-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
B
No offense taken.
I see what you are saying as far as that.
Now this is just to me and I don't judge or condemn others of having a different mind-set on it.
But Yeshua (being God, which means He's also the one who gave the Torah/Law to Moses) said, "If you love me you will keep my commandments." At this point in history the only thing He could have been reffering to is the Torah. There was no other set standard of commandments at that time. So as far as the question where is the love in following the feasts, it's right there in what Yeshua said.
And I'm not saying you don't love Him because you don't abide by these, I hope it does not come across as me saying that.
That is just simply my point of view on it.
I love Yeshua, so I'm going to keep the times he appointed.
Now all of this law talking stuff, if I'm witnessing to someone, I don't go into it. I don't teach/provide an understanding of it (unless asked), and I don't teach/provide an understaing against it.
If I'm asked a question I will give my view of an understanding to the best of my ability.
E
Thanks for being honest.
I see it differently. When I see God say keep his commands, I see him saying keep the moral guidelines, not the rest.
Can you tell me what you see paul saying here?
Gal 4
[SUP]8 [/SUP]However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods. [SUP]9 [/SUP]But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? [SUP]10 [/SUP]You observe days and months and seasons and years. [SUP]11 [/SUP]I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.
remembering that the context of galations is that these people were returning to the works of the law.
I see it differently. When I see God say keep his commands, I see him saying keep the moral guidelines, not the rest.
Can you tell me what you see paul saying here?
Gal 4
[SUP]8 [/SUP]However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods. [SUP]9 [/SUP]But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? [SUP]10 [/SUP]You observe days and months and seasons and years. [SUP]11 [/SUP]I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.
remembering that the context of galations is that these people were returning to the works of the law.
I'll try to write this post for better mutual understanding. We draw lines to divide ourselves but let's talk your walk with God, aka why do you stand where you stand.
I stand with the fact that Jesus did give us the new commandment though, and it's also been said that in this commandment of love all the law is fulfilled.
I have nothing against Torah keepers, if Torah brings them closer to God then this is good. EXCEPT if they condemn others who believe wholeheartedly that God requires them to follow the new commandment given to the disciples and that they must subject to this new commandment in which all the law is contained. Everyone must answer to God according to their conscience, and conviction is of God, it doesnt lie. Honestly, while I was still trying to find the "right denomination" I've tried to keep certain Torah laws to see if God was leading me there, and it tasted dead and wrong, like I placed my faith into ritual. I felt my faith in JESUS was decreasing... it alarmed me and I stopped. I regretted it - it's not for me - it was bondage... please dont get me wrong I'm speaking for myself. Someone might be edified from it, I surely wont tell Holy Spirit how He should work or what He should see fit. But if someone is not led into Torah observance it doesnt mean they dont have conscience and the Holy Spirit, or that they are not led by God. God chastizes me, sometimes I even get a beating spiritually from God, if I do anything wrong or if it appears in my heart and I dont rebuke it instantly so I know I'm His daughter...
I stand with the fact that Jesus did give us the new commandment though, and it's also been said that in this commandment of love all the law is fulfilled.
I have nothing against Torah keepers, if Torah brings them closer to God then this is good. EXCEPT if they condemn others who believe wholeheartedly that God requires them to follow the new commandment given to the disciples and that they must subject to this new commandment in which all the law is contained. Everyone must answer to God according to their conscience, and conviction is of God, it doesnt lie. Honestly, while I was still trying to find the "right denomination" I've tried to keep certain Torah laws to see if God was leading me there, and it tasted dead and wrong, like I placed my faith into ritual. I felt my faith in JESUS was decreasing... it alarmed me and I stopped. I regretted it - it's not for me - it was bondage... please dont get me wrong I'm speaking for myself. Someone might be edified from it, I surely wont tell Holy Spirit how He should work or what He should see fit. But if someone is not led into Torah observance it doesnt mean they dont have conscience and the Holy Spirit, or that they are not led by God. God chastizes me, sometimes I even get a beating spiritually from God, if I do anything wrong or if it appears in my heart and I dont rebuke it instantly so I know I'm His daughter...
B
No you don't sound mocking.
