Attack of the Judaizers

[RedTent]

Please show where Christ used the phrase "spirit of the law," or where it is even found in the NT.

Likewise, please show where the phrase, "letter of the law" is found in the NT.

The letter is the law, they are not separate,

and the spirit is the Holy Spirit, not my spirit or heart attitude.

Now reconsider your understanding of what these mean.


No, but he would have called it the weak conscience (1Co 8:7, 9-11, 10:28-29)
of a weak brother (1Co 8:11), allowed it, and exhorted you to mature in the faith,
to go from milk to solid food, as we find in Heb 5:11-6:1.

That's assuming the issue is the weak conscience of a weak brother,
and not the will worship (Col 2:22-23) of one who prefers the old order over
God's prescribed new order (Heb 9:10), begging off as a weak conscience,
which then is disobedience to God's prescribed NT order.

So help me, I think you will use any tactic possible to see to that our Christians today go only by that Christ got rid of the law, the written law is not the same as the law that Christ told us about, that because we have the Holy Spirit to guide us we may not also listen to what God wrote in scripture, that Christ is a new God not one with the Father. I am amazed you didn't go into that because the law doesn't save us, we should ignore the law! Or that those who believe in anything written in the OT are from the roots movement and that movement has proven that everything in the OT is obsolete. I have been told to get off CC and stay off because I believe in God, and I even read the shadows of Christ that scripture tells us about. And that my reading it and learning from it means I deny Christ!! Posters will use anything to fight Christ!!!

All of scripture is straight forward and simple. God loves us and gave a way to redeem us, that is the base. All this pulling scripture apart line by line to prove otherwise is just terrible.

 

[Elin]

---

Scripture does not indicate the reason for the difference.

Nor does it matter, since after the flood, God defined food as "everything that lives and moves." (Ge 9:3)

If Noah ate the unclean animals, just because God said he could eat anything that moves,
then we wold not be having this discussion, would we?

Your objection is irrelevant because you don't know what Noah ate after the flood.

However, we do know what God told him was food.

You either believe God's definition of "food" in Ge 9:3 is true, or you don't.

I'm goin' with Ge 9:3.

What I believe is that God did not change from eat anything, to do not eat these things, and then back to eat anything.

Then you simply don't believe the Scriptures.

If we take the most clear scriptures and apply them to the less clear scriptures, then IMO, we can understand truth.

There is nothing unclear about

Ge 1:29 - "I give you every seed bearing plant on the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it.
They will be yours for food." (before the sin of Adam and death of animals for food)
_________________

Ge 9:3 - "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything."
(after the sin of Adam and the death of animals for food)
_________________

Lev 11 - "Of all the animals. . .these are the ones you may eat. . .these are the ones you are to detest and not eat."
_________________

Lk 11:41 - "Everything will be clean for you."

Ro 14:14 - "no food (everything that lives and moves, Ge 9:3) is unclean in itself."

Ro 14:17 - "all food (everything that lives and moves, Ge 9:3) is clean,"

1Tim 4:4 - "everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,"

These Scriptures are very clear--four different orders, you just don't believe them.

 

[Elin]

Your objection is irrelevant because you don't know what Noah ate after the flood.

However, we do know what God told him was food.

You either believe God's definition of "food" in Ge 9:3 is true, or you don't.

I'm goin' with Ge 9:3.

Cannibalism was allowed too if one builds doctrine out of one single bible verse.

I'm not familiar with the verse where God authorizes cannibalism.

Please present it.

And surely you are not so foolish as to suggest that Ge 9:3 is doubtful.

 

[Elin]

Want to point out where in the bible it was "temporary"?

Okay.

"You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols" (Ac 15:29 to Antioch, Syria and Cilicia).

". . .about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and there is no God but one. . .But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. . .if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened. . .eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience. . .eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. . .but do not eat for the sake of the. . .other man's conscience. If I take part in the meal with thankfulness (1Tim 4:4), why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?" (1Co 8:4, 7-10, 10:25, 27-30)

"no food (everything that lives and moves, Ge 9:3) is unclean in itself. . .the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking. . .all food is clean. . .to the pure, all things are pure" (Ro 14:14, 17, 20; Ti 1:15).

 

[Elin]

I saw in your reference, LT, someone has gone so far as to declare Jews cannot be saved. That declaration is grave and a pity.

Only a remnant can be, and has been, saved since Paul (Ro 11:5, 25).

 

[phil112]

Okay.

"You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols" (Ac 15:29 to Antioch, Syria and Cilicia).

