Is it okay to eat pork?

[Big Boy Johnson]

Munch away! Especially when Christ returns.

Isaiah 66:15-17 KJV
[15] For, behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.
[16] For by fire and by his sword will the Lord plead with all flesh: and the slain of the Lord shall be many.
[17] They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord.

You should become a Christian and live under the New Covenant!

1 Timothy 4:3-5
Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

 

[Phoneman777]

I ate lots of pork growing up, but after seeing some of the medical studies showing pork is not healthy for our bodies... I rarely eat pork not for health reasons. And definitely would not if I knew someone had a problem with eating pork.

But, if someone invites me over to dinner I'd eat pork if that is what they are serving.

I was just giving Brutha Doo Dad a hard time since he was saying when Jesus returns He's going to fry all the bacon eaters as though this is the unpardonable sin er something View attachment 39550

The Unpardonable Sin is any sin from which we refuse to repent....like eating bacon, my friend.

Jesus can't pardon our sins if we no longer feel the need to ask for pardon aka "the unpardonable sin" aka "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost".

 

[Phoneman777]

Sounds great.
Nice discussion.

Yes, it was. What good are our beliefs if we're unwilling to allow them to stand the test of scrutiny?

 

[GracePeace]

Yes, it was. What good are our beliefs if we're unwilling to allow them to stand the test of scrutiny?

Absolutely. Thanks for the opportunity.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

The Unpardonable Sin is any sin from which we refuse to repent....like eating bacon, my friend.

Under the New Covenant... it's not a sin to eat port as long as you use a fork!

You did know that the old covenant has been taken away and a New Covenant has come in to effect right?

Hebrews 10:9
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Hebrews 7:12
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Law of Christ (Galatians 6:2, 1 Corinthians 9:21, James 2:12, James 1:25, Romans 8:2)

 

[Brakelite]

I answered the question... you can go back and read about how the old covenant has been taken away so the Lord could establish the new covenant.

Your question was faulty. Would you like to try another?

Okay, let's get down to the Nitty gritty. Under the old covenant every Hebrew knew it was not a good thing to murder someone. Since Calvary, the power and grace of God comes into play, and rather than attempting to obey simply because the law says to, and failing, we now have a change of heart, a nature that is born again by the Spirit of God, and righteousness comes to us by faith. Our core inner being is radically altered to such an extent Paul was able to describe himself as a new creature. That new creature is now free from the bondage of the old sinful, rebellious, carnal mindset. That old man is dead and buried, the new Christian is empowered and through His relationship with Christ, through being a branch of the Vine, obedience becomes as natural, as comfortable, as joyful, normal, as a beautiful plump grape in the vineyard.. Throughout the NT obedience is described as a fruit, as a result of the relationship the Christian has with Christ. All the objections regarding law, and salvation by works, etc etc, are just fluff and meaningless in light of the truth.

So, what I said stands unaddressed.
Jesus Himself did away with parts of the Law.
Your issue is with Jesus--of course, also with Paul.

I addressed it alright. Some sections of the law became obsolete because Christ Himself was the culmination of the types and symbols to whom they pointed. However, not every part of the law was a type or shadow. So even though the Hebrew nation was the vehicle through which God's righteous requirements were delivered, the new covenant did not reduce those requirements, laws commandments etc to mere suggestions.
So what became obsolete? The temple/sanctuary and it's rituals and sacrifices, including the priesthood, the furniture, and the various items within, because they pointed to a future Messiah who would fulfil those purposes in person. Such as the sacrifices, the laver, the showbread, the candles, and the incense. All pointed to the Bread of Life, the Lamb, the Light of the world etc. Jesus Himself is now our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary, replacing the priests of the sanctuary. The sanctuary (make Me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them) itself is obsolete because Christ and the Father now dwells in US, in our minds and hearts by their Spirit. The law however, while it's requirements were fully met by Christ throughout His life (making Him our example), His obedience did not at any time negate our obligation to obey.

 

[Brakelite]

Paul himself is dead to the Law (Gal 2:19), and teaches Jewish believers the same (Ro 6:14, 7), and Gentile Christians certainly aren't under the Law (never were required to keep it--eg, its dietary restrictions), and Paul reprimands the Gentile Christians in Galatia for being under the Law (eg, observing its calendar), and wants them, instead, to serve one another by the faith God's Spirit produces in their hearts--that is being under Grace, in which God's righteousness is revealed from faith to faith (Ro 1:17, 14:5, 23).

You guys agree with one another that there are no days to observe as an obligation, but add that it's okay to do so if you want. Same with meats. It's okay to eat anything, so long as you believe it's okay right? Yet here you go quoting Paul claiming he is reprimanding the Galatians for doing what you say is okay, observe days and eat meats so long as you believe it's okay. You are wrong. Paul wasn't rebuking anyone for observing times and seasons etc per se. He was rebuking them for doing so, believing that by so doing they were gaining their salvation.

 

[Brakelite]

Further to above...
The Galatians who were being