I was kind of using the WWJD bracelet as a metaphore. But yeah following Torah non-legalistically is pretty simple in that sense. What Yeshua and Paul were getting at is that the Pharisees were adding this, thus making it extremely hard to keep it.
The Pharisees that were saved after Yeshua were still holding to the legalistic ways of Torah. On top of that they were basically trying to shove it down people's throat. Which is what I believe Paul was teaching against. Instead of shoving it down their throat, I believe Paul was saying; First get saved and come to salvation through Yeshua, 2nd here are some examples and small steps on how to live (love one another, love God, stay away for immoralities, etc.), and 3rd listen to what is taught in church (or at the time in synagogue, churches didn't come around til a few centuries later). They would be teaching Torah in the churches at that time, but not a perverted legalistic Torah. Not all the churches were having issues, Paul was writing to the ones that did have the issues.
I was kind of using the WWJD bracelet as a metaphore. But yeah following Torah non-legalistically is pretty simple in that sense. What Yeshua and Paul were getting at is that the Pharisees were adding this, thus making it extremely hard to keep it.
The Pharisees that were saved after Yeshua were still holding to the legalistic ways of Torah. On top of that they were basically trying to shove it down people's throat. Which is what I believe Paul was teaching against. Instead of shoving it down their throat, I believe Paul was saying; First get saved and come to salvation through Yeshua, 2nd here are some examples and small steps on how to live (love one another, love God, stay away for immoralities, etc.), and 3rd listen to what is taught in church (or at the time in synagogue, churches didn't come around til a few centuries later). They would be teaching Torah in the churches at that time, but not a perverted legalistic Torah. Not all the churches were having issues, Paul was writing to the ones that did have the issues.
B
In that scripture (me personally), I don't think Paul was talking about the feast. I believe he was referencing what the children of Israel did when they came out of the bondage of Egypt (again Paul knows the Torah inside and out, so I look at what he may have been basing off his knowledge). The children of Israel at one point turned back and want Egypt (not all of them, but some of them) and God chastised them for this. Now it's not said this is happenning, but what if the case was, was the church he was writing was using idoltry and different holidays to get people to come to Christ? I could see this as a major issue if that was the case, but again there's no supporting evidence that he's talking about the feasts or if he's talking about different religeous beliefs (remember they're also under strict Roman rule at this time, which the Romans themselves had many pagan practices).
Again this is just my point of view on what I believe Paul was speaking on.
Again this is just my point of view on what I believe Paul was speaking on.
Last edited by a moderator:
S
Biblelogic01... ::sigh::
I can tell you have a good heart. You have provided your understanding of legalism, you have asked some follow up questions to better understand others, and you probably hope to untangle some confusion on the matter. As someone who likely shares much common ground with you on Torah observance, I tried to do the same when I first joined this forum but that desire quickly diminished. I also got really busy and haven't been able to respond to a number of outstanding posts, but that's a different issue. Let me just tell you: most people here have already drawn their lines in the sand. You're simply going to find those who support your position and those who do not, with few to no people in the middle who may still be unsure on these issues. Maybe the casual reader who does not have an account or has an account but doesn't post often. But in terms of a discussion, most people are going to pick their sides quickly and stick to their guns. As unlikely it is that people on the other side will convince you to change your ways, you are just as unlikely to have much of an impact on them, especially in regards to Torah observance. But keep fighting the good fight, regardless! Just don't let yourself get exhausted over it.
On legalism, the conventional definition is very prevalent on these boards and elsewhere. The conventional definition has already been provided by someone else in the thread: Legalism is commonly viewed as anything which is not popular in the modern church or not kept by individuals themselves. If you do it and they don't, and if you feel God wills it for His children and they don't, you're likely to be called a legalist, simple as that. If it's a matter others agree with, then you won't be called a legalist. It's a term employed very subjectively.
I feel the scriptural definition is different: In the NT writings, I see legalism as seeking legal conversion to Jewish status, or some standard of Law keeping, in order to merit salvation. This is attempted through reliance on one's own works instead of the work of the Messiah. The Torah observant folk on this board will say they don't keep the Torah to merit salvation, but instead do it as a result of the grace given to them and out of their love for God and neighbor. Those in the other camp will say that any attempt to follow the commands found in the Torah is relying on one's own works and results in death. The argument goes round and round and likely no one comes out any wiser or having changed their viewpoint.