". . .about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and there is no God but one. . .But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. . .if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened. . .eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience. . .eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. . .but do not eat for the sake of the. . .other man's conscience. If I take part in the meal with thankfulness (1Tim 4:4), why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?" (1Co 8:4, 7-10, 10:25, 27-30)

"no food (everything that lives and moves, Ge 9:3) is unclean in itself. . .the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking. . .all food is clean. . .to the pure, all things are pure" (Ro 14:14, 17, 20; Ti 1:15).

Okay, I had a different take on your 1st post, but after reflection, I'll agree with that.

 

[Elin]

"Moderation" is why I call for those on this thread who understand "freedom from the Law" to not question the salvation of those who strive to follow all of the Law.

If they claim faith in Christ, then do not try to push them away, but embrace them as brothers and sisters.

Some men came down from Judea to Anioch and were teaching the brothers: 'Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.' This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute with them . . .Some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, 'The Gentles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.' . . .some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said " (Ac 15:1-2, 5, 24)

"I am afraid that. . .your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. . .If someone comes to you and preaches. . .a different gospel than the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. . .Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. . .let him be eternally condemned. . .If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned (1Co 11:3-5; Gal 1:7, 9).

 

[RedTent]

Then you simply don't believe the Scriptures.


There is nothing unclear about

Ge 1:29 - "I give you every seed bearing plant on the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it.
They will be yours for food." (before the sin of Adam and death of animals for food)
_________________

Ge 9:3 - "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything."
(after the sin of Adam and the death of animals for food)
_________________

Lev 11 - "Of all the animals. . .these are the ones you may eat. . .these are the ones you are to detest and not eat."
_________________

Lk 11:41 - "Everything will be clean for you."

Ro 14:14 - "no food (everything that lives and moves, Ge 9:3) is unclean in itself."

Ro 14:17 - "all food (everything that lives and moves, Ge 9:3) is clean,"

1Tim 4:4 - "everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,"

These Scriptures are very clear--four different orders, you just don't believe them.

None of these scriptures tell us it is wrong to use things we do every day to relate to God's spiritual orders. None even suggest we eat unclean food. They are saying all are good food, not orders to be sure to eat them. God permits me to be kosher, although my own daughter doesn't know that about me. It would be a stumbling block to her, and I am asked not to be a stumbling block for others. She enjoys bacon, and the idea that God would tell her not to have something she enjoys would be a stumbling block to her. So in her house, I eat bacon. Only the spiritual part of this is important.

When the council we are told of in Acts told of the rules that apply to us, the ones that apply were ones that, by adhering to them, gentiles could go into the synagogue to learn about God. Going to synagogue was necessary for their spiritual growth. These are the minimum rules the Jews had for allowing gentiles in.

I don't think judging people according to their food habits is something that God orders us to do, quite the contrary. And this accusing others of not believing scripture is out of line.

 

[Elin]

If you read scripture you read and know what Christ replaced. If we use the blood of animals we are not using the correct blood. And
to say that all that God taught, even when God said to use the blood of animals
before Christ was crucified is "dead, miserable, and unworthy is actually saying that Christ, who is one with God
is dead, miserable and unworthy.

Your issue is with Paul, not with me.

"As long as the heir is a child, he is no different than a slave. . .So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under worldly trivial principles. But when the time had fully come (when the heir came of age and was mature enough and sufficiently prepared to take on the duties of his inheritance), God sent his Son. . .to redeem those under the law that we might receive the full rights of sons. . .how is it that you are turning back to those weak, miserable (NIV), beggarly (KJV), worthless (NAS), dead (Heb 6:1, 9:14) principles?"

Take it up with Paul.

 

[Elin]

don't be so easily offended Elin.

You know I side with you on this topic, but I beg you to be more moderate.
Strong's Greek 1933 (gentle, merciful in making judgements and meek in receiving judgement).

Hiz is not a bad guy. He is a brother.
Even in the disagreement, remember to also regularly agree with each other on Christ (agree in the Lord), even in the middle of an argument.
This is to remind each other of the true importance: CHRIST.

Yes, he is a sweet, dear brother, but I'm wondering if the sweet and dear should stay out of the kitchen where the heat is.

 

[LT]

___Dependence on the Law____ | ____Respect for the Law____ | __Disrespect for the Law
(Unhealthy fear of condemnation)|(Healthy fear of discipline)| (Unhealthy irreverence)

Don't fall off either end.

