Category
|
Date of Disposal
|
The Messy Details
|
Accusations!
|
May 6, 2008
|
We get another double dose of hysteria, as Paul Cohen and Victor Hafichuk both write back.
Paul gets even funnier as he cites my points about Victor's lunatic statements:
A. I didn't accuse him of ignorance
B. Their former letters address none of these points
C. Their article Law and Grace which addresses Acts 15 says nothing about the other points
D. What I would be lying about he never really states
he responds,
Again, you do not comprehend simple sentences, much less concepts of spiritual truth. Victor’s statement you quote says that your accusation comes from ignorance - yours.
Victor called what I said a 'false accusation of ignorance.' I take it from such clarification that he meant accusation from ignorance. If he wishes to condemn me, he should at least type intelligibly.
He then tries to answer my challenge, which was:
Provide me with one solitary shred of unequivocal scriptural evidence that I (a Gentile believer in Christ) am now obligated to keep the law of Moses; and how this can be so if:
* I am no longer under the schoolmaster that is the law (Galatians 3:24-25)
* I am no longer 'married' to the law, but dead to the law and alive to Christ (Romans 7:1-4)
* I am now under grace rather than the law (Romans 6:14)
* I have never had such a yoke laid upon me (Acts 15:28-29)
But his benighted yammering proves no more effective than the last time he tried it.
I will give you direct answers to your four points, so there is no doubt about where you stand, or do not stand.
Points One and Three: You are not under the schoolmaster (Law) because you are lawless. To such the Lord Jesus Christ says:
"And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; depart from Me, those working lawlessness!" (Matthew 7:23 LITV)
Poor Paul is seriously confused, Galatians 3:24-25 was talking about followers of Christ no longer being under a schoolmaster, and has nothing to do with those Christ calls 'lawless' (Antinomians), which Mr. Cohen rabidly mistakes me for.
"Point Two: You are dead to the righteousness of God, and dead in your own putrid self-righteousness, which you mistakenly call "alive to Christ." You have absolutely nothing to do with the true and living Lord Jesus Christ."
Notice he doesn't really answer the point either, he just throws more accusations. Get some new material Cohen.
"Point Four: We acknowledge that there is no yoke or restraint on you whatsoever, but that you are free to go eat what you want and to destroy as you please, as long as God grants you to work your iniquity."
Again, he doesn't answer the question, apart from his stupid presupposition that I'm not a follower of Christ, the yoke was never laid upon any Gentile believer in Christ.
"I never said anywhere, as you state, that you are obligated to keep the ceremonial Law. So you lie in accusing me of that, whether you lie consciously or because it is more of your chosen ignorance to avoid the Truth in favor of whatever pleases you.
The dietary aspect of the law is ceremonial. Next equivocation.
The fact that you did not acknowledge Victor’s reply to that point and admit your error only serves to prove what we say, that you are not there to include respectful acknowledgement of the points made by the other party but to erect an image to yourself and glorify your wretchedness you deem to be of great worth.
Confused by the intelligent replies to his venom and an avalanche of solid scriptural evidence crushing his silly dogmas, Paul resorts to throwing a full-blown temper tantrum.
As for the Law’s dietary strictures, there is nothing ceremonial about unclean and clean designations. Those are biological facts that have not changed.
No, for every creature of God is good (1 Timothy 4, already cited), that's a scriptural fact. The Jewish dietary laws were merely a foreshadowing of what was to come (hence, ceremonial), which is why they were not laid upon the Gentiles.
I also never said that you could be a Christian or acceptable to God if you observed these laws.
And I never said anything about that. Try following the conversation for a change.
I have not laid these laws on you or anyone else. These laws exist whether a person acknowledges them or not.
And are not applicable to the Gentiles who believe, for we are not under the schoolmaster called the Mosaic law. So if you say that such is a point of Christian holiness, then you are distorting the word of God.
One does not become godly by observing them. Many Jews refrain from all unclean meats, yet they do not know Christ or have His forgiveness and salvation. You presume, assume and generally make an ass of yourself every time you try to refute what is for your good.