On your Sabbath thoughts, I am in agreement as far as I can see. The prohibition against picking grains and rubbing them was a pharisaical rule. Pharisaical rules are not God's Torah and are not binding. The problem is the Pharisees did bind them upon the people, even putting aside God's Torah in order to enforce them. This is the Messiah's problem with the Pharisees in many instances in the gospels. The Messiah never comes against God's Torah, but only against the hypocrisy of the Pharisees in elevating their man-made rules and traditions above God's Law.
The same goes for healing. The Pharisees had outlawed it as a form of work but the Torah never says so. The Messiah clearly demonstrates that it is good and appropriate to heal on the Sabbath. I believe the Messiah never broke the commands of the Torah and never taught against them. Viewpoints on this matter differ on this board.
I can tell you have a good heart. You have provided your understanding of legalism, you have asked some follow up questions to better understand others, and you probably hope to untangle some confusion on the matter. As someone who likely shares much common ground with you on Torah observance, I tried to do the same when I first joined this forum but that desire quickly diminished. I also got really busy and haven't been able to respond to a number of outstanding posts, but that's a different issue. Let me just tell you: most people here have already drawn their lines in the sand. You're simply going to find those who support your position and those who do not, with few to no people in the middle who may still be unsure on these issues. Maybe the casual reader who does not have an account or has an account but doesn't post often. But in terms of a discussion, most people are going to pick their sides quickly and stick to their guns. As unlikely it is that people on the other side will convince you to change your ways, you are just as unlikely to have much of an impact on them, especially in regards to Torah observance. But keep fighting the good fight, regardless! Just don't let yourself get exhausted over it.
On legalism, the conventional definition is very prevalent on these boards and elsewhere. The conventional definition has already been provided by someone else in the thread: Legalism is commonly viewed as anything which is not popular in the modern church or not kept by individuals themselves. If you do it and they don't, and if you feel God wills it for His children and they don't, you're likely to be called a legalist, simple as that. If it's a matter others agree with, then you won't be called a legalist. It's a term employed very subjectively.
I feel the scriptural definition is different: In the NT writings, I see legalism as seeking legal conversion to Jewish status, or some standard of Law keeping, in order to merit salvation. This is attempted through reliance on one's own works instead of the work of the Messiah. The Torah observant folk on this board will say they don't keep the Torah to merit salvation, but instead do it as a result of the grace given to them and out of their love for God and neighbor. Those in the other camp will say that any attempt to follow the commands found in the Torah is relying on one's own works and results in death. The argument goes round and round and likely no one comes out any wiser or having changed their viewpoint.
On your Sabbath thoughts, I am in agreement as far as I can see. The prohibition against picking grains and rubbing them was a pharisaical rule. Pharisaical rules are not God's Torah and are not binding. The problem is the Pharisees did bind them upon the people, even putting aside God's Torah in order to enforce them. This is the Messiah's problem with the Pharisees in many instances in the gospels. The Messiah never comes against God's Torah, but only against the hypocrisy of the Pharisees in elevating their man-made rules and traditions above God's Law.
The same goes for healing. The Pharisees had outlawed it as a form of work but the Torah never says so. The Messiah clearly demonstrates that it is good and appropriate to heal on the Sabbath. I believe the Messiah never broke the commands of the Torah and never taught against them. Viewpoints on this matter differ on this board.
E
ah yes, But he said straight out. You came from following pagan Gods and their traditions and holidays, (which you just said) and found Christ through my word.
Now your going right back to ritualism, and following the traditions and holidays, and I fear for you.
In galations, the traditions they were returning to was the traditions and holidays concerning mosaic law were they not?
was it not the ritualistic jews that said hey its great to receive Christ, but these laws and traditions handed down to us from moses are still in effect, we must follow them.
Now your going right back to ritualism, and following the traditions and holidays, and I fear for you.
In galations, the traditions they were returning to was the traditions and holidays concerning mosaic law were they not?
was it not the ritualistic jews that said hey its great to receive Christ, but these laws and traditions handed down to us from moses are still in effect, we must follow them.
