JUDAIZER TRICKS AND UNDERSTANDING THEIR LOGICAL ERRORS

[MadebyHim]

[h=2]Obedience—The Test of Love[/h]
Someone may bring up the objection that after the law has accomplished its purpose of pointing the sinner to Christ for cleansing, it will no longer be needed in the experience of the believer. Is that true? No, indeed. The Christian will always need the watchdog of the law to reveal any deviation from the true path and to point him back to the cleansing cross of Jesus. There will never be a time when that mirror of correction will not be needed in the progressive growth experience of the Christian.

Law and grace do not work in competition with each other but in perfect cooperation. The law points out sin, and grace saves from sin. The law is the will of God, and grace is the power to do the will of God. We do not obey the law in order to be saved but because we are saved. A beautiful text which combines the two in their true relationship is Revelation 14:12. “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” What a perfect description of faith and works! And the combination is found in those who are “saints.”

The works of obedience are the real test of love. This is why they are so necessary in the experience of a true believer. “Faith without works is dead” (James 2:20). No man ever won a fair maiden’s heart by words alone. Had there been no flowers, no acts of devotion, no gifts of love, most men would still be searching for a companion. Jesus said, “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” (Matthew 7:21).

Words and profession are not enough. The true evidence is obedience. Today’s bumper stickers reflect a shallow concept of love. They say, “Smile if you love Jesus,” “Honk if you love Jesus”; but what did the Master Himself say? He said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15). And that is exactly what most people don’t want to do. If love makes no demands beyond a smile or wave, then it is welcome; but if the lifestyle must be disturbed, the majority will reject it. Unfortunately, most people today are not looking for truth. They are looking for a smooth, easy, comfortable religion that will allow them to live the way they please and still give assurance of salvation. There is indeed no true religion that can do that for them.
One of the strongest texts in the Bible on this subject is found in 1 John 2:4. “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” John could write that with such assurance because it is one of the most deeply established truths in the Bible. Jesus spoke of those who said, “Lord, Lord,” but did not do the will of the Father. Then He described many who would seek entrance to the kingdom claiming to be workers of miracles in the name of Christ. But He would sorrowfully have to say, “I never knew you: depart from me” (Matthew 7:21–23). You see, to know Christ is to love Him, and to love Him is to obey Him. The valid assumption of the Bible writers is very clear and simple: If one is not obeying Christ, he does not love Christ. And if he doesn’t love the Master, then he doesn’t know Him. John assured us, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3). Thus, we can see how knowing and loving and obeying are all tied closely together and are absolutely inseparable in the life of God’s faithful people. The beloved John summed it up in these words: “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous” (1 John 5:3).

 

[MadebyHim]

[h=2]Is It Possible to Obey the Law?[/h]
Countless Christians have been taught that since the law is spiritual and we are carnal, no human being will ever be able in this life to meet the requirements of the perfect law. Is this true? Has it been given by God as a great idealistic, impossible goal toward which converted souls should struggle but never expect to attain? Is there some hidden reservation or secret meaning in the many commands to obey the ten great rules God wrote on stone? Did God mean what He said and say what He meant?

Many believe that only Christ could have obeyed that law and only because He had special powers that have not been made available to us. Certainly it is true that Jesus is the only One who lived without committing a single act of disobedience. His reason for living that perfect, victorious life is laid out in Romans 8:3, 4: “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.”

Do not miss the point that Jesus came to condemn sin by His perfect life in the flesh in order that “the righteousness of the law” might be fulfilled in us. What is that righteousness? The Greek word dikaima is used here, which means, literally, “the just requirement” of the law. This can only mean that Christ won His perfect victory in order to make the same victory available to us. Having conquered the devil, showing that in the flesh the law can be obeyed, Christ now offers to come into our hearts and share the victory with us. Only by His strength and indwelling power can the requirements of the law be fulfilled by anyone. Paul said, “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me” (Philippians 4:13).

Not one soul can ever keep one of those Ten Commandments in human power alone, but all of them may be kept through the enabling strength of Jesus. He imputes His righteousness for cleansing and imparts His righteousness for victorious living. Christ came in a body of flesh like our own and depended wholly upon His Father in living His life to demonstrate the kind of victory which is possible for every soul who will likewise draw upon the Father’s grace.