In a fit of complete and utter incoherence, Paul now accuses me of errant presumption over a point I never tried to make. And thus we bury Cohen's fit of non-sequiturs and insane accusations with the rest of the trash. But we're not done there, next Victor Hafichuk decides to huff and puff.
We see that your site is purely for self-aggrandizement; it is Satanic. To whom do you preach, Joshua? Who but devils have any desire to go to your vile location, full of both garbage and wasted good things trashed together?
"And I'll BLOOOOOOW your house down!!" Keep puffing Fenrir.
You are deceptively selective with excerpts from our letters and writings, quoted with prejudice in your favor.
Na, I just pick out the parts that are relevant or particularly funny. But anyone who wants to see the exchange can email me and I'll gladly send it in its entirety (provided you don't sue me for facilitating a mental health hazard).
We asked that the entire context of our words be included, in all fairness. You have not done so.
The answer is 'no.' This isn't an unlimited forum for cultic blather. Victor has his own website if he wants to publish the exhaustive collection of their nuttiness.
Instead, you have gone on to distort whatever you have quoted of what we have said.
He of course cites no specifics. I've endeavored to keep the substance of what I've quoted intact.
You have accused us of things of which we are not guilty. For example, we have not adhered to, promoted, or believed in ceremonial washings, diet or dress.
Dress and washings were mentioned as an aside, I never said anything about him believing such. Paul already tried the "it's not ceremonial" equivocation, which we answer above. We've already figured out from Paul's statement, "Furthermore, sin is the transgression of the Law, so if you are eating unclean foods, it is sin according to the Law and the words of Christ....", that they believe it's sinful to eat food not allowed by the Mosaic law, which is plainly legalism, despite their quibbling about it not being ceremonial.
Falsely assuming you would know that by examining our doctrine, we went on to speak of general diet and clothing, thinking those must be what you are talking about. Obviously, we were wrong, and you took every opportunity to declare to the world your righteousness and our "ignorance."
My only righteousness is Christ, and Him I gladly proclaim.
I see, Satan, that such is the nature of your site, in which you take great pride and intend to find your worth before men. You won’t even please them, seeing you have chosen to mock God by trashing the good and using His Name to exalt yourself.
Exalt myself? With this background and layout? Yeah, right. Whining that people who disagree with them being prideful must be a regular byproduct of ThePathofGoof's demented reasoning.
You think your name "Joshua" and your initials, "J. C." represent some virtue?
No, that's just the name my parents gave me.
In thinking so, all the more will you be held accountable for taking His Name in vain, not that you chose them (which I assume you did not, though you may have) but for your presumption and evil imagination in assuming any connection with our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
"An arrogant, conceited person is called a mocker. His arrogance knows no limits" (Proverbs 21:24 GW).
Oh boy, Looney Tunes gives us a double-feature. Now Victor's using his mystical-psychic-voodoo-divination powers to trump up charges that I 'connect' my initials 'J.C.' with 'Jesus Christ.' News flash for Hackichuk: A lot of people have these initials, and a lot of people write under their first 2 initials and last name. Such an assertion is beyond idiotic, since I generally consider trying to attach some deep, spiritual significance to names and such apart from divine guidance to be superstitious and silly.
What do we have to do with you, or you with Jesus Christ? God will deal with those that are without, as we have many times witnessed. In Jesus Christ, we have spoken, and you are finished.
Indeed, I finished destroying anything substantial Victor said several paragraphs back. At this point we're just nailing the coffin shut.
Thus says the Lord, "You speak as though you know, but your wisdom is foolishness to Me. You anger Me in your ways, which you identify with Me. I hate your ways, and will deal with you accordingly.
You dare to vaunt yourself and to publicly show yourself clever against My servants and indeed all peoples. Therefore will you be shamed in public, for all to see, and they will know that you have blasphemed My Name, and that I have judged your evil works."
That's not what God said, what He said was,
"For they prophecy falsely unto you in my name: I have not sent them, saith the LORD." (Jeremiah 29:9)
All the convenient revelations in the world can't save poor Victor's demented ravings, for we're not ignorant of the devices of crazy little false prophets who invent lies about what significance people attach to their names. What's the matter Jeane Dixon? Your telepathetic powers give out there?
