Contemporary Judaizers

[NetChaplain]

Not that God would have it done any other way in which it has been done, but if all men in the OT were as Abraham and others who He used, there would have been no need of the Mosaic Law which came after them. When all of them were brought to, and convinced of their indwelling sin, they chose to remain in belief and in fellowship with God.
-NC

Contemporary Judaizers

“The law is good, if a man use it lawfully”; and its lawful application is expressly not to form, guide and govern the righteous, but to deal with the lawless and disobedient, ungodly and sinful, unholy and profane, and, in short, with whatever is contrary to sound doctrine (1 Tim 8, 9). Sin, we are told in Romans 6, shall not have dominion over Christians, “for you are not under the law, but under grace”; and this is a chapter where the question is the righteousness walk of the saint, not his justification.

Yet in the face of this clear and uniform teaching of the New Testament, the tendency of most Christians habitually is to go back to law, especially where there is feeble separation from the world. But it is easily understood, for the world does not receive or understand the grace of God, whereas it can appreciate in the letter, the righteous law of God. Hence, where the world and the Christians are mixed together, the will of man soon takes the upper hand. Then, as the Christian cannot elevate the world to his standing, he must inevitably sink to that which he holds in common with the world. Thus both meet once more on Jewish ground, as if the Cross of Christ had never been, and the Holy Spirit was not sent down from heaven to gather believers out of the mixed condition into the Body of Christ apart from the world.

Even for the individual Christian, as well as for the Church and most of all for God’s truth, grace and glory, the loss has been incalculable. For the ordinary walk has been reduced to a string of negatives, save in public acts of philanthropy, religious activity, or ritual observances, which the Christian shares with any and everybody that will join him—plain ecumenism. It is not occupation with good according to God’s will, still less is it suffering for the sake of the Lord Jesus and of righteousness from a world which knows them not. This is not Christianity, though it is the state and the system of most Christians.

Did the Lord Jesus ever obey from the fear of judgment (which the Law threatened due to inability to keep perfectly—NC)? Was not His life a surrender of Himself to the holy will and pleasure of His Father? So our souls are to be occupied with the Father’s grace in His Son, if we are to find strength in pleasing Him. The mere avoidance of evil, the not doing this or that, is below our calling. Do we indeed desire to know and to do the Father’s will as His children? Are we zealous in learning to do well, no less than careful to cease from each evil? If not, the day will come when we may begin to do evil again, and with a conscience the less sensitive, because we have learned truth which we do not carry out.

To talk about the Ten Commandments as the rule for the Christian’s walk now, is to go back from the sun which rules the day to the moon which rules the night; it is to eclipse the Lord Jesus by Moses, under the delusive profession of doing God service. In general, what the law exacted from those under the principle of right, the Christian is responsible on the principle of grace to exceed in every possible way (Mat 5:20—NC). The scope of obedience is immensely increased; the inward motives are searched out and laid bare. The tendency to violence, corruption and falsehood is judged in its roots (old man—NC), and suffering wrongfully and withal in love takes the place of earthly righteousness for the disciples. Such is the unquestionable teaching of our Lord and of His disciples; it is darkened, undermined and denied by those who insist on Judaizing the Church by putting the Christian under the law as his rule of life (which, due to misunderstanding is a recurrence of the past unlearned Jews practice—NC). Truly they “understand neither what they say nor whereof they affirm” (1 Tim 1:7—NC).

Wm Kelly

Abide Above - Subpage

 

[DHC]

“The law is good, if a man use it lawfully”; and its lawful application is expressly not to form, guide and govern the righteous, but to deal with the lawless and disobedient, ungodly and sinful, unholy and profane, and, in short, with whatever is contrary to sound doctrine (1 Tim 8, 9).

Hello NetChaplain.

The quotation above is from (1 Timothy 1:8-9).

