file13

A wild boar has entered in the vineyard
Mar 17, 2010
1,443
178
Dallas, TX
✟17,452.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Reformed theology tends to give the law a bit more of a role than Lutherans. I believe what the pastor is saying is in keeping with Reformed thought. He did not say that we are justified by keeping the law, but that to fully please God we should keep it.

I understand what you guys are getting at. But the problem is, if the pastor is of the same mind as our dear young enthusiastic brother here, it's not just that. We're suddenly confronted with this bizarre notion that we shouldn't eat bacon, not because it's unclean, but that we're not allowed to eat it because it is not designed as food for humans and is also, a sin--despite meeting the criteria of an edible item that provides nutrition and does not harm a human.

This is what I'm trying to get our young brother to confront and reconcile between the Old and New Covenants. Why the apparent contradiction? Well, of course there is no contradiction between Paul and Moses because they're not prohibited because of the fact that they are pigs.

Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.
(Genesis 9:3 ESV)​

Do pigs move? Did this covenant come before Sinai?

If we're going to go backward rather than forward, why stop at Sinai when we can go Noahide?

So do we find exactly what Paul said we would find where people prohibit food? If so, then it's not an issue of "he didn't specify justification." They are making something into sin which is not sin for adopted daughters and sons of Christ and putting unnecessary burdens upon us.

If you don't want to eat bacon, you rock on. If you think it's unhealthy, you might even be right. But to call it sin for Christians goes over the line. If it was important, then we'd expect to find that the Apostolic Church (who no doubt had bigger problems with this then we do) would have mentioned it. Instead we find the ruling:

Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
(Acts 15:19-21 ESV)​

Noahide echoes?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

CalledOutOne

The World Weary
Apr 12, 2012
815
55
Moved.
Visit site
✟16,249.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Ok, so we've established that pork is no longer unclean. But how do you reconcile this strange distinction you're making with Paul:
Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.
(1 Timothy 4:1-5 ESV)

Are All Things Now Considered Food? (1 Timothy 4:4) (31 min) on Vimeo
That video answers your question.
I do not agree with everything Psalm 119 believes, but I see nothing wrong with what they're teaching here.
 
Upvote 0

CalledOutOne

The World Weary
Apr 12, 2012
815
55
Moved.
Visit site
✟16,249.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.
(Genesis 9:3 ESV)​

Do humans move? Is it okay to eat another human? Obviously Noah knew the animals which are food. Look at the texts here:
As for you, take for yourself some of all food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them. (Genesis 6:21 NASB)​
He knows what food is and isn't already according to what God said here. Not only that, but he knows which animals are clean and unclean already (not that clean and unclean applies now).
You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female... Of clean animals and animals that are not clean and birds and everything that creeps on the ground(Genesis 7:2, 8 NASB)​


Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
(Acts 15:19-21 ESV)​

Let's look at the context of this verse a little. First is that there are lost Pharisees who say, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1). Then there are the believing Pharisees who said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses" (Acts 15:5). Then were the apostles and elders (Acts 15:6).

So, some who were believers said that it is necessary to direct them to observe the Law of Moses (which is really the Law that God gave).
That's when Peter stood up and testified that the believing Gentiles were already saved and there is no need to make them keep the Law in order to be saved, because that is a yoke no one can bare.

Then James stood up and quoted a prophecy about Jesus' resurrection which brings in the Gentiles and says:
Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath. (Acts 15:19-21 NASB)​

It seems that from the text, they gave the Gentiles a list of laws to keep for the time, so they don't burden the new believers, FOR (literally "because") Moses will be taught in the synagogues every Sabbath. It seems to be saying that they are going to learn the rest in the synagogues (which Christians in the early church seem to attend. See Acts 9:2).
 
Upvote 0

student ad x

Senior Contributor
Feb 20, 2009
9,835
805
just outside the forrest
✟29,077.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I am not a Presbyterian I am a Baptist but I hope you will accept my answer anyway. ;)


Both the Westminster ( Presbyterian) and1689 London Baptist confessions give the Reformed view of the Law. Sadly both make the Law to be a rule of life for the believer. While it doesn't save us we are bound to live by it according to them.

