I have been in churches where the pastors dragged up some tenet of Mosaic law saying we were in trouble if we didn't observe it
“brb, murdering some schmucks and stealing their wives, daughters, and property, and celebrating by sodomizing a goat. If anybody asks, I didn’t do it.”
The entire NT is based on the OT. If you delete the “OT”, you delete the foundations of the NT, many of which were assumed by the apostles and not even covered, as a large part of what they were doing was addressing errors.
Sure, my example above is taking it to an absurd point, but one point that we see that is actively being taught, presently, and causing extreme division in many churches, is “sodomy is just an expression of love”. They’re able to teach that because the foundations have been removed in peoples’ minds.
Instead of calling it the “Old Testament”, and “New Testament”, which is not how it became structured from the time of Christ, call it the “Teachings/Law, Prophets, and Writings”, and the “New Covenant”, which did not abolish the former, but fulfill it, by Jesus’ own words, where “fulfill” means “walked it out in perfection and as an example”.
Note that one thing that was “abolished” in a sense was the old sacrificial system, but only by a superior method being provided for the its purposes, and not by the tenets of it being destroyed.
Galatians 2:16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.
The law says do not go faster than 35 mph in a residential area
The enforcement (condemnation) of that law is removed
Is it now acceptable to drive 180 mph in a residential zone?
Does driving 35mph result in salvation through obedience, or is that obedience an outward manifestation of a will that is naturally concerned for others?
“Faith” = “Obedient Action resulting from Belief”, and not “Belief” alone.
Obedient action according to what resulting in belief from what?
If we are members of the Kingdom of God, we should constantly be concerned for what is best for our fellow members. Where are those things defined, biblically?
If we are the temple wherein the Spirit of the Lord desires to indwell, are we not thereby under obligation to perform the priestly duties? What are the duties that the priests are called upon to perform for temple worship?
Correct, abstaining from stealing from your neighbor does justify us. Attending congregation does not justify us. Faith does. If we are faithful we will try to obediently observe those things.
There are simply more things to observe than what is taught in Christian pulpits.
Is it not odd, that of all the Torah teachings, that one of the few non-Decalogue teachings the church has retained is the Tithe (which can’t even be observed today)?
I knew this would open a can of worms. It always does when you give a religious opinion. People who need other people to believe as they do in order to feel secure can get pretty angry with folks who don't agree. It's no different from the reactions of the woke folks, and that should tell you that this kind of defensive reaction comes from something that is common to humanity, and not so righteous as some suppose.
I am not advocating the destruction of the Mosaic law or saying that people can't find relevant good in it that will shed light on the New Covenant (so called in Jeremiah 31:31). Nor am I saying that people should abandon or change the law to embrace sin. What I am saying is that you can't retrofit the law into the Gospel of Grace. You can't say you are saved by grace but you must also do this commandment of the law or be cursed.
God writes the law on our hearts according to Jeremiah 31:31. It went from outside to inside. It might still be relevant for teaching righteousness to sinners, but no one should be using it to put fear into believers. Paul said we have not been put in bondage again to fear, and he was talking about the fear that comes from the law. We are completely accepted in Jesus through His blood, and I won't compromise on that issue. The law did teach us what sin is, but now Grace should be teaching us what righteousness is, pulling our focus away from sin to behold what is holy and good in heaven.
For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. (John 1:17 NKJV)
People who need other people to believe as they do in order to feel secure can get pretty angry with folks who don't agree.
I’m not angry here, fren. Just addressing words as I see them, with understanding as I have it, but it’s also true that words can be tricky things to actually convey meaning with. If you understood anger rather than passion out of my emphases, apologies.
What I am saying is that you can't retrofit the law into the Gospel of Grace. You can't say you are saved by grace but you must also do this commandment of the law or be cursed.
Agreed. That simply (obviously) wasn’t what I understood from your statements. Allow me to rephrase that last statement for what I was trying to say.
You should keep and do this commandment of the law as a fruit of salvation.
Many have stepped past that to preaching, “trying to keep the law is legalism”, to the point that it is mainstream to have that position.
We are completely accepted in Jesus through His blood, and I won't compromise on that issue. The law did teach us what sin is, but now Grace should be teaching us what righteousness is, pulling our focus away from sin to behold what is holy and good in heaven.
Conveying the nature of walking these lines can be a tricky thing, indeed. I do agree with this, and am trying to add the balancing side of the statement.