 

[MadebyHim]

[h=2]Judged by the Law[/h]
Now, a final question about the subject of the law: How many of the Ten Commandments does one have to break in order to be guilty of sin? James says, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty” (James 2:10–12).

Every individual will be judged at last by the mighty moral code of God’s law. To break one is to be guilty of sin. The Bible indicates that the Ten Commandments are like a chain with ten links. When one link is broken, the chain is broken. So it is with the law. Those who stand in the judgment will have to meet the acid test of the Ten Commandments. If a practicing thief should seek entrance into the kingdom, he would be rejected. This is why Paul says thieves will not inherit the heavenly city. Furthermore, the Bible specifically declares that liars, adulterers, idolaters, and covetous men will not be in the kingdom. Why? Because the Ten Commandments forbid those things, and men will be judged finally by that law. Not one person will be admitted into heaven who is willfully violating any one of the Ten Commandments, because breaking one is breaking all.

Someone might object that this is making works the basis of entering the kingdom. No. It is really making love the qualifying factor. Jesus said that the greatest commandment of all is to love God supremely. He also said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15). Those who practice any known sin are really confessing that they do not love God with all their heart, soul, and mind. So it is the lack of love that shuts them out—not the act of disobedience that exposes that lack. Only when love is motivating the obedience does it become acceptable to God. Any other work is man’s vain attempt to earn salvation and to deny the efficacy of Christ’s atoning sacrifice.

 

[MadebyHim]

[h=2]Ransomed for What?[/h]
A dramatic illustration of the law-grace doctrine is seen in the story of the slave auctions in old New Orleans long ago. Two planters were bidding for an old Negro slave who kept shouting his rebellion from the auction block. Finally, one of the planters won the bid and took the slave in his wagon back to the farm. Throughout the journey the defiant black man declared that he would not work for the new owner. When they arrived at the plantation, the planter dropped the shackles from the newly bought slave and said, “You are free to go. You are no longer a slave. I bought you in order to give you your liberty.”

According to the story, the old man fell at the feet of the planter and said, “Master, I’ll serve you forever.”

In like manner, we were all held in the bondage of sin, condemnation, and death. Christ then paid the price to secure our freedom from that hopeless slavery. Lovingly He tells us that the reason He made the sacrifice was to set us free. What should our response be? Every ransomed child of God should fall at His feet and say, “Master, I love you for what you did for me. I’ll serve you the rest of my life.”

Think it through for a moment. Jesus had to die because the law had been broken. Sin demanded death. If the law could have been abrogated, the penalty of sin would have been set aside also. “For where no law is, there is no transgression” (Romans 4:15). So strong was the authority of that unchangeable law that God Himself could not abolish it—not even to save His own Son from death.

The old, old story of the two brothers is almost a perfect illustration of both law and grace in operation. The older brother was a judge. His younger brother was brought before him as a transgressor of the law. From all the evidence it was clear to all thathe was guilty. The court was tense. Would the judge mete out justice in such a case? The judge looked at his brother and sternly declared him guilty. Then he stunned the court by imposing the maximum fine. But immediately he left the bench and threw his arms around his brother and said, “I had to do it because you are guilty. I know you cannot pay the fine, but I will pay it for you.”

The point of the story is dramatic in its impact. The brother was forgiven, but the penalty was not. It had to be paid. But by paying the maximum penalty, the judge not only did not abolish the law, but he greatly magnified it. He demonstrated that its binding claims could never be voided. In the same sense, God would not and could not abolish the law to save His beloved Son. It cost something to uphold the law and pay the maximum penalty. No one will ever know how much it cost the Son of God. But how thankful we should be that His love was as perfect as His justice. In His own body He bore the penalty, satisfied the law, and justified the transgressor.
Can’t you see that no greater demonstration could have been made to prove the permanence of the Ten Commandments? In the entire universe God could not have displayed a more convincing and irrefutable argument in favor of His law. Yet, in the face of this tremendous exhibition, misguided millions of poor, feeble men belittle the government of God by belittling His law. They seem not to understand that the law is only a reflection of His holiness and righteousness. To speak of its abolition is to border on treason against the divine government of heaven.

Look into that holy law right now for a divine revelation of what God wants your life to be. Confess that you have no strength to live up to that perfect standard. Then turn your eyes to the only One who has kept that law perfectly and who desires this very moment to enter your life with enabling power. He will fulfill the righteousness of the law—the just requirements of the law—in you, so that you can say with Paul, “Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith ofthe Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Galatians 2:20).