He'd also stated,
Also as obvious, you were not there to agree or accept anything of value but to mock, scorn, accuse and generally find fault with anything possible. You have said not one good thing of us or of what we have, but then, that is not what you were after, was it?
With a performance like that, I can't imagine why.
With that, we dump this fetid load of ThePathofGoof's garbage onto the pile.
|
Accusations!
|
May 5, 2008
|
Victor Hafichuk responds to me, looks like the Junkyard is the ideal place for dealing with the rubbish he puts out. To my statement, "The various washings, feasts, ceremonies, commands about diet, clothing, etc. are not part of the law of Christ." Victor responds,
Having said that, if you fail to differentiate between ceremonial and practical, and would prefer to have doctors operate on you without sterilization techniques, or don’t believe you ought to wash your hands after going to the washroom, because you feel you might be placing yourself as a foolish Galatian, "under the Law," then be our guest. Should we meet, I hope I recognize who you are and am mindful not to shake hands with you.
Even less coherent than I expected. Victor assumes that because I don't believe that ceremonial washing is a necessity for a Christian, that I must oppose sanitation as a whole. News flash Victor, handsoap wasn't a part of Mosaic law. Such washings are done for different reasons. Being opposed to doctrine that holds hand washing as a point of Christian practice doesn't make me opposed to hand washing in general any more than a non-kosher diet makes me opposed to chicken. I'm surprised he can't even grasp such a basic principle. He also states,
Contrary to your assertion, part of the Law of Christ (loving God and neighbor) is indeed to dress sensibly, decently, modestly and respectfully; men as men that they might appear to be men, and women as women, that they might appear to be women.
Oh, but I never asserted that, Victor simply assumed that. I was referring to Jewish-specific dress laws such as the prohibition against mixing types of fiber (Deuteronomy 22:11) and regulations regarding tassels (Numbers 15:38).
When I stated,
You never did answer my defense from Acts 15. Your very same accusation of wrongdoing was leveled against the Gentile Christians back during the first days of the church, but it was decided by the apostles under inspiration of the Holy Spirit to not lay such a burden upon the Gentiles.
Victor replied,
After carefully, respectfully reading the above papers, if you still find the necessity to do so, specify our accusation of wrongdoing, the full context of our words, and we will reply, Lord willing.
Paul Cohen betrays the demonic legalism they teach that leads to their accusations with his statement,
"Furthermore, sin is the transgression of the Law, so if you are eating unclean foods, it is sin according to the Law and the words of Christ...."
When I asked him to,
"explain why I am:
* no longer under the schoolmaster
* no longer married to the law (but dead to it and alive to Christ)
* now under grace rather than the law
* have not had such a yoke laid upon me
Yet according to you, I'm somehow obligated to keep the law's ceremonial and dietary strictures anyway."
Victor shot back,
That is a false accusation of ignorance, if not a deliberate lie, Mr. Thibodaux, and it is answered in our former letters to you, this letter, and in the recommended papers. Read as requested, then get back to us.
Boy, for someone who hates artificial food, Victor sure serves up a lot of baloney.
A. I didn't accuse him of ignorance
B. Their former letters address none of these points
C. Their article Law and Grace which addresses Acts 15 says nothing about the other points
D. What I would be lying about he never really states
I fear that not only are Victor's beliefs hopelessly muddled, but his reading comprehension as well. Concerning their 'explanation' of Acts 15, they state,
"...and James and the elders commanded the Gentile converts to abstain from pollutions of idols, from fornication, from things strangled and from blood. Now an interesting statement follows here in Acts 15:21: "For Moses of old time has in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath." In other words, "All we require of you at the moment, given your newness of life in Christ, is that you tend to these rather serious matters but as you grow and are able to embrace the many other things of God and of the law of God, you can go to the synagogues and learn more on sabbath days." They did not do away with Moses nor with the law."