It is subtle legalism and puts the believer once again under a yoke of bondage that no one but Christ has ever been able to bear. What they have done is actually destroy the greatness and glory of the Law. Instead of seeing the Law as far too high for us to reach they have lowered its standard in order for us to keep it. The call that righteousness but it is only unrighteousness.

Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to all who believe. Rom. 10:4
He is the end of the Law as to its object. He is the object of the Law.
He is the end of the Law as to its purpose. He is the purpose of the Law which not only shows us our need of Him but Him in all its types and shadows.
He is end as in fulfillment of the Law. He fulfilled the Law in all its requirements and all it pictures.
He is the end of the Law as in its termination. It no longer has any hold whatsoevr on a believer because He has put it to an end.


As to the Gentiles never being under the Law that thinking comes from Dispensational theology. It is opposite to Reformed Covenant theology which believes all are under the Law by nature. While the Gentiles never had the sacrifices they did have a law that is natural to all men. Rom. 2:14

So yes it is consistent with Reformed Covenant theology (Presbyterianism) to see the Law as that pastor does.
Do let the rest of us Reformers know when your done waffling on doctrine. :blush:
 
Upvote 0

file13

A wild boar has entered in the vineyard
Mar 17, 2010
1,443
178
Dallas, TX
✟17,452.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Are All Things Now Considered Food? (1 Timothy 4:4) (31 min) on Vimeo
That video answers your question.
I do not agree with everything Psalm 119 believes, but I see nothing wrong with what they're teaching here.

I don't suppose you could sum up the objections in response to Gen 9 so I don't have to watch the whole thing?

Do humans move? Is it okay to eat another human?

I answered this when I explicitly said "despite meeting the criteria of an edible item that provides nutrition and does not harm a human."

Obviously Noah knew the animals which are food.

Look at the texts here:
As for you, take for yourself some of all food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them. (Genesis 6:21 NASB)​

No. That's not what it says (I bolded it).

Are pigs edible?

Yes, which further proves my point that food is defined as something edible which provides nutrition and does not harm a human (although I suppose the "provides nutrition" part might be redundant depending on how we understand edible). You on the other hand are asserting that something is food only if God explicitly calls it food. But of course, I just pointed out where he says all moving things are food to which you have not refuted.

This is the point. Eating bacon is not a sin because it's not food. It's a sin because it was deemed unclean in the Old Covenant based on features of the animal. So it's not food because it's unclean, it isn't not food because God hasn't explicitly said it's not food or not edible. God clearly has given us knowledge to know what edible means and when something edible does not involve the murder of a human. Notice:
And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you.
(Leviticus 11:7 ESV)
Animals which exhibit these features are deemed "unclean" under the covenant, and they are not to eat anything unclean under this covenant. This prohibition does not apply in the Noahide or New Covenant, where Scripture explicitly says that Christ has made all foods clean, meaning the fact that pigs have these features no longer prohibits us from eating them under this New Covenant. Pigs still have these features, but these features no longer make them unclean, because Christ has made the distinction meaningless.

He knows what food is and isn't already according to what God said here. Not only that, but he knows which animals are clean and unclean already (not that clean and unclean applies now).
You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female... Of clean animals and animals that are not clean and birds and everything that creeps on the ground(Genesis 7:2, 8 NASB)​

Yes, it is not disputed that Noah had a previously knowledge of what makes an animal clean or unclean (though we're not told where he acquired this knowledge). What is disputed is that Noah was prohibited from eating unclean foods. You have not shown where God prohibits him from eating unclean foods and I have in fact shown you where he explicitly says Noah could eat them. In the light of explicit evidence to the contrary, it seems absurd to make implicit arguments here, which is what you're doing.

It seems that from the text, they gave the Gentiles a list of laws to keep for the time, so they don't burden the new believers, FOR (literally "because") Moses will be taught in the synagogues every Sabbath. It seems to be saying that they are going to learn the rest in the synagogues (which Christians in the early church seem to attend. See Acts 9:2).