 

[james1523]

The Law is only one aspect of Judaized Christianity.
Judaism, as a shadow of the heavenly and spiritual truths, emphasized outward and physical things such as the Temple, the Law, the Priesthood, and Sacrifices.
The Judaism of Christianity started in the early centuries, and flourished with the Roman Catholicism, and continuing with Protestantism. This struggle between Judaizers and true Christians is evident in the New Testament epistles and Revelation.
In the early centuries, Church buildings and cathedrals replaced Jewish temples, clergy replaced Jewish priesthood, the mass replaced the Jewish sacrifices, and the letter of the law was upheld and mantained, as well as other matters such as tithing 10%. This is not Christianity - this is essentially Judaism. The great Cathedrals of Europe, or the elaborate entertainment centres of the protestant denominations, are all part of Judaized Christianity. John 4:24, Romans 2:28 makes clear that Christianity is a matter of the heart, and the outward physical things are only shadows of the real thing.

The "spirit of Judaizm" prevails in a church which
a) emphasizes the letter of the law over the spirit of the law - this comes down to emphasizing the outward aspects of the law, rather than the inward aspects and the fact that Christians are indwelt by the Spirit of Christ
b) emphasizes the physical building, location, service, and trimmings over the spiritual experience - John 4:23-24 makes clear that physical location is not important.
c) consists of full-time professional Christians "clergy" doing most of the work instead of the laity - 1 Corinthians clearly shows that everyone has different gifts for building up the Body each and every Sunday, and not only a few professionals.
d) consists of paid clergy who provide a service for an earthly reward (paycheck etc) - the ministers of Christ work with their hands to provide for themselves or are supported by the church. There is no such thing as paid careers in ministry.
d) emphasizes the communion or mass as something more than just a symbol - this is more a Catholic ritual, but also in Anglican and Lutheranism, that the bread and wine are something more than only pieces of bread and wine. To transform them into something more than only bread and wine is usually achieved by the priest using various waves of the hand, said prayers or blessings, and thus is more similar to a magic show (hocus pocus) or superstition than a simple meal of remembrance that Jesus commanded.

 

[DHC]

The Law is only one aspect of Judaized Christianity.
Judaism, as a shadow of the heavenly and spiritual truths, emphasized outward and physical things such as the Temple, the Law, the Priesthood, and Sacrifices.

Hello James.

Well written and understood, I particularly liked that Judaism was the external, physical form of the latter New Covenant.

 

[farout]

Not that God would have it done any other way in which it has been done, but if all men in the OT were as Abraham and others who He used, there would have been no need of the Mosaic Law which came after them. When all of them were brought to, and convinced of their indwelling sin, they chose to remain in belief and in fellowship with God.
-NC

Contemporary Judaizers

“The law is good, if a man use it lawfully”; and its lawful application is expressly not to form, guide and govern the righteous, but to deal with the lawless and disobedient, ungodly and sinful, unholy and profane, and, in short, with whatever is contrary to sound doctrine (1 Tim 8, 9). Sin, we are told in Romans 6, shall not have dominion over Christians, “for you are not under the law, but under grace”; and this is a chapter where the question is the righteousness walk of the saint, not his justification.

Yet in the face of this clear and uniform teaching of the New Testament, the tendency of most Christians habitually is to go back to law, especially where there is feeble separation from the world. But it is easily understood, for the world does not receive or understand the grace of God, whereas it can appreciate in the letter, the righteous law of God. Hence, where the world and the Christians are mixed together, the will of man soon takes the upper hand. Then, as the Christian cannot elevate the world to his standing, he must inevitably sink to that which he holds in common with the world. Thus both meet once more on Jewish ground, as if the Cross of Christ had never been, and the Holy Spirit was not sent down from heaven to gather believers out of the mixed condition into the Body of Christ apart from the world.

Even for the individual Christian, as well as for the Church and most of all for God’s truth, grace and glory, the loss has been incalculable. For the ordinary walk has been reduced to a string of negatives, save in public acts of philanthropy, religious activity, or ritual observances, which the Christian shares with any and everybody that will join him—plain ecumenism. It is not occupation with good according to God’s will, still less is it suffering for the sake of the Lord Jesus and of righteousness from a world which knows them not. This is not Christianity, though it is the state and the system of most Christians.

Did the Lord Jesus ever obey from the fear of judgment (which the Law threatened due to inability to keep perfectly—NC)? Was not His life a surrender of Himself to the holy will and pleasure of His Father? So our souls are to be occupied with the Father’s grace in His Son, if we are to find strength in pleasing Him. The mere avoidance of evil, the not doing this or that, is below our calling. Do we indeed desire to know and to do the Father’s will as His children? Are we zealous in learning to do well, no less than careful to cease from each evil? If not, the day will come when we may begin to do evil again, and with a conscience the less sensitive, because we have learned truth which we do not carry out.

