifice over the old. The New gives life. The old did not.
_____________________________
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." (Romans 14:17,18)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/16/2009 11:46:34 AM
|
|
|
SpongeBlog
Posts: 699
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JStucki76
quote:
ORIGINAL: sunofone
I'm also wondering if keeping/remembering Sabbath, is something God would be pleased with,or is it a slippery slope that could lead one to being under the law.
I'm talking specifically the seventh day,not Sunday.
My inclination is that getting hung up on which day of the week one should rest is missing the point.
Amen. And I would go one step further and suggest it is the rest we enter into in the appointed time of Christ's appearing that matters above and beyond even the literal rest. Even the literal rest is missing the point.
You're showing why I say this matter of law keeping always comes down to personal conviction and denominational preference. And that's okay. I think that's the liberty we've been given through the work of Christ in the New Covenant.
The problem I see with trying to impose the law literally is mankind has yet to come to a consensus as to what literal law keeping should actually look like. Pursuing the intents and purposes, and spiritual lessons of the law has proven to be the only valuable and edifying, and unifying way to understand and apply the old covenant law to New Covenant living--and the way that I believe God has given us in the Holy Spirit. Time and history have proven that conflict and disunity among believers is the result of a strict and literal application of the law. That's the irony of the law. It does the exact opposite of what it was theoretically supposed to do (but can't do because of fallen flesh).
Defense of literal law keeping is a no win proposition for literal law keepers. If they defend a strict literal interpretation of the law they provoke the controversy and strife of trying to nail down how we are all to do that. But if they loosen up and suggest it isn't as strict and literal as some make it out to be, then they're subscribing to the 'personal conviction and personal preference' point of view and opening up the door for everyone else's 'interpretation' of the law. But, as we see in this thread, they do not afford that same liberty to others when it conflicts with their own liberty (or more accurately, lack of liberty).
God made it easy for us. It's all about having Christ-like character, not following obsolete procedures and methods of worship to secure God's blessings. Those things had there place and ministry at one time, but that time has given way to the 'procedure and method' of Christ's work on our behalf as the way to God's blessing, which releases us from the literal observances, yet satisfies those literal requirements nonetheless. Circumcision and animal sacrifice for sin are perfect examples. I've been using these two examples to prove that it is possible to not meet the literal requirements of the law and yet not be found in violation of that literal law. For example, the Sabbath requirement can be 'kept' in that same way--in a non literal way, but which still fulfills the literal requirement. There are solid precedents in scripture for understanding our release from literal worship requirements in this way.
I don't see any difference whatsoever between the church that believes you have to be baptised by submersion (not sprinkling) and the church that believes that the 7th day is the only truly approved day of meeting of the church (or some other old covennat procedural requirement). Both are meaningless issues that have nothing to do with what God told us really counts--love for others, made possible by the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. That is the true expression and manifestation of saving faith that pleases God and justifies us (shows us to be saved) before men. These other things we debate, and defend with the Bible, are not what it means to walk in the Spirit and please God. They do not prove the depth and validity of your relationship with God.
All of us--Catholics, Protestants, messianics, reformists, etc... are guilty of putting too much emphasis on things that prove nothing about whether we know the true God or not and are indeed pleasing him with our lives. Instead of arguing for who has the right doctrine and proper worship that moves the heart and hand of God on our behalf, we all need to set our hearts and minds on displaying the nature and character of God to the world. That's having the mindset of Christ, not law and denominationalism. That's the obedience and sacrifice that moves the heart and hand of God on our behalf. This is the plain message of the Bible.
< Message edited by SpongeBlog -- 3/16/2009 12:14:08 PM >
_____________________________
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." (Romans 14:17,18)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/16/2009 12:09:50 PM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 417
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpongeBlog
quote:
ORIGINAL: JStucki76
LBolt, I think I agree with you, at least somewhat. I don't think a single new concept is introduced in the entire NT.
How 'bout eating the blood of the sacrifice?
The once forbidden blood of the sacrifice (in which the life is found) is now consumed along with the sacrifice. I see this as an illustration of the superiority of the New Covenant sacrifice over the old. The New gives life. The old did not.