My point in bringing up the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 was to point out that James seems to be alluding to the Noahide covenant, where not specific foods were prohibited, but the ingestion of blood. This is a whole other can of worms here which I'll avoid commenting on and which might further hijack out sisters thread and get us off topic concerning foods. I'll simply say that I respectfully disagree with your interpretation here.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

CalledOutOne

The World Weary
Apr 12, 2012
815
55
Moved.
Visit site
✟16,249.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
In Relationship
I answered this when I explicitly said "despite meeting the criteria of an edible item that provides nutrition and does not harm a human."
Then the conclusion is all doesn't mean all. That is the Calvinist perspective after all. ;)


Are pigs edible?
Yes, which further proves my point that food is defined as something edible which provides nutrition and does not harm a human (although I suppose the "provides nutrition" part might be redundant depending on how we understand edible). You on the other hand are asserting that something is food only if God explicitly calls it food. But of course, I just pointed out where he says all moving things are food to which you have not refuted.
Leviticus says that pigs aren't edible. I just quoted the verse to you. That verse sums up what the chapter is about. It is about what is edible, and what isn't. Food = Edible. The Bible says pigs are neither. Edibility is not defined by that you can eat them, it is defined by God, as all things are.

This is the point. Eating bacon is not a sin because it's not food. It's a sin because it was deemed unclean in the Old Covenant based on features of the animal. So it's not food because it's unclean, it isn't not food because God hasn't explicitly said it's not food or not edible. God clearly has given us knowledge to know what edible means and when something edible does not involve the murder of a human. Notice:
And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you.
(Leviticus 11:7 ESV)​
Actually, it is a sin because God said no. And He did say that it wasn't edible in Leviticus 11:46.

Animals which exhibit these features are deemed "unclean" under the covenant, and they are not to eat anything unclean under this covenant. This prohibition does not apply in the Noahide or New Covenant, where Scripture explicitly says that Christ has made all foods clean, meaning the fact that pigs have these features no longer prohibits us from eating them under this New Covenant. Pigs still have these features, but these features no longer make them unclean, because Christ has made the distinction meaningless.
Still I insist pigs are not food.



Yes, it is not disputed that Noah had a previously knowledge of what makes an animal clean or unclean (though we're not told where he acquired this knowledge). What is disputed is that Noah was prohibited from eating unclean foods. You have not shown where God prohibits him from eating unclean foods and I have in fact shown you where he explicitly says Noah could eat them. In the light of explicit evidence to the contrary, it seems absurd to make implicit arguments here, which is what you're doing.
I showed you the language used. That is the best I can do. God said take what is "edible". Obviously that is not pigs.



My point in bringing up the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 was to point out that James seems to be alluding to the Noahide covenant, where not specific foods were prohibited, but the ingestion of blood. This is a whole other can of worms here which I'll avoid commenting on and which might further hijack out sisters thread and get us off topic concerning foods. I'll simply say that I respectfully disagree with your interpretation here.

I will use this to get back on topic. The thing is, the decision in Acts 15 says two things:
  1. That Christians will be keeping the Sabbath
  2. That Christians will learn the rest of the Law in the synagogues

From this, I see nothing wrong with what her pastor is teaching. It can be adequately defended and, believe it or not, many people have come around to this truth.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I understand what you guys are getting at. But the problem is, if the pastor is of the same mind as our dear young enthusiastic brother here, it's not just that. We're suddenly confronted with this bizarre notion that we shouldn't eat bacon, not because it's unclean, but that we're not allowed to eat it because it is not designed as food for humans and is also, a sin--despite meeting the criteria of an edible item that provides nutrition and does not harm a human.

Maybe I misunderstood your question. The term "law" is often used in Christian theology to refer to all behavioral standards that come from God, whether the Mosaic law, Jesus' teachings, or even interpretations developed by the Church under Mat 16:19. That's particularly true when the term "Law" is juxtaposed with Gospel. I believe salvation is best understood as including change in our hearts resulting in a change in behavior. So yes, it is pleasing to God if we follow his commands and teachings.

Now, is that what you meant in your question? Not if by Law you mean commandments given specifically to the Jewish people, such as the prohibition of pork, or the supplements added by oral law. I was thinking of Law more broadly, as Torah, teaching, which for Gentiles doesn't mean the full Mosaic law. See Acts 15.
 