 

[MadebyHim]

i'm not a judaizer, but seems i'd be labeled that way. When a family adopts a child, does that child live under the rules of family that adopted him, or her?

For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. Romans 8:15

 

[sparkman]

Here's another one...

Matthew 5:17-19 is commonly used to claim that the Torah is still in effect.

However, note from the verses that, if they want to use them to attempt to prove that Torah still applies, then they MUST explain why animal sacrifices, the Levitical priesthood, and physical circumcision no longer apply. The Scripture says that "not one jot or one tittle" shall pass away from the Law and Prophets until ALL is fulfilled.

Therefore, they can't use the verse to claim that part is no longer applicable, but the rest is.

Matthew 5: [SUP]17 [/SUP]“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. [SUP]18 [/SUP]For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. [SUP]19 [/SUP]Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

[sparkman]

i'm not a judaizer, but seems i'd be labeled that way. When a family adopts a child, does that child live under the rules of family that adopted him, or her?

For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. Romans 8:15

Absolutely. Those who belong to Jesus follow his commandments. The mistake is in claiming that these commandments are defined in the Mosaic Covenant...and those who claim to be following it are not. It is impossible because the Temple and Levitical priesthood is not in place.

Christians are under the New Covenant..and the whole "Renewed Covenant" thing is bogus. It is merely a Judaizer apologetic.

In reality, what has happened is that Judaizers are attempting to use rhetoric from the "New Perspective on Paul" espoused by Sanders and Wright to justify their doctrines. Wright in particular is close to denying justification by faith alone, and is an ecumenical promoter who seeks unity with Rome. Ironically, though, Wright would never claim that the Sabbath, festivals, clean meat laws, and physical circumcision still apply because he considers them to be the "works of the law" that are no longer applicable. So, in attempting to use the "New Perspective on Paul" to support their points, they must remove part of Wright's teachings to make it work.

And, in effect what Wright is doing, as well as yourself, is denying justification by faith alone, because you are basically saying that justification occurs in two phases..an initial phase that brings the person into "the family" and then final justification doesn't occur until the end of one's life...and is contingent upon keeping your stripped down version of the Mosaic Law.

Or..maybe I'm reading too much into your comments..that's what I've seen others with similar argumentation claim.

Either way, it's "Jesus plus"..same issue that Paul dealt with in Galatians.

 

[sparkman]

The term Judaizers is unfortunate, because I have seen it miss-applied too often.

Some hold that obeying the law of Christ is being a Judaizer and they add the idea
of works salvation.

My approach is simple, to bring things back to love and truth in our hearts.
Marking celebrations, and eating certain foods never changed ones heart.
Obedience to Gods ways and doing things out of honour and allegiance to the King
is a different thing.

The problem is always distinguishing between the old covenant and the new
covenant, which made the physical symbols and ceremonies into spiritual realities
of the heart rather than external practices.

I can see how for some if the internal spiritual realities are too hard to grasp it
is easier to create an external reality to express the hoped for internal reality.

You see this in churches that have a holy place, the celebration of the mass,
the use of incense. We do though retain some things, like baptism and the
breaking of bread, the laying on of hands.

Some want to take the spirit of condemnation of judiazers and extend it to
anyone who desires to walk righteously and see God working in their life.

If you are claiming that I am doing this, you're in error. There are expectations involved with being an adopted son of God. God transforms the person into the image of Jesus over time through the process of sanctification. It is a work of transformation, though.

My issue is with Judaizers and their claim that observance of the Mosaic Law is a condition, requirement, or necessary fruit of salvation. I am not a person who believes that the redeemed person is fruitless. Regeneration and the new nature ensures transformation.

 

[sparkman]

Ransomed for What?


A dramatic illustration of the law-grace doctrine is seen in the story of the slave auctions in old New Orleans long ago. Two planters were bidding for an old Negro slave who kept shouting his rebellion from the auction block. Finally, one of the planters won the bid and took the slave in his wagon back to the farm. Throughout the journey the defiant black man declared that he would not work for the new owner. When they arrived at the plantation, the planter dropped the shackles from the newly bought slave and said, “You are free to go. You are no longer a slave. I bought you in order to give you your liberty.”

According to the story, the old man fell at the feet of the planter and said, “Master, I’ll serve you forever.”