To talk about the Ten Commandments as the rule for the Christian’s walk now, is to go back from the sun which rules the day to the moon which rules the night; it is to eclipse the Lord Jesus by Moses, under the delusive profession of doing God service. In general, what the law exacted from those under the principle of right, the Christian is responsible on the principle of grace to exceed in every possible way (Mat 5:20—NC). The scope of obedience is immensely increased; the inward motives are searched out and laid bare. The tendency to violence, corruption and falsehood is judged in its roots (old man—NC), and suffering wrongfully and withal in love takes the place of earthly righteousness for the disciples. Such is the unquestionable teaching of our Lord and of His disciples; it is darkened, undermined and denied by those who insist on Judaizing the Church by putting the Christian under the law as his rule of life (which, due to misunderstanding is a recurrence of the past unlearned Jews practice—NC). Truly they “understand neither what they say nor whereof they affirm” (1 Tim 1:7—NC).

Wm Kelly

Abide Above - Subpage

Question? Are you saying the LAW is invalid today?

 

[NetChaplain]

Question? Are you saying the LAW is invalid today?

Hi Farout - It depends of what you mean by the Law, for there are various concepts among many today concerning the meaning of "the Law."

 

[Last Things]

The Law is only one aspect of Judaized Christianity.
Judaism, as a shadow of the heavenly and spiritual truths, emphasized outward and physical things such as the Temple, the Law, the Priesthood, and Sacrifices.
The Judaism of Christianity started in the early centuries, and flourished with the Roman Catholicism, and continuing with Protestantism. This struggle between Judaizers and true Christians is evident in the New Testament epistles and Revelation.
In the early centuries, Church buildings and cathedrals replaced Jewish temples, clergy replaced Jewish priesthood, the mass replaced the Jewish sacrifices, and the letter of the law was upheld and mantained, as well as other matters such as tithing 10%. This is not Christianity - this is essentially Judaism. The great Cathedrals of Europe, or the elaborate entertainment centres of the protestant denominations, are all part of Judaized Christianity. John 4:24, Romans 2:28 makes clear that Christianity is a matter of the heart, and the outward physical things are only shadows of the real thing.

Not sure why you seem to argue that Christianity ought not to appear Jewish in any way, since it is from Judaism is the completion of Judaism. Jesus completed His faith. His is fullness of what the Old Testament revealed. I don't think any group of Christians believe that the outward is more important than the inward - but that the outward helps remind us of the inward.

The "spirit of Judaizm" prevails in a church which
a) emphasizes the letter of the law over the spirit of the law - this comes down to emphasizing the outward aspects of the law, rather than the inward aspects and the fact that Christians are indwelt by the Spirit of Christ
b) emphasizes the physical building, location, service, and trimmings over the spiritual experience - John 4:23-24 makes clear that physical location is not important.

The problem is that no Christian group necessities a particular location for worship.

c) consists of full-time professional Christians "clergy" doing most of the work instead of the laity - 1 Corinthians clearly shows that everyone has different gifts for building up the Body each and every Sunday, and not only a few professionals.

I believe that Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc all people that the primary mission of the Church is evangelization which is to be cared out by the people. Leaders - 'bishops' from episcopos means 'overseer'. They guide and lead the faithful who are the workers.

d) consists of paid clergy who provide a service for an earthly reward (paycheck etc) - the ministers of Christ work with their hands to provide for themselves or are supported by the church. There is no such thing as paid careers in ministry.

Many paid ministers who do not belong to a prosperity Gospel group make far less money than what they could make in another field with a similar education. Catholic priests, for example, have equal to or greater education (4 year undergrad, 4 or more grad) than doctors and those with doctorates. Yet, they earn less than teachers. Hardly about an 'earthly reward'. Paying ministers allows one to have leaders who are well educated, trained, and experience in all the various aspects they are involved in. This involves preaching, teaching, counseling, administration and so on.

d) emphasizes the communion or mass as something more than just a symbol - this is more a Catholic ritual, but also in Anglican and Lutheranism, that the bread and wine are something more than only pieces of bread and wine. To transform them into something more than only bread and wine is usually achieved by the priest using various waves of the hand, said prayers or blessings, and thus is more similar to a magic show (hocus pocus) or superstition than a simple meal of remembrance that Jesus commanded.