-Don't disrespect for the Law given in the OT, because it is the Word of God, and don't judge others for their traditions!
Being lawful is not against Christ. But preaching lawlessness is of Satan. We are free from following certain laws, but don't judge someone from keeping to a tradition. It is for God to judge the heart, not man. Let's stop trying to weed out the TARES, because some wheat are getting burned too.
Stop showing such disrespect for your brothers and sisters in Christ.

-Don't be dependent on keeping the Law to keep your salvation. Christ has it covered. If you are focused more on avoiding sin than doing good works, you have the wrong focus!
If our focus is Christ, then good works will flow from us... and there will be no room for distractions and sin.

-Respect the Law. Respect those who strive to keep them. Know your freedom in Christ, but don't flaunt it. All we can do is preach the simple Gospel, and pray that those who hear it understand it and believe.

 

[Elin]

btw, this is one of my favorite words used in the NT.
It explains sooo much when considering how we are to live out "the mind of Christ".
It also gives a good description of what following the "spirit of the Law" really looks like.

You wouldn't be goadin' me there, would ya'?

 

[Elin]

Same Lord, same team. All these other issues are just a part of trying to grow in the Lord. I don't mind disagreeing about these little things, because iron is sharpening iron here.

You guys have been forcing me deep into the Scriptures because of this topic!

That's a good thing, right?

 

[danschance]

None of these scriptures tell us it is wrong to use things we do every day to relate to God's spiritual orders. None even suggest we eat unclean food. They are saying all are good food, not orders to be sure to eat them. God permits me to be kosher, although my own daughter doesn't know that about me. It would be a stumbling block to her, and I am asked not to be a stumbling block for others. She enjoys bacon, and the idea that God would tell her not to have something she enjoys would be a stumbling block to her. So in her house, I eat bacon. Only the spiritual part of this is important.

When the council we are told of in Acts told of the rules that apply to us, the ones that apply were ones that, by adhering to them, gentiles could go into the synagogue to learn about God. Going to synagogue was necessary for their spiritual growth. These are the minimum rules the Jews had for allowing gentiles in.

I don't think judging people according to their food habits is something that God orders us to do, quite the contrary. And this accusing others of not believing scripture is out of line.

Food habits are not of consequence because we can not be defiled by what we eat. Violating one's conscious is a sin so some people who are weaker in the faith (as Paul says), we should honor their conscious.

 

[LT]

You wouldn't be goadin' me there, would ya'?

In a way. I was trying to subtly guide.

goad is actually a good word, because it has the image of nudging with a shepherd's staff.

 

[Elin]

2 Corinthians 3:6
Rom. 2:28-29
Luke 11:37-52
Luke 18:9-14

These are just a few that show the separation between the letter, and the spirit of the Law.

The distinction between the two IS Biblical.
Following just the letter brings pride. Following the spirit fulfills the letter, AND brings humility.

Did ya' actually find the phrases, "letter of the law" and "spirit of the law" anywhere?

 

[Elin]

o.k. again we agree to disagree in the food issue, however, you say the new law 2 (NT) is Love God and love fellow man... I just gotta say here I'm not feeling the love.

I love your passion to prove a point and believe it or not I love you as a sister in Christ. We are not all on the same level of learning and understanding and I am so thankful that God is our judge.

Amen, sister!

Truth does not always feel good.

 

[LT]

Did ya' actually find the phrases, "letter of the law" and "spirit of the law" anywhere?

Yes, in Romans and Corinthians.
What version are you reading?

 

[Elin]

Your historicity may be limping a little.

There was no agreement in the earliest centuries regarding its authorship.

And its writing style is remarkably different from Paul's.

You can't read Romans and Hebrews and not come to that conclusion.

I vote for Apollos (Ac 18:24-28), associated with Paul in the early years of the church in Corinth (1Co 1:12, 3:4-6, 22).

I 2nd the vote for Apollos

Not worth debating if it can't be proven. It's a waist of time.

true, but it's ok to speculate, right?

However, it is worth noting the historical perspective, and the remarkable difference in writing styles.

 

[Elin]

So help me, I think you will use any tactic possible to see to that our Christians today go only by that Christ got rid of the law, the written law is not the same as the law that Christ told us about, that because we have the Holy Spirit to guide us we may not also listen to what God wrote in scripture, that Christ is a new God not one with the Father. I am amazed you didn't go into that because the law doesn't save us, we should ignore the law! Or that those who believe in anything written in the OT are from the roots movement and that movement has proven that everything in the OT is obsolete.

If that amazes you, you've got some wrong presumptions about me.