In like manner, we were all held in the bondage of sin, condemnation, and death. Christ then paid the price to secure our freedom from that hopeless slavery. Lovingly He tells us that the reason He made the sacrifice was to set us free. What should our response be? Every ransomed child of God should fall at His feet and say, “Master, I love you for what you did for me. I’ll serve you the rest of my life.”

Think it through for a moment. Jesus had to die because the law had been broken. Sin demanded death. If the law could have been abrogated, the penalty of sin would have been set aside also. “For where no law is, there is no transgression” (Romans 4:15). So strong was the authority of that unchangeable law that God Himself could not abolish it—not even to save His own Son from death.

The old, old story of the two brothers is almost a perfect illustration of both law and grace in operation. The older brother was a judge. His younger brother was brought before him as a transgressor of the law. From all the evidence it was clear to all thathe was guilty. The court was tense. Would the judge mete out justice in such a case? The judge looked at his brother and sternly declared him guilty. Then he stunned the court by imposing the maximum fine. But immediately he left the bench and threw his arms around his brother and said, “I had to do it because you are guilty. I know you cannot pay the fine, but I will pay it for you.”

The point of the story is dramatic in its impact. The brother was forgiven, but the penalty was not. It had to be paid. But by paying the maximum penalty, the judge not only did not abolish the law, but he greatly magnified it. He demonstrated that its binding claims could never be voided. In the same sense, God would not and could not abolish the law to save His beloved Son. It cost something to uphold the law and pay the maximum penalty. No one will ever know how much it cost the Son of God. But how thankful we should be that His love was as perfect as His justice. In His own body He bore the penalty, satisfied the law, and justified the transgressor.
Can’t you see that no greater demonstration could have been made to prove the permanence of the Ten Commandments? In the entire universe God could not have displayed a more convincing and irrefutable argument in favor of His law. Yet, in the face of this tremendous exhibition, misguided millions of poor, feeble men belittle the government of God by belittling His law. They seem not to understand that the law is only a reflection of His holiness and righteousness. To speak of its abolition is to border on treason against the divine government of heaven.

Look into that holy law right now for a divine revelation of what God wants your life to be. Confess that you have no strength to live up to that perfect standard. Then turn your eyes to the only One who has kept that law perfectly and who desires this very moment to enter your life with enabling power. He will fulfill the righteousness of the law—the just requirements of the law—in you, so that you can say with Paul, “Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith ofthe Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Galatians 2:20).

This comes from the Seventh Day Adventist site associated with Doug Batchelor. It seems like you'd acknowledge your sources, dude, and disclose that Joe Crews is SDA. There used to be some other SDA who would do that type of stuff..she would quote Ellen G. White without acknowledging it.

Here's the link to this particular post. SDAs attempt to mask their identity quite often. For instance, the circulars advertising their evangelistic meetings often don't even disclose that they are SDAs because they know they are considered cultic by many.

I won't bother checking the rest of them..probably comes from the same SDA site.

https://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/25/t/does-god-s-grace-blot-out-the-law-

 

[PeterJens]

If you are claiming that I am doing this, you're in error. There are expectations involved with being an adopted son of God. God transforms the person into the image of Jesus over time through the process of sanctification. It is a work of transformation, though.

My issue is with Judaizers and their claim that observance of the Mosaic Law is a condition, requirement, or necessary fruit of salvation. I am not a person who believes that the redeemed person is fruitless. Regeneration and the new nature ensures transformation.

Sparkman - I do not claim or think you are doing this.

There are some on this site who have used the term in the way I have described,
and love to try and appear to be reasonable, while being so extreme it takes ones
breath away.

 

[sparkman]

Sparkman - I do not claim or think you are doing this.

There are some on this site who have used the term in the way I have described,
and love to try and appear to be reasonable, while being so extreme it takes ones
breath away.

Cool. I only have issues with the claim that non observers of Sabbath, festivals, clean meat laws and/or physical circumcision are in sin, unsaved, or spiritually inferior in some way.

 

[psalm6819]

@sparkman, as I have read your comments it appears you have merely switched brands of legalism.

 

[ForthAngel]

@sparkman, as I have read your comments it appears you have merely switched brands of legalism.

Anyone who knows Sparkman knows this is a ridiculous accusation. Can you show us anywhere that Sparkman has espoused any kind of legalism? Us here who adhere to reformed theology are grossly misrepresented as legalists by people who can't even understand our theology and doctrines enough to accurately represent us.