I am not sure how that is a Jewish view - the Jews believe nothing about this and would find it offensive. They would find the symbolic aspect more comfortable.

 

[james1523]

Not sure why you seem to argue that Christianity ought not to appear Jewish in any way, since it is from Judaism is the completion of Judaism. Jesus completed His faith. His is fullness of what the Old Testament revealed. I don't think any group of Christians believe that the outward is more important than the inward - but that the outward helps remind us of the inward.

The amount of money spent on outward buildings versus evangelizm is evidence enough.

The problem is that no Christian group necessities a particular location for worship.

They do indeed - the local church building or cathedral.

I believe that Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc all people that the primary mission of the Church is evangelization which is to be cared out by the people. Leaders - 'bishops' from episcopos means 'overseer'. They guide and lead the faithful who are the workers.

In the average church service there are usually not more than 5 people conducting or assisting with the service whilst the others attend and watch and participate from their seats, normally in the form of repeating what they are told to say from a book.

Many paid ministers who do not belong to a prosperity Gospel group make far less money than what they could make in another field with a similar education. Catholic priests, for example, have equal to or greater education (4 year undergrad, 4 or more grad) than doctors and those with doctorates. Yet, they earn less than teachers. Hardly about an 'earthly reward'. Paying ministers allows one to have leaders who are well educated, trained, and experience in all the various aspects they are involved in. This involves preaching, teaching, counseling, administration and so on.

The issue here is not the amount, it is the principle of preaching the gospel for gain, whether that gain is $10 a week or $1000 a week makes no difference.

 

[NoHype]

I think there's much confusion here about this topic. The idea of Judaizers comes from the dealings the Apostles had to put up with concerning the leaven of sects like the Pharisees, Sadduccees, and Zealots, especially Apostle Paul when he warned of those of them that crept into Christ's Church like in his Epistle to the Galatians.

What that means is that Judaism was a newer religious system of doctrines that developed during and after Judah's 70 years captivity to Babylon. That captivity is when the Jews stopped using the old Hebrew and created a set of religious doctrines outside God's Word called the Babylonian Talmud.

This is why even today the religion of Judaism is anit-Gospel and anti-Christian. It was especially that way in the days of Christ's Apostles. In the Talmud of Judaism they treat our Lord Jesus Christ as a 'seditionist' come to overthrow the government, and authorize their followers to lie, cheat, and worse, to the Gentiles not converted to Judaism. The early Churches in Europe understood this which is why many European countries expelled many orthodox Jews out of their nations because of their trouble-making against The Gospel. Many of those Jews became wanderers from nation to nation until they started returning back to the holy lands. This is why Martin Luther was so enraged against them in his days.

Did that apply to all the scattered Jews then? No, for quite a lot of them turned to Christ Jesus and left many of the doctrines of Judaism. But even some of those were pretenders, which is the real subject of modern Judaizers.

Their later doctrines were additions, and not things given by God per the Old Covenant law and prophets. This is why our Lord Jesus and His Apostles were so quick to rebuke their 'tradition' (Matt.15:1-9).

Does this mean Christian Doctrine originated from the religion of Judaism? Absolutely not! Christian Doctrine originates from God's Word from Genesis all the way through to Revelation, with the things of the Old Covenant nailed to Christ's cross. Thus the idea of the Old Covenant is not... the same idea as the Old Testament Books. The sincere Bible student should easily know this, because there's still a lot of prophecy yet unfulfilled in the Old Testament Books, even in Genesis. And, many of the laws established in today's Christian societies come straight from God's laws given apart from the Old Covenant written in the Old Testament Books.

Does any of that now mean God's laws are now 'dead' for us Christians? God forbid, no. Apostle Paul's idea in Romans and Galatians was that IF we walk by The Spirit then we won't be doing anything against God's laws. The law was to point the Way to Christ Jesus as a schoolmaster tool, not the giving of Salvation itself.

God's laws are still important today for Christian society, because that is how the wicked unrighteous are to be dealt with...