Thanks for your very kind reply. Balance away, my patriot frien. (Boy, the spellcheck really doesn't like that.) I didn't mean to insinuate that you were insecure. I really didn't. I just picked your post to reply, and it was more of a general statement. I was trying to make the point that people often excuse their anger when religion is involved, and their passion can blind them to their own confirmation bias. (i.e. using scripture to confirm something they want to believe or were taught to believe instead of taking it for what it says.)
Tricky indeed.
I'm glad you aren't angry. It's not so pleasant to have a conversation out of doors where the rabid people are.
“brb, murdering some schmucks and stealing their wives, daughters, and property, and celebrating by sodomizing a goat. If anybody asks, I didn’t do it.”
The entire NT is based on the OT. If you delete the “OT”, you delete the foundations of the NT, many of which were assumed by the apostles and not even covered, as a large part of what they were doing was addressing errors.
Sure, my example above is taking it to an absurd point, but one point that we see that is actively being taught, presently, and causing extreme division in many churches, is “sodomy is just an expression of love”. They’re able to teach that because the foundations have been removed in peoples’ minds.
Instead of calling it the “Old Testament”, and “New Testament”, which is not how it became structured from the time of Christ, call it the “Teachings/Law, Prophets, and Writings”, and the “New Covenant”, which did not abolish the former, but fulfill it, by Jesus’ own words, where “fulfill” means “walked it out in perfection and as an example”.
Note that one thing that was “abolished” in a sense was the old sacrificial system, but only by a superior method being provided for the its purposes, and not by the tenets of it being destroyed.
Galatians 2:16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.
Absolutely.
To put the reasoning another way:
“Faith” = “Obedient Action resulting from Belief”, and not “Belief” alone.
Obedient action according to what resulting in belief from what?
Correct, abstaining from stealing from your neighbor does justify us. Attending congregation does not justify us. Faith does. If we are faithful we will try to obediently observe those things.
There are simply more things to observe than what is taught in Christian pulpits.
Is it not odd, that of all the Torah teachings, that one of the few non-Decalogue teachings the church has retained is the Tithe (which can’t even be observed today)?
I knew this would open a can of worms. It always does when you give a religious opinion. People who need other people to believe as they do in order to feel secure can get pretty angry with folks who don't agree. It's no different from the reactions of the woke folks, and that should tell you that this kind of defensive reaction comes from something that is common to humanity, and not so righteous as some suppose.
I am not advocating the destruction of the Mosaic law or saying that people can't find relevant good in it that will shed light on the New Covenant (so called in Jeremiah 31:31). Nor am I saying that people should abandon or change the law to embrace sin. What I am saying is that you can't retrofit the law into the Gospel of Grace. You can't say you are saved by grace but you must also do this commandment of the law or be cursed.
God writes the law on our hearts according to Jeremiah 31:31. It went from outside to inside. It might still be relevant for teaching righteousness to sinners, but no one should be using it to put fear into believers. Paul said we have not been put in bondage again to fear, and he was talking about the fear that comes from the law. We are completely accepted in Jesus through His blood, and I won't compromise on that issue. The law did teach us what sin is, but now Grace should be teaching us what righteousness is, pulling our focus away from sin to behold what is holy and good in heaven.
For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. (John 1:17 NKJV)
I’m not angry here, fren. Just addressing words as I see them, with understanding as I have it, but it’s also true that words can be tricky things to actually convey meaning with. If you understood anger rather than passion out of my emphases, apologies.
Agreed. That simply (obviously) wasn’t what I understood from your statements. Allow me to rephrase that last statement for what I was trying to say.
Many have stepped past that to preaching, “trying to keep the law is legalism”, to the point that it is mainstream to have that position.
Conveying the nature of walking these lines can be a tricky thing, indeed. I do agree with this, and am trying to add the balancing side of the statement.
Thanks for your very kind reply. Balance away, my patriot frien. (Boy, the spellcheck really doesn't like that.) I didn't mean to insinuate that you were insecure. I really didn't. I just picked your post to reply, and it was more of a general statement. I was trying to make the point that people often excuse their anger when religion is involved, and their passion can blind them to their own confirmation bias. (i.e. using scripture to confirm something they want to believe or were taught to believe instead of taking it for what it says.)
Tricky indeed.
I'm glad you aren't angry. It's not so pleasant to have a conversation out of doors where the rabid people are.