Victor is of course reading far more into the passage than is actually there. The fact that Gentile Christians are to move on and learn about the precepts of the old covenant as well (which are important for more fully understanding the new covenant as shown by the book of Hebrews and elsewhere) in no way implies subjection unto its ordinances. Did he not see that the goal of the Pharisees was,
"That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."
No future subjection of the Gentiles was implied, as the observation about Moses law still being taught was important for they as Jews and not even mentioned to the Gentiles in their letter to them:
"The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well." (Acts 15:23-29)
In fact, nowhere in the New Testament do you see Gentiles admonished by the apostles or leaders of the church to keep the law of Moses. As I'd indicated in my last letter, the exact opposite is stated: The law was to condemn all men as sinners before God (and still does so), though those that are in Christ are dead to the law and alive to Christ. That's not to speak evil of the law -- it is holy and good, and understanding our guilt and wickedness by it, we understand our need for Christ, and so it is written,
"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." (Galatians 3:24-25)
How much clearer does Victor want it? In fact, let's see him cite a single place in the New Testament where Jewish law concerning diet is commanded or emphasized to the Gentiles. The word again runs squarely over their doctrines:
"Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." (1 Timothy 4:1-4)
Deceivers like Victor do indeed command people to abstain from various foods; he tried vainly to explain this passage away at one point by stating that "Furthermore, even if the word "meats" was speaking of animal flesh, it would still only refer to that which the Word of God has sanctified", completely overlooking the fact that it is sanctified for the very reason that "every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving." I can only deduce that in his distorted view of scripture, some creatures of God in fact are innately unclean, not merely as a ceremonial foreshadowing. Since they believe that transgressing the Mosaic diet is sinful for those under the new covenant, as Paul Cohen has already informed us, what can this vile mess that Victor Hafichuk teaches be but a doctrine of demons?
He closes with the usual self-righteous cultic grandiosity of 'you're a devil' and other such nonsense.
Let it be known from the outset, however, that we do not deem you to be a Christian by any stretch of the imagination, much less judging by the testimony of Jesus Christ and the Scriptures.
Judging by the discernment and thinking he's displayed thus far, I'll take that as an extremely good sign. So, despite all their jabber, they still can't answer what I challenged them on initially:
Provide me with one solitary shred of unequivocal scriptural evidence that I (a Gentile believer in Christ) am now obligated to keep the law of Moses; and how this can be so if:
* I am no longer under the schoolmaster that is the law (Galatians 3:24-25)
* I am no longer 'married' to the law, but dead to the law and alive to Christ (Romans 7:1-4)
* I am now under grace rather than the law (Romans 6:14)
* I have never had such a yoke laid upon me (Acts 15:28-29)
Still waiting for an intelligible answer.
|
Accusations!
|
May 5, 2008
|
Looks like we have some new inductees for the Junkyard. After Steve Hays sealed his own defeat by flaunting his own inability to reason soundly with a stunning appeal to ignorance (see the April 3rd post), it took a good month to air out the odor that finally disposing of the Triahuahuas left, which smells strangely of burnt strawmen and unwashed sockpuppets. Now a new set of contenders that's no less militant in their error steps in, a cult called "The Path of Truth" ( http://www.thepathoftruth.com/ ). This group combines some of the worst aspects of fundy Seventh Day Adventists and the Jehovah's Witnesses with a strong agricultural emphasis.
It started out simple enough: My friend and occasional sparring partner on the Calvinism issue, Gordan "Spanky" Runyan of TV's Incrediblog made a post about this cultic group. I looked up some of their stuff, commenting just how looney tunes quite a bit of it was, stuff with titles like That Devilish Spirit of Christmas, and an amazing 'revelation' that husbands and wives weren't supposed to sleep in the same bed. No, seriously - http://www.thepathoftruth.com/teachings/marriagebed.htm . I love the almost Engrish quote: "Husbands and wives are defiling their beds because worshipping marriage."