Apostle Paul himself says...

1 Tim 1:8-11
8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
(KJV)

The early Christian Church in Europe followed more of God's laws than today. Lot of the unrighteousness loose today in the Christian nations did not exist to the levels it does today. So one should never think God's laws were only about the Old Covenant, for that is to remove the laws that God gave to handle the wickedness and evil among His people, so we could have peace.

 

[NetChaplain]

The law was to point the Way to Christ Jesus as a schoolmaster tool, not the giving of Salvation itself.

Hi NH - Amen! "By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Gal 2:16). The giving of "the Law is good, holy and just," but the keeping of it at best was carnal, because of the dispensation at that time concerning the general assembly of Israel, to whom only it was given (but even now "taken away" from the Jew--Heb 10:9).

"Not after the law of a carnal commandment" (Heb 7:16); which was a carnal one, if we consider the persons to whom it belonged, the Israelites according to the flesh; it was incumbent upon, and might be performed by such who were only carnal; and it was performed by and for men that were in the flesh, or mortal.” JG

 

[Last Things]

The amount of money spent on outward buildings versus evangelizm is evidence enough.

Actually buildings often become places of evangelization. Russia was inspired to explore the Christian faith based on some of the beautiful cathedrals. It gets people to think of something higher. People know where churches are and sometimes find their faith there going inside alone. Steel buildings and rented property does not seem to be good investments

They do indeed - the local church building or cathedral.

That is a general place of worship. Catholic Masses, for example, can be celebrated anywhere. They do not require a church, or even a building.

In the average church service there are usually not more than 5 people conducting or assisting with the service whilst the others attend and watch and participate from their seats, normally in the form of repeating what they are told to say from a book.

And that is problematic, how, exactly? They do not 'repeat' what they are told to say, they say what they believe as part of a dialogue. I don't see how, for example, a tent with a bunch of people ringing tambourines, dancing around, playing with snakes, and speaking out in tongues is a more authentic form of worship. Either everyone is doing their own thing, which makes coming together rather pointless, or people symbolize the unity of their body by participating in something together.

The issue here is not the amount, it is the principle of preaching the gospel for gain, whether that gain is $10 a week or $1000 a week makes no difference.

Which I see nothing wrong with. We could saying it would be better if people did not have to pay for doctors or medical care - okay great, now we just end up with people untrained and uninformed and inexperienced treating people.

Oh, except the soul is greater than the flesh.

 

[james1523]

Actually buildings often become places of evangelization. Russia was inspired to explore the Christian faith based on some of the beautiful cathedrals. It gets people to think of something higher. People know where churches are and sometimes find their faith there going inside alone. Steel buildings and rented property does not seem to be good investments

Russia chose the Eastern Orthodox religion largely for political and economic reasons, such as wanting to maintain close ties with Constantinople. If buildings "often" become places of evangelization then churches should be overflowing, however statistics show that church attendance has been in steady decline in most traditional denominations. I don't think it has much to do with the building itself, but the preaching.

That is a general place of worship. Catholic Masses, for example, can be celebrated anywhere. They do not require a church, or even a building.

But they do require a priest don't they?

And that is problematic, how, exactly? They do not 'repeat' what they are told to say, they say what they believe as part of a dialogue. I don't see how, for example, a tent with a bunch of people ringing tambourines, dancing around, playing with snakes, and speaking out in tongues is a more authentic form of worship. Either everyone is doing their own thing, which makes coming together rather pointless, or people symbolize the unity of their body by participating in something together.

Disorder is at one extreme, and constrained orders of service are the other extreme. Neither are particularly spiritual. Scripture says in church each person has something to contribute:
1 Cor 14:26 "What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up."

Church is a place where each person brings something spiritual to contribute, like a pot luck dinner. If everyone is speaking what is already written and provided to them, they contribute nothing and bring nothing new.
I don't recall the scripture where Jesus handed his disciples service books and said "repeat, after me" . Jesus taught His disciples how to pray, not what to pray.

Which I see nothing wrong with. We could saying it would be better if people did not have to pay for doctors or medical care - okay great, now we just end up with people untrained and uninformed and inexperienced treating people.

Oh, except the soul is greater than the flesh.