S
Many would insist that you are a legalist for even espousing rest on the seventh day of the week. I've seen it done on this board, so don't be surprised if it happens.
With regards to "rest," a simplistic statement leaves openings to not fully understand what this rest means. In my opinion it's not simply a day to be comatose. There is a divine purpose in it; a goal of that rest. There are things allowed to do and not allowed to do, perhaps some things required. A seeking person will search the Scriptures and try to piece together the whole picture with regards to the Sabbath day. But this is a topic for a whole different thread. Be blessed in your search~
With regards to "rest," a simplistic statement leaves openings to not fully understand what this rest means. In my opinion it's not simply a day to be comatose. There is a divine purpose in it; a goal of that rest. There are things allowed to do and not allowed to do, perhaps some things required. A seeking person will search the Scriptures and try to piece together the whole picture with regards to the Sabbath day. But this is a topic for a whole different thread. Be blessed in your search~
S
That's a loaded theological claim. I believe God is limited by the moral principles that make up His being, and these are expressed in His will for His children to be holy as He is holy. In that sense, "limited" isn't even the right word, but better simply stated that He expresses that which He is. Sin is not what He is and so no sin can approach Him or be found in Him, including in the Messiah. So, the Messiah couldn't have run around breaking the Torah-Law because that would have meant He acted against the nature of God's being and, thus, sinned.
S
I like your analogy here. The only thing I would say is that this Life which the Messiah embodied and charted His walk in accordance to the will of the Father, I believe we should all aspire to that Life as our standard. But there are certain aspects of that Life and walk which many believe are not for His followers. This has been the central aspect of many debates on this forum.
S
Why can't this be on the list:
We do not forget the Sabbath, we rest on it and use it as a day to honor God and minister to others instead of pursuing our own interests.
Many on this board have charged that any keeping of the Sabbath is keeping the letter and not spirit of the Law, and thus legalism. But according to the setup you've given, I would say that simply doing nothing on the Sabbath would be the letter of the Law, thus not the full actualization of what's intended for the day, and the spirit of the Law with regards to Sabbath is to rest, honor God, and minister to others instead of pursuing our own interests.
We do not forget the Sabbath, we rest on it and use it as a day to honor God and minister to others instead of pursuing our own interests.
Many on this board have charged that any keeping of the Sabbath is keeping the letter and not spirit of the Law, and thus legalism. But according to the setup you've given, I would say that simply doing nothing on the Sabbath would be the letter of the Law, thus not the full actualization of what's intended for the day, and the spirit of the Law with regards to Sabbath is to rest, honor God, and minister to others instead of pursuing our own interests.
S
That charge is unfair. The same could be said about the "clear" verses on the other side of the argument. When those verses are presented, there is always some attempt made to understand them in a different manner. Why can't the same be done with Eph. here? Seems to be a double standard present: accept at face value the verses that support my position, but not the ones that support yours (those need to be reworked into my framework of understanding). We all do this, so let's not pretend that we're innocent while others are picking out verses and ignoring others.
S
Do you have any evidence of Paul by his actions willfully breaking the Torah without remorse? Again, I say by his actions, not subjective interpretation of his theological statements. Because just as we can subjectively interpret his theological statements in his letters in one manner, we can also subjectively interpret his claims presented in the book of Acts in a seemingly contradictory manner. His actions should speak loudly, though.
B
Like I said, I do not believe Paul was speaking on the feast in Torah (again this is my belief on it). More so either the the new comers to Christ were returning to pagan beliefs and using them the glorify God, or the Church may have been teaching that it's ok to take a pagan belief and glorify God through it (remember these letters Paul is writing, some are to the new comers, and some are to the church that is teaching). So I believe it could have gone both ways on that.
Now do I believe we are still to observe these feast, yes I do. Am I going to make that my main point of salvation, no. Because salvations isn't in the feasts. But I do believe that are still suppose to be in observance.
Do you observe/celebrate Pentecost? If you do, you are observing a feast. Same with Passover. It doesn't hurt to celebrate them, and I believe there is no wrong in them, unless you turn them into something that they are not meant to be.
Again I'm not going to tell you, "You have to do this." I'm just stating what I believe.