I believe I know what you mean here Blog;but can you provide the scripture and context for your statement please.Also the significance of it.Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/16/2009 12:33:23 PM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 417
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
For example, the Sabbath requirement can be 'kept' in that same way--in a non literal way, but which still fulfills the literal requirement. There are solid precedents in scripture for understanding our release from literal worship requirements in this way.
I don't see any difference whatsoever between the church that believes you have to be baptised by submersion (not sprinkling) and the church that believes that the 7th day is the only truly approved day of meeting of the church (or some other old covennat procedural requirement). Both are meaningless issues that have nothing to do with what God told us really counts--love for others, made possible by the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. That is the true expression and manifestation of saving faith that pleases God and justifies us (shows us to be saved) before men. Your post was beautifully stated that I find myself just wanting to say amen!However  I have to ask you to revisit this portion of your post I sliced out.
While I'm all for Spiritual observation over literal,or better stated Spiritual observation in conjunction with physical.I still wonder if it's correct to say or hold that Spiritual replaces literal in all instances,i.e. baptism,communion,Ten Commandments?
I believe that we are justified by faith in Christ apart from the law,but does that mean we are free to disregard physical commands mentioned?
Can we just not baptize anyone physically,not participate in the Lord's supper physicially,not obey any of the Ten commandments physically?
I need you to address this for me please.Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/16/2009 12:42:14 PM
|
|
|
SpongeBlog
Posts: 699
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sunofone
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpongeBlog
quote:
ORIGINAL: JStucki76
LBolt, I think I agree with you, at least somewhat. I don't think a single new concept is introduced in the entire NT.
How 'bout eating the blood of the sacrifice?
The once forbidden blood of the sacrifice (in which the life is found) is now consumed along with the sacrifice. I see this as an illustration of the superiority of the New Covenant sacrifice over the old. The New gives life. The old did not.
I believe I know what you mean here Blog;but can you provide the scripture and context for your statement please.Also the significance of it.Thanks
If you want to follow the law you are forbidden from the full benefit of the life blood--the life blood that rescues the guilty from death. The law actually limits your aceess to the life blood of the sacrifice.
"10 " 'Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood—I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people. 11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. 12 Therefore I say to the Israelites, "None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood."
13 " 'Any Israelite or any alien living among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth, 14 because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, "You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off." (Lev. 17:10-14)
But Jesus openly invites us to partake of the blood of his sacrifice in the New Covenant:
"27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matthew 26:27-28)
You can see how terribly offensive this must be to the Orthodox Jew. But we see a new law that accompanies a new Priesthood.
I find as much value in contrasting the two covenants as I do comparing them.
"13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[c] so that we may serve the living God!" (Hebrews 9:13-14)
The benefit of the life blood now being administered internally in the New Covenant cleases us through and through because we are allowed to injest it inwardly in Christ, but forbidden to do so under the covenant of law. A clear illustration to me of the superiority of Christ's ministry over that of the Levites. What was once forbidden is now possible in the New Covenant for the exact purpose of cleansing us to the very core of our being and not just in the outward way afforded by the inferior way of the law.
I'm dashing out the door. Sorry for not being able to edit it completely.
_____________________________
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." (Romans 14:17,18)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/16/2009 1:21:48 PM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 417
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpongeBlog
quote:
ORIGINAL: sunofone
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpongeBlog
quote:
ORIGINAL: JStucki76
LBolt, I think I agree with you, at least somewhat. I don't think a single new concept is introduced in the entire NT.
How 'bout eating the blood of the sacrifice?
The once forbidden blood of the sacrifice (in which the life is found) is now consumed along with the sacrifice. I see this as an illustration of the superiority of the New Covenant sacrifice over the old. The New gives life. The old did not.
I believe I know what you mean here Blog;but can you provide the scripture and context for your statement please.Also the significance of it.Thanks
If you want to follow the law you are forbidden from the full benefit of the life blood--the life blood that rescues the guilty from death. The law actually limits your aceess to the life blood of the sacrifice.
"10 " 'Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood—I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people. 11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. 12 Therefore I say to the Israelites, "None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood."