Are you suggesting that Jesus, and the apostles who did not preach for gain, would have had the least effective ministries, because they did not get paid?
It is not about the amount or the quality of the service, it is about the principle of receiving worldly reward for a spiritual service, which you admit, is greater than the physical realm. I would suggest that those who minister for a spiritual and heavenly reward, will provide better spiritual service because their heart and mind is set *only* on the eternal and spiritual things, and not on the temporal things.

 

[Last Things]

Russia chose the Eastern Orthodox religion largely for political and economic reasons, such as wanting to maintain close ties with Constantinople. If buildings "often" become places of evangelization then churches should be overflowing, however statistics show that church attendance has been in steady decline in most traditional denominations. I don't think it has much to do with the building itself, but the preaching.

I think it has to do with the culture and materialism. People have temptations to do other things on Sunday.

But they do require a priest don't they?

A Mass, yes, a communion service, no.

Disorder is at one extreme, and constrained orders of service are the other extreme. Neither are particularly spiritual. Scripture says in church each person has something to contribute:
1 Cor 14:26 "What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up."

Church is a place where each person brings something spiritual to contribute, like a pot luck dinner. If everyone is speaking what is already written and provided to them, they contribute nothing and bring nothing new.
I don't recall the scripture where Jesus handed his disciples service books and said "repeat, after me" . Jesus taught His disciples how to pray, not what to pray.

The problem i have here is that you seem to think gifts are all about what we do at church for one hour a week. Church is about more than what is done for that hour.

Are you suggesting that Jesus, and the apostles who did not preach for gain, would have had the least effective ministries, because they did not get paid?
It is not about the amount or the quality of the service, it is about the principle of receiving worldly reward for a spiritual service, which you admit, is greater than the physical realm. I would suggest that those who minister for a spiritual and heavenly reward, will provide better spiritual service because their heart and mind is set *only* on the eternal and spiritual things, and not on the temporal things.

They were paid, but they did not minister for money. Jesus was invited to meals - receiving something. They certainly had money - Judas kept it - where do you think it came from? People minister for heavenly rewards, not for the sake of money simply because the rest of the people help them out financially.

 

[NoHype]

Hi NH - Amen! "By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Gal 2:16). The giving of "the Law is good, holy and just," but the keeping of it at best was carnal, because of the dispensation at that time concerning the general assembly of Israel, to whom only it was given (but even now "taken away" from the Jew--Heb 10:9).

"Not after the law of a carnal commandment" (Heb 7:16); which was a carnal one, if we consider the persons to whom it belonged, the Israelites according to the flesh; it was incumbent upon, and might be performed by such who were only carnal; and it was performed by and for men that were in the flesh, or mortal.” JG

Don't go too far with that idea, because our Lord Jesus did not nail everything in God's law to His cross. If you believe He did, then you would be in agreement with Baalim, loosing all criminals and unrighteousness upon our streets (which is exactly what some in Christ's Church have done and are doing).

Never forget what Paul told Timothy here...

1 Tim 1:8-11
8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
(KJV)

How could Apostle Paul make that part of The Gospel of Jesus Christ? Believe it or not, that's exactly what Paul did there. So not all of God's law was done away with under Christ Jesus. Per Col. 2 we know it was the handwriting of ordinances in God's laws that Christ nailed to His cross. That did not include many of God's commandments first given to Israel and now to all those in Christ Jesus.

 

[james1523]

The problem i have here is that you seem to think gifts are all about what we do at church for one hour a week. Church is about more than what is done for that hour.

1 Cor 14:26 is speaking about the Lord's day (Sunday) service, because it says in 1 cor 14:23, the whole church comes together. The early church services were characterized by active participation, and mutual edification. This is not the situation in church services today, where only a few actively participate, and everyone else listens and watches, and merely reads aloud what they are told to say out of an order of service book. This same manner of service is conducted week after week, year after year, with only minor variations in the service allowed for particular occasions and seasons (such as Easter, Pentecost, Christmas, Baptisms, Funerals, Weddings, etc).

They were paid, but they did not minister for money. Jesus was invited to meals - receiving something. They certainly had money - Judas kept it - where do you think it came from? People minister for heavenly rewards, not for the sake of money simply because the rest of the people help them out financially.