 

[sparkman]

@sparkman, as I have read your comments it appears you have merely switched brands of legalism.

Hmm..seems like I heard that on another thread from some WOF/charismatic/hypergrace kook..don't remember which one.

 

[sparkman]

Here's another trick amongst Judaizers. It was one of the points that Armstrongites used to hook me..that I was ignorant and unstable if I didn't agree with their claims concerning the Sabbath, festivals and clean meat laws.

Basically, they infer that Christians are "ignorant and unstable" and that is why they interpret Paul's letters to say that the Mosaic Covenant is no longer applicable.

They use these verses to make this claim (2 Peter 3:15-17):

[SUP]15 [/SUP]And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, [SUP]16 [/SUP]as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. [SUP]17 [/SUP]You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.

Their inference is that the Torah, or their stripped down version of it, is the "law" being referred to, when talking about "lawless people". When a Torah observer, or a Sabbatarian, uses these verses, they are basically delivering a backhanded slap to the non-observer, calling them ignorant and unstable.

The word "lawless" is alternatively translated as "unprincipled men"..those who have no restraint and freely satisfy their lusts. It is not talking about Torah observance whatsoever.

The Torah (Mosaic Covenant), along with the whole of Scripture (which can also be called Torah), contains moral and spiritual principles that a spirit-led person wants to obey due to the regenerate nature that they received at conversion. However, the specific applications given to ancient Israel are not, by default, part of the Christian obligation.

Additionally, the Torah was a "basket" with different kinds of commandments, some of which are moral and spiritual principles and some of which are not.

The Mosaic Covenant is not in effect per Acts 15, Galatians 3-4, Hebrews 7-8, Ephesians 2:13-15, and Romans 7:1-6. Claiming otherwise is in essence the error of the Judaizers that Paul dealt with in Galatians.

There is solid proof in the NT concerning the inapplicability of Sabbath, festivals, clean meat laws, and physical circumcision, so claiming that these items are enduring moral and spiritual principles is in error. They are not part of the moral and spiritual principles in the Mosaic Covenant "basket".

So, I ask, who are the ignorant and unstable ones? Remember this the next time a Judaizer uses these verses to claim you are ignorant and unstable.

 

[sparkman]

Here's another Judaizer trick.

Judaizers often display their alleged knowledge of Hebrew in obvious ways to display their superior religiousity.

Some claim they know Hebrew, but they really don't know Hebrew. They may know a few words here and there, or they may have studied it on some shallow level, but I am pretty sure the vast majority know little more than what they have been exposed to through their Hebrew Roots/Messianic Jew conversation.

I have a feeling that if I displayed a sentence in Hebrew in a manner where it could not be cut and pasted into a translator, they would be unable to translate the sentence. They may recognize a few words here and there, but I doubt if their alleged knowledge is what they claim.

Related to this is their insistence that Yeshua HaMashiach must be used to address the Son, or somehow your worship is inferior. Some even claim that Jesus is derived from "Hail Zeus" or is a combination of the name of two different gods, one being Zeus. This claim has been dismissed as ludicrous by Semitic language scholars such as Michael Brown (and many Hebrew Roots/Messianic Jews hate Dr. Brown because he confronts their nonsense). Dr. Brown has a PhD in Semitic Language, and somehow some ignorant self-taught Judaizer trumps his expert opinion.

Here's an article by Dr. Brown on the "Hail Zeus" claim:

https://askdrbrown.org/library/what-original-hebrew-name-jesus-and-it-true-name-jesus-really

Anyways, I realize that many real Jews use Yeshua as the name for Jesus, and I have no issue with them whatsoever. In their minds, Jesus might indicate a Gentile aspect of Christianity, and they like to use Yeshua to accentuate his Jewishness for a sense of belonging. But, they have no intention of degrading other "Gentile" Christians who use the name "Jesus".

However, I sense a different attitude from Judaizers..an attempt to separate themselves from the rest of Christianity as being superior due to their word choices and their observance of Sabbath, festivals and clean meat laws.

It's not coincidental that the word "Pharisee" has to do with "separate". And while it is good to separate ourselves from "the world" and it's false values, it is not good for a subgroup to exist within Christianity where its adherents make claims of superiority based on language and practice related to obsolete commandments.