13 " 'Any Israelite or any alien living among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth, 14 because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, "You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off." (Lev. 17:10-14)
But Jesus openly invites us to partake of the blood of his sacrifice in the New Covenant:
"27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matthew 26:27-28)
You can see how terribly offensive this must be to the Orthodox Jew. But we see a new law that accompanies a new Priesthood.
I find as much value in contrasting the two covenants as I do comparing them.
"13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[c] so that we may serve the living God!" (Hebrews 9:13-14)
The benefit of the life blood now being administered internally in the New Covenant cleases us through and through because we are allowed to injest it inwardly in Christ, but forbidden to do so under the covenant of law. A clear illustration to me of the superiority of Christ's ministry over that of the Levites. What was once forbidden is now possible in the New Covenant for the exact purpose of cleansing us to the very core of our being and not just in the outward way afforded by the inferior way of the law.
I'm dashing out the door. Sorry for not being able to edit it completely.
Great Post Blog 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/16/2009 2:00:15 PM
|
|
|
JStucki76
Posts: 130
Joined: 12/14/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpongeBlog
quote:
ORIGINAL: JStucki76
LBolt, I think I agree with you, at least somewhat. I don't think a single new concept is introduced in the entire NT.
How 'bout eating the blood of the sacrifice?
The once forbidden blood of the sacrifice (in which the life is found) is now consumed along with the sacrifice. I see this as an illustration of the superiority of the New Covenant sacrifice over the old. The New gives life. The old did not.
I guess new points of symbolism isn't really what I meant, but your point is well taken. I will think on that. I was really referring to theological or doctrinal matters, e.g. Faith and works, grace or law, etc.
BTW, the idea of the Passover matzoh being a symbol of the Paschal Lamb, which is now recognized by Jews worldwide, may have had its origins in the Last Supper.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/16/2009 2:01:17 PM
|
|
|
Lapidoth
Posts: 4905
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: OKLAHOMA
Status: offline
|
Thought I'd throw this into the mix..................LOL
Acts 24:14 (Paul before Felix)
"But this i confess unto thee, that after the way
which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my
fathers, believing all things which are written in
the law and in the prophets."
Better known as the TaNaKh. (Old Testament)
_____________________________
Why does He keep quoting Torah? Doesn't He know He's about to abolish it?
http://www.tedpearce.com/Videos/TheForgottenpeople.html
BARUCH HABA BASHEM YAHUAH
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/16/2009 2:15:23 PM
|
|
|
JStucki76
Posts: 130
Joined: 12/14/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sunofone
quote:
For example, the Sabbath requirement can be 'kept' in that same way--in a non literal way, but which still fulfills the literal requirement. There are solid precedents in scripture for understanding our release from literal worship requirements in this way.
I don't see any difference whatsoever between the church that believes you have to be baptised by submersion (not sprinkling) and the church that believes that the 7th day is the only truly approved day of meeting of the church (or some other old covennat procedural requirement). Both are meaningless issues that have nothing to do with what God told us really counts--love for others, made possible by the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. That is the true expression and manifestation of saving faith that pleases God and justifies us (shows us to be saved) before men. Your post was beautifully stated that I find myself just wanting to say amen!However I have to ask you to revisit this portion of your post I sliced out.
While I'm all for Spiritual observation over literal,or better stated Spiritual observation in conjunction with physical.I still wonder if it's correct to say or hold that Spiritual replaces literal in all instances,i.e. baptism,communion,Ten Commandments?
I believe that we are justified by faith in Christ apart from the law,but does that mean we are free to disregard physical commands mentioned?
Can we just not baptize anyone physically,not participate in the Lord's supper physicially,not obey any of the Ten commandments physically?
I need you to address this for me please.Thanks
Sorry, I know this wasn't addressed to me...
Yes, baptism is important. Communion is important. But there's performing these things physically and then there's splitting hairs about how it should be done. Who's to say that sprinkling isn't just as valid as immersion? Who's to say that grape juice is better than wine? It's majoring in minors.