Upvote 0

file13

A wild boar has entered in the vineyard
Mar 17, 2010
1,443
178
Dallas, TX
✟17,452.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Then the conclusion is all doesn't mean all. That is the Calvinist perspective after all. ;)

I brought this up because your objection was invalid based on what I had already claimed.

Leviticus says that pigs aren't edible. I just quoted the verse to you. That verse sums up what the chapter is about. It is about what is edible, and what isn't. Food = Edible. The Bible says pigs are neither. Edibility is not defined by that you can eat them, it is defined by God, as all things are.

That's the problem with doing English word studies with a single translation:
This is the law about beast and bird and every living creature that moves through the waters and every creature that swarms on the ground, to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean and between the living creature that may be eaten and the living creature that may not be eaten.
(Leviticus 11:46-47 ESV)
Are you saying your entire argument depends on the NASB's translation? In fact, if you examine the Hebrew, the word "eaten" is the same word.

Guess what else is this same Hebrew word for edible your argument depends on? Finally, guess what Hebrew words we find in Genesis for "food." Humm, we seem to have the same word for food in Gen 6:21 as we do in 9:3....

Thus, pigs were food for Noah and they are for us if we like.

Still I insist pigs are not food.

I showed you the language used. That is the best I can do. God said take what is "edible". Obviously that is not pigs.

Well I hope not after you examine the Hebrew. You don't need to know the language to use tools to compare the Hebrew words and affirm that this distinction you're making only exists in the NASB.

I will use this to get back on topic. The thing is, the decision in Acts 15 says two things:
  1. That Christians will be keeping the Sabbath
  2. That Christians will learn the rest of the Law in the synagogues
From this, I see nothing wrong with what her pastor is teaching. It can be adequately defended and, believe it or not, many people have come around to this truth.

Brother, this isn't a place to continue to debate against the Reformed traditions and what you are expressing here is not only not Biblical, it's not Reformed. That being said, the sabbath issue is contested within the Reformed traditions and I personally will not debate this issue. Others can if they like, but when it comes to the issue of food, I think I've shown that God clearly did allow bacon in the past and so we shouldn't be surprised when it's allowed again after Christ. If you have a personal conscience hang up about pork, then by all means, don't eat it and perhaps we'll can as a community try to be courteous as to not offend you.
Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
(Romans 14:20-23 ESV)
 
Upvote 0

file13

A wild boar has entered in the vineyard
Mar 17, 2010
1,443
178
Dallas, TX
✟17,452.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Maybe I misunderstood your question. The term "law" is often used in Christian theology to refer to all behavioral standards that come from God, whether the Mosaic law, Jesus' teachings, or even interpretations developed by the Church under Mat 16:19. That's particularly true when the term "Law" is juxtaposed with Gospel. I believe salvation is best understood as including change in our hearts resulting in a change in behavior. So yes, it is pleasing to God if we follow his commands and teachings.

Honestly brother, I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. Oh yes, we should strive the please God and "keep His commandments." But we have to ask, "is this still required of us?"

This is the whole issue when it comes to food. If we didn't have such strong statements in the NT about this, I don't think any of us would have a problem avoiding pork. My parents are SDAs and they have great veggie food, so no issues with me personally about not eating pork if it really was forbidden in the NT. But is it? I think it clearly isn't, just as it was not for Noah.

Now, is that what you meant in your question? Not if by Law you mean commandments given specifically to the Jewish people, such as the prohibition of pork, or the supplements added by oral law. I was thinking of Law more broadly, as Torah, teaching, which for Gentiles doesn't mean the full Mosaic law. See Acts 15.

Again, I'm not really sure what this has to do with the quoted part, so I'm not really sure what the context is you want me to respond to is. :confused:

That being said, I agree that there are necessary distinctions we have to make when tossing about the term Law, because, yes, it does have different conditions which do not necessarily apply to different people in different times. But again, not really sure what you're asking. :sorry:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

CalledOutOne

The World Weary
Apr 12, 2012
815
55
Moved.
Visit site
✟16,249.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Brother, this isn't a place to continue to debate against the Reformed traditions and what you are expressing here is not only not Biblical, it's not Reformed.

funny-animal-gifs-lemonparty-i-love-parties-ill-just-click-right-oh-god-no-no-no-no.gif
 
Upvote 0

file13

A wild boar has entered in the vineyard
Mar 17, 2010
1,443
178
Dallas, TX
✟17,452.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married

I'm not abandoning the thread. I think I've thoroughly debunked your claim about food as being based on a single English translation. If you'd like to keep the thread going, feel free to refute my last response.