Well, a certain Paul Cohen of said group didn't like our comments much and expressed his thoughts via combox to Gordan, who in a fit of good taste, promptly deleted it. So Paul contacted me directly with his complaint (appropriate move), but tried to do so by throwing all sorts of accusations (very stupid move). He accused me of despising the goodness of God because I reject their universalism and observation of Jewish diet, and asserted that I did things like celebrate Christmas because I 'love what's evil.' I responded to such criticism with,
Please cite a single scriptural reference as to why it's sinful to pay special remembrance to Christ on any specific day. None of the references in your article really followed in establishing such a point. I have no doubt as to why the Catholic church chose that particular day to celebrate Christmas on, and I don't believe that Christ was born in late December, nor do I believe His birth is as important as His death or resurrection; however, I also don't believe that any day is unclean in and of itself, and if one chooses such a day for special remembrance without the pagan revelry, then I can see no problem with it biblically. Or have you not read?
"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks." (Romans 14:5-6)
In response, I got a rant about everything from corporate greed, to the food industry destroying the environment, to the world honoring false gods at wintertime, all of which I am apparently personally responsible for by virtue of not being a part of their overblown hippie farm. To my defense of celebrating Christmas he replied,
Your question begs the question, "What are you doing on all other days"? Christ lives in us, and we in Him. We can no more live a minute without Him, so what is this about paying "special remembrance" to Him on a certain day? Can one forget his lungs or heart or legs? Yet He is closer than those in them that are born again. Why must you remember Him, except that He is not with you? We do not have to remember what is present, paramount, and alive, do we? Your words betray a dead god and faith.
Oh boy, a psychobabble professional. I responded,
Paul, that statement is nothing short of outright lunacy. Have you not even read up through Luke yet?
"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:19)
Setting aside a special time to focus on God (see: remembrance) does not imply that He is forgotten the rest of the time. How many memorials are mentioned in the OT law?
"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, in the first [day] of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation."
"Memorial" is 'zikrown,' literally, "memorial, reminder, remembrance." If your contention is that such a memorial denotes a dead faith in a dead god, then you are either being completely dishonest with the biblical data, else ignorant of scriptural principles. Either way, you display a poor grasp of fundamental logic, irrationally inferring that memorial observation implies forgetting God the rest of the time, which is plainly a non sequitur.
Our big contention came concerning keeping the law of Moses, I wrote to him:
"Furthermore, sin is the transgression of the Law, so if you are eating unclean foods, it is sin according to the Law and the words of Christ, Who said that not one jot or tittle of the Law would fail."
There is more than one law, the law of Moses was bondage (Galatians 5:1), the law under Christ is liberty (James 1:25), for indeed none of it could pass till all was fulfilled,
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18),
however,
"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." (Romans 10:4) The word for 'end' (telos) indicates fulfillment. When the issue came up to the Gentiles in Acts 15,
"And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, [and said], Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." (note that circumcision was a primary point of the Mosaic law)
.... (continuing from verse 5)
"But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses." (not only circumcision is addressed here, but the whole of the old covenant law)
"And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as [he did] unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they."
The case of Peter and Paul was considered, and it was written to the Gentiles (from verse 28),
"For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."
The command not to eat blood was of old (from Genesis, for the life is in the blood), and partaking of the meat of idols is a part of the worship of the same, but beyond this, Gentiles do fulfill the righteous requirement of the law through faith in Christ and obedience to the commandments on which all the law and prophets hang: To love God with all your being and love your neighbor as yourself. Such a pronouncement that the yoke of the law of Moses is not upon us is plain evidence that Gentile Christians have no obligation to submit to the Jewish dietary or ceremonial laws.
Paul replied,
There is one thing you bring up that was not answered in my letter to you, which I will answer here, though you already answered it yourself by your Bible quotes without realizing it, so blind you are. I would not make a point of your blindness except that you are so proud of your sight.
The Law will never be done away with, unless you can do away with God Himself, because the Law reflects His Nature. The verses you quote, therefore, do not say the Law has been done away, they say that righteousness by the Law is finished for the soul that turns to Christ. Otherwise, Paul could not say:
"Therefore do we nullify the Law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the Law" (Romans 3:31 EMTV).