The point isn't to disregard commands. But it's important to understand why a command was made and not get all caught up in nonessentials. There is no day which the Lord views as more sacred than another in and of itself. He does not accept worship only one day to the exclusion of all others. If my work week is Friday-Wednesday, then my Sabbath, my seventh day, is Thursday. And I have the freedom in Christ to give him that day instead of Saturday if I choose. I will not lose my salvation if I give him no days at all, but I will miss out on the good that he intends for me. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/16/2009 2:25:11 PM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 417
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JStucki76
quote:
ORIGINAL: sunofone
quote:
For example, the Sabbath requirement can be 'kept' in that same way--in a non literal way, but which still fulfills the literal requirement. There are solid precedents in scripture for understanding our release from literal worship requirements in this way.
I don't see any difference whatsoever between the church that believes you have to be baptised by submersion (not sprinkling) and the church that believes that the 7th day is the only truly approved day of meeting of the church (or some other old covennat procedural requirement). Both are meaningless issues that have nothing to do with what God told us really counts--love for others, made possible by the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. That is the true expression and manifestation of saving faith that pleases God and justifies us (shows us to be saved) before men. Your post was beautifully stated that I find myself just wanting to say amen!However I have to ask you to revisit this portion of your post I sliced out.
While I'm all for Spiritual observation over literal,or better stated Spiritual observation in conjunction with physical.I still wonder if it's correct to say or hold that Spiritual replaces literal in all instances,i.e. baptism,communion,Ten Commandments?
I believe that we are justified by faith in Christ apart from the law,but does that mean we are free to disregard physical commands mentioned?
Can we just not baptize anyone physically,not participate in the Lord's supper physicially,not obey any of the Ten commandments physically?
I need you to address this for me please.Thanks
Sorry, I know this wasn't addressed to me...
Yes, baptism is important. Communion is important. But there's performing these things physically and then there's splitting hairs about how it should be done. Who's to say that sprinkling isn't just as valid as immersion? Who's to say that grape juice is better than wine? It's majoring in minors.
The point isn't to disregard commands. But it's important to understand why a command was made and not get all caught up in nonessentials. There is no day which the Lord views as more sacred than another in and of itself. He does not accept worship only one day to the exclusion of all others. If my work week is Friday-Wednesday, then my Sabbath, my seventh day, is Thursday. And I have the freedom in Christ to give him that day instead of Saturday if I choose. I will not lose my salvation if I give him no days at all, but I will miss out on the good that he intends for me. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
I can agree in principal with most of your post,in fact the only point I question is whether or not there is a day that God views as Sabbath.I agree that God accepts worship on any day,and that no day is wrong to worship God on.
I just question whether the fourth command can be ignored,unlike baptism,communion etc..
As you stated the point isn't to disregard commands,if that is the case what or where is the license found to disobey Sabbath?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/16/2009 3:22:02 PM
|
|
|
Lapidoth
Posts: 4905
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: OKLAHOMA
Status: offline
|
quote:
the only point I question is whether or not there is a day that God views as Sabbath.I agree that God accepts worship on any day,and that no day is wrong to worship God on.
Now that makes a simple answer that can be answered simply.
God views the "seventh day" as the Sabbath (rest).
Few even argue this point. Man changes it to Sunday,
but that is still the "first day" no matter how we cut it.
History itself tells us "why" man chose a day other than what
God gave us. Yet, we twist it, inflate it, deflate it, debate it, etc.
Sundown sixth day to sundown seventh day is the Sabbath.
_____________________________
Why does He keep quoting Torah? Doesn't He know He's about to abolish it?
http://www.tedpearce.com/Videos/TheForgottenpeople.html
BARUCH HABA BASHEM YAHUAH
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/16/2009 4:54:14 PM
|
|
|
JStucki76
Posts: 130
Joined: 12/14/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sunofone
I can agree in principal with most of your post,in fact the only point I question is whether or not there is a day that God views as Sabbath.I agree that God accepts worship on any day,and that no day is wrong to worship God on.
I just question whether the fourth command can be ignored,unlike baptism,communion etc..
As you stated the point isn't to disregard commands,if that is the case what or where is the license found to disobey Sabbath?
Observing Sabbath on Sunday or Wednesday or whatever instead of Saturday is not disobeying Sabbath.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