That being said, I'm just not going to argue the sabbath issue here just as I won't argue the issue of baptism or the slightly differing views of communion here. Different Reformed folks have different views on these issues and so I choose to not start a pointless argument to cause trouble within the body. You wanna keep the Lord's Day Sabbath, rock on brother! :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

CalledOutOne

The World Weary
Apr 12, 2012
815
55
Moved.
Visit site
✟16,249.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
In Relationship
I'm not abandoning the thread. I think I've thoroughly debunked your claim about food as being based on a single English translation. If you'd like to keep the thread going, feel free to refute my last response.

That being said, I'm just not going to argue the sabbath issue here just as I won't argue the issue of baptism or the slightly differing views of communion here. Different Reformed folks have different views on these issues and so I choose to not start a pointless argument to cause trouble within the body. You wanna keep the Lord's Day Sabbath, rock on brother! :thumbsup:

It just seemed like your post was putting an end on things. To be honest, I love the Law and I love keeping it, but I'm not going to force it on others. You guys, according to the prophecy, will come around to it eventually.

Whether it is a sin or not is debatable. I have verses to support both, but for now, the prophecy.

“Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘It will yet be that peoples will come, even the inhabitants of many cities. The inhabitants of one will go to another, saying, “Let us go at once to entreat the favor of the LORD, and to seek the LORD of hosts; I will also go.” So many peoples and mighty nations will come to seek the LORD of hosts in Jerusalem and to entreat the favor of the LORD.’ Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘In those days ten men from all the nations will grasp the garment of a Jew, saying, “Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.”’” (Zechariah 8:20-23 NASB)​

Then in that day
The nations will resort to the root of Jesse,
Who will stand as a signal for the peoples;
And His resting place will be glorious. (Isaiah 11:10 NASB)​

“Be joyful with Jerusalem and rejoice for her, all you who love her;
Be exceedingly glad with her, all you who mourn over her,
That you may nurse and be satisfied with her comforting breasts,
That you may suck and be delighted with her bountiful bosom.”
For thus says the LORD, “Behold, I extend peace to her like a river,
And the glory of the nations like an overflowing stream;
And you will be nursed, you will be carried on the hip and fondled on the knees.
“As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you;
And you will be comforted in Jerusalem.”
Then you will see this, and your heart will be glad,
And your bones will flourish like the new grass;
And the hand of the LORD will be made known to His servants,
But He will be indignant toward His enemies.
For behold, the LORD will come in fire
And His chariots like the whirlwind,
To render His anger with fury,
And His rebuke with flames of fire.
For the LORD will execute judgment by fire
And by His sword on all flesh,
And those slain by the LORD will be many.
“Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go to the gardens,
Following one in the center,
Who eat swine’s flesh, detestable things and mice,
Will come to an end altogether,” declares the LORD.
“For I know their works and their thoughts; the time is coming to gather all nations and tongues. And they shall come and see My glory. I will set a sign among them and will send survivors from them to the nations: Tarshish, Put, Lud, Meshech, Tubal and Javan, to the distant coastlands that have neither heard My fame nor seen My glory. And they will declare My glory among the nations. Then they shall bring all your brethren from all the nations as a grain offering to the LORD, on horses, in chariots, in litters, on mules and on camels, to My holy mountain Jerusalem,” says the LORD, “just as the sons of Israel bring their grain offering in a clean vessel to the house of the LORD. I will also take some of them for priests and for Levites,” says the LORD.
“For just as the new heavens and the new earth
Which I make will endure before Me,” declares the LORD,
“So your offspring and your name will endure.
“And it shall be from new moon to new moon
And from sabbath to sabbath,
All mankind will come to bow down before Me,” says the LORD.
“Then they will go forth and look
On the corpses of the men
Who have transgressed against Me.
For their worm will not die
And their fire will not be quenched;
And they will be an abhorrence to all mankind.” (Isaiah 66:10-24 NASB)​

“Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for My holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you went. I will vindicate the holiness of My great name which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD,” declares the Lord GOD, “when I prove Myself holy among you in their sight. For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. You will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers; so you will be My people, and I will be your God. Moreover, I will save you from all your uncleanness; and I will call for the grain and multiply it, and I will not bring a famine on you. I will multiply the fruit of the tree and the produce of the field, so that you will not receive again the disgrace of famine among the nations. Then you will remember your evil ways and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and your abominations. I am not doing this for your sake,” declares the Lord GOD, “let it be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel!”
(Ezekiel 36:22-32 NASB)​


These are just a few. I can't find the one's I'm really looking for.
 
Upvote 0

drjean

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 16, 2011
15,273
4,517
✟313,070.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I haven't abandoned this thread; I've been in a terrible pain flare for several days...and am not up to a full answer at yet.

I think all Christians who seek to serve God more diligently do look for ways to please and follow Him. Some do embrace the Law (the 10 Commandments at least, 613 at most from the OT and / or the 2 from the NT)... but should a minister (Reformed Presbyterian) be advocating keeping the law, from the pulpit?

For me, the law was given to show that man can do nothing to save himself...that no man can keep all the law, and if anyone breaks even one part of it, he's condemned himself, having placed himself under the law (current NT person). Paul wrote to this extensively to the Galatians and also in Romans...how if a person chooses to live by the law, they place themselves under it and will be judged by it.

We are not under the law, but under grace. What I'm wondering about this minister is how he insists we are saved by grace, but should out of love for God and serving him the best we can, we need to keep the law! Then in the same breath so-to-speak he rants about how he fights legalism.

A side note: for me, I do not eat pork nor shell fish if I can avoid it. I am not required to avoid it, but do think it's best for my health. Pigs do not have sweat glands and thus the toxins are kept within the body/meat. All of them are scavengers, pigs eating the muck of the earth and shell fish cleaning up the bottoms of lakes, oceans etc., of the carcasses of previous living fish etc.

I believe God's original plan was for us to get all the healthy food we needed through plants, fruits, veggies etc. :) but I do know that things changed. I do limit my eating of meat, but not because I have to keep the law.

Paul said all things are lawful, but all things are not expedient.
 
Upvote 0

drjean

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 16, 2011
15,273
4,517
✟313,070.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Flooding my thread with your walls of text has shown your exuberance for the topic, however, I think I'll agree with the way Messiah Jesus said it, in the 2 commands. We are not under those as law, remember. This is not a thread about law and grace... it's my concern about whether this minister is correct or at least "okay" in his approach to the OT Law which he puts himself under in serving the LORD GOD. :)

Your listing is not of laws but of how we will behave when we have the mind of Christ. HOWEVER, IF the minister had related those with his appeal to live by the law, it might have been more palatable and considered on my part as mere semantics.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

CalledOutOne

The World Weary
Apr 12, 2012
815
55
Moved.
Visit site
✟16,249.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
In Relationship
My post benefited the the conversation. There are 1000+ commands in the NT, the OT has about 615 (not 613 -- the Jews say it's 613).
Yahushua said this:

And He said to him, “ ‘ You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘ You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:37-40 NASB)​

It says all the Law and the Prophets hang on these two. If you love God and you love you love others, you won't sin against them. However we are incapable of perfectly showing our love. But we must remember, Yahushua also said:

If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. (John 14:15 NASB)​

So there are not just two commandments, but on these two depend the Law and the prophets. It is a way to show love to Yahushua.

Because lawlessness is increased, most people's love will grow cold. (Matthew 24:12 NASB)​

Obedience is a way that we show love to God. The legalist would say that we love God by obedience, the one under grace would say, if we love Him we will obey.