Being invited to meal is called hospitality, not payment for spiritual service. I believe the disciples worked, they also combined their savings, and when money was tight they got it out of fishes mouths... they did receive help and gifts from others, but they did not receive payment or rely wholly upon donations from church members. They were not full time jobs with paid salary, which is the situation in today's churches. Unlike the disciples, the employed priest does not have to trust God for provision and finances. There is no need for a priest to really trust in God for provision if he knows his next pay check is guaranteed by his position of employment. As a result, his lack of faith may cause lack of faith in other areas, which is detrimental to his personal salvation and for the whole church under his care.

 

[NetChaplain]

So not all of God's law was done away with under Christ Jesus.

What you say is a general belief and understandably so because of the teachings of our upbringing in the knowledge of Christ. I believe the focus on the present dispensation is the life of Christ (Col 3:4), which those prior to the giving of the Law were predisposed of concerning faith, which they (i.e. Abraham, David, ect.) walked in through the revealing of Christ's atonement in types and shadows.

Faith in God has always been within believers in Him, which could not come from the Law. Instead of faith and life, the Law brought condemnation and death by the truth which revealed where man was guilty, and this was one of it's purposes (the other being sin's condemnation in Christ's crucifixion) so God could begin teaching and drawing others to Him. The Father sending His Son was the final act concerning faith in those who desire to be right with Him.

It's all about "faith," and "the Law is not of faith," but rather confirmation of judgement in the attributing of guilt: "And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death" (Gal 3:12; Rom 7:10).

 

[NetChaplain]

So not all of God's law was done away with under Christ Jesus.

What you say is a general belief and understandably so because of the teachings of our upbringing in the knowledge of Christ. I believe the focus on the present dispensation is the life of Christ (Col 3:4), which those prior to the giving of the Law were predisposed of concerning faith, which they (i.e. Abraham, David, ect.) walked in through the revealing of Christ's atonement in types and shadows.

Faith in God has always been within believers in Him, which could not come from the Law. Instead of faith and life, the Law brought condemnation and death by the truth which revealed where man was guilty, and this was one of its purposes (the other being sin's condemnation in Christ's crucifixion) so God could begin teaching and drawing others to Him. The Father sending His Son was the final act concerning faith in those who desire to be right with Him.

It's all about "faith," and "the Law is not of faith," but rather confirmation of judgement in the attributing of guilt: "And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death" (Gal 3:12; Rom 7:10).

 

[NoHype]

What you say is a general belief and understandably so because of the teachings of our upbringing in the knowledge of Christ. I believe the focus on the present dispensation is the life of Christ (Col 3:4), which those prior to the giving of the Law were predisposed of concerning faith, which they (i.e. Abraham, David, ect.) walked in through the revealing of Christ's atonement in types and shadows.

Faith in God has always been within believers in Him, which could not come from the Law. Instead of faith and life, the Law brought condemnation and death by the truth which revealed where man was guilty, and this was one of it's purposes (the other being sin's condemnation in Christ's crucifixion) so God could begin teaching and drawing others to Him. The Father sending His Son was the final act concerning faith in those who desire to be right with Him.

It's all about "faith," and "the Law is not of faith," but rather confirmation of judgement in the attributing of guilt: "And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death" (Gal 3:12; Rom 7:10).

So in your view the law is always bad, and to be discarded in Christian society?? Is that the view you have about God's law today?

 

[NetChaplain]

So in your view the law is always bad, and to be discarded in Christian society?? Is that the view you have about God's law today?

The Law can be nothing but good (Rom 7:12), the instruction is in what the Law incurred (guilt) and even this is good, but only to those who desire to be right with God.

"Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good (Law); that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful" (7:13).

 

[NoHype]

The Law can be nothing but good (Rom 7:12), the instruction is in what the Law incurred (guilt) and even this is good, but only to those who desire to be right with God.

So in your view, God's law was and is only about incurring 'guilt' for those who want to be righteous followers of God? Isn't that what you're saying? Or should I have said you only believe God's laws 'were'... for incurring guilt for those who sought righteousness, because you don't believe any of God's law is in effect anymore? right?

If that is what you believe, then I can say beyond any doubt, and by The Holy Spirit, that your thinking on God's law aligns with the lawless one, and I think you know who that lawless one is.