But this you will reject, no doubt. You are among those of whom the Lord foretold Victor over 30 years ago would come, accusing us of legalism with vehement hatred for Him, because you are lawless. Children of wrath and destruction.
Oh wow, my coming was foretold...how flattering (*gag*). That bit of insight came along with a bit more incoherent raving about me celebrating pagan gods, worshipping 3 gods, believing in hell, eating defiled food, etc. I finally got fed up with such foolishness, I wrote back not only with a rebuttal, but a counter-challenge to their entire group (below is my most recent letter in its entirety):
Paul,
Don't you understand that the law is but a shadow for the law of liberty in Christ?
"The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming, not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship." (Hebrews 10:1)
You say,
" "The Law will never be done away with, unless you can do away with God Himself, because the Law reflects His Nature. The verses you quote, therefore, do not say the Law has been done away, they say that righteousness by the Law is finished for the soul that turns to Christ. Otherwise, Paul could not say:
"Therefore do we nullify the Law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the Law" (Romans 3:31 EMTV)." "
I agree that Christians establish the law, "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." (Romans 7:12), for by the law is the knowledge of sin, but its inability to make one clean is made evident through Romans 7 & 8:
"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:" (Romans 8:3)
Indeed, God's law is established to convict the world of sin, but establishment of what is good and holy does not amount to us not being under a better covenant instead, for to be in Christ is to no longer be under the Mosaic law,
"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." (Galatians 3:24-25)
therefore it says,
"For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace." (Romans 6:14)
The shadow that was the law is both fulfilled and established thus,
"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Galatians 5:14)
of our relation to the Mosaic law proper, it states,
"Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God." (Romans 7:1-4)
Through Christ, those who believe are dead to the law of Moses, and alive in the law of liberty and love in Him. The law of Christ is walking in what He's commanded us (love God in faithfulness, love each other in caring for one another; do not only abstain from immoral things like adultery and murder, but heartily reject all lust, hatred, coveteousness, and the like). The various washings, feasts, ceremonies, commands about diet, clothing, etc. are not part of the law of Christ.
"By calling this covenant 'new,' he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear." (Hebrews 8:13)
You never did answer my defense from Acts 15. Your very same accusation of wrongdoing was leveled against the Gentile Christians back during the first days of the church, but it was decided by the apostles under inspiration of the Holy Spirit to not lay such a burden upon the Gentiles.
"For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well." (Acts 15:28-29)
We see here the clear ruling that Gentiles are NOT subject to the law of Moses, scripture plainly states as much, rendering any arguments or decontextualizing of the scriptures to put us under the law utterly meaningless. Your objection was answered almost twenty centuries ago: The burden of keeping the Mosaic law was not laid upon us, and anyone who says otherwise simply does not believe God's word.
You are now putting yourself in exactly the same position as the Judaeans of Acts 15, and I'm responding to you just as the apostles spoke: We are not under the law, but grace. Being freed from the law of Moses cannot be rightly compared to not observing God's commands for us (aka 'Antinomianism'), for grace teaches us to deny worldy lusts (Titus 2:11-12). So I'm challenging you...all of you, the entire bunch including Victor: Provide me with one solitary shred of unequivocal scriptural evidence that I (a Gentile believer in Christ) am now obligated to keep the law of Moses; explain why I am:
* no longer under the schoolmaster
* no longer married to the law (but dead to it and alive to Christ)
* now under grace rather than the law
* have not had such a yoke laid upon me
Yet according to you, I'm somehow obligated to keep the law's ceremonial and dietary strictures anyway. Rest assured, this challenge is going public.
J.C. Thibodaux
With such profound logic as these guys have displayed thus far, such as the "day of remembrance = forgetting about it the rest of the time" concept, I think I know exactly what to expect. Will 'the path of goof' be up to the challenge? Can they somehow equate being freed from the law with being obligated to keep it? Will they be able to present a single coherent statement to support their position? Not likely. But stay tuned, I'll be publishing selected portions of any more mindless propaganda they send me. With that, we toss this piece of doctrinal garbage by ThePathofTruth.com onto the pile.
|