***EDIT: I didn't mean to flood the thread. My intention was to show you all that the spiritual application of the Law is even greater than the physical. I believe that we should do both.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

drjean

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 16, 2011
15,273
4,517
✟313,070.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes, I got your point. :)

However, the OT Hebrews, and the NT ones as well until the resurrection of Christ Jesus, were under the law...they had to keep the law (and the sacrifices) for their salvation (proving they had faith that the Almighty would send Yeshua.)

Gentiles were never under the law. We never were and still aren't.

The OT laws were to prove to the Hebrews that no man can keep God's law for salvation, and they had to rely upon the atonement sacrifices each year to assure them of salvation. NT believers have to do nothing (once they have believed on Yeshua Jesus) for their salvation. It's a big difference in the term "keeping the law."

I appreciate your input...and I'm trying to find a way to approach the minister to draw out his exact interpretation as to why he insists his keeping the law of the OT (if that's all--maybe NT also) is his best way to serve God. The thread will help me find the right questions and interpret any replies he may have, ahead of time, so I'm not caught off guard and defensive.

I want the minister to be approved :) in my understanding. I'm open to a new view --if that's what it is-- to the Christian walk.

For me though, I have more recently realized the true freedom that grace gives to the believer.... I had cognitive understanding in the past but now have experiential understanding for which I thank God.

More on my background:

For me, I am a child of God, an heir, a "god" before His eyes (all in Scripture).... and while I am not omnipotent and omniscient etc., I can call upon my Father Who Is for any need I have. He provides totally for me. I can do nothing of my own...

I believe time is very short in the age of grace and that Christ Jesus' return is indeed imminent! I envision Jesus standing in my doorway, on His way to heaven, saying, time is short--tell others about me. Without appearing to be "too" radical to my neighbors, (or at least the attempt was notable) I have tried to do this, through love and giving and offering of help. The man on the street, well, I gave food to one today who had a sign saying he was hungry. I think it was truth for I apologized it was only some snack food and he replied, " thank you, it's the same as money to me."

I'm a two time taker of EE and see opportunity to speak of the love of God in each situation I am in... even to the guy who might flip me off as he drives by, speeding... me, in my convertible yell back GOD LOVES YOU!!! :D....

so I say this not to counter the "commands" given us in the NT nor to expose my "Christianity" but to share that I perhaps have progressed beyond a "listing of shoulds and should nots" to the living of my faith... maybe that's what I am expecting from any DDIV minister????
 
Upvote 0

twin1954

Baptist by the Bible
Jun 12, 2011
4,527
1,472
✟86,534.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God. And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
(1Jn 3:21-24)

Keeping the commandments isn't doing the Law it isw believing on Christ and loving our brothers. It is as simple as that and not the least bit grevious. No one but Christ has ever been able to keep the Law. Paul tells us in 1Tim. 1 :7 that those who teach lawkeeping neither know what they teach or what they affirm. He goes on to tell us what a proper use of the Law is and it ain't about believers. The Law is for the unrighteous and lawbreaker.

Sound doctrine according the the glorious Gospel of the blessed God is freedom from the Law.

Faith in Christ is keeping the commandments of Christ. Can it be any more plain or spelled out more clearly?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

drjean

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 16, 2011
15,273
4,517
✟313,070.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I've enjoyed your last two posts. The above phrase, "God's original plan", seems to be if conflict with my impression of what you think of God (as if God comes to think, feel or will in response to human choice).
Do you believe that this is exactly the creation God chose to create, knowing it exhaustively apart from its being? Do you believe that this is exactly the combination of free will choices God chose to create, knowing them exhaustively apart from their being? Do you believe that God is "writing the story of creation" as we go along in time, playing off human choices He comes to know? or Do you believe that this creation is prescribed by God alone?


I do believe that God created us in His image: perfect. I believe He knew, in His infinite wisdom what choices man would/will make and planned for them before we were created, but by no means does His knowing cause our choices. We read in the Bible how God had plans to punish but because the people repented, God reverted to His other plan for such of man's actions. So God does not "come to know" of man's choices but knows of them before we choose! :) God created and then rested. Jesus Christ paid the price for our sin. Both sequences are "finished" and it's up to man to make the right choices... we reap the consequences of our choices whether good or poor. Thank God that He is merciful.
 
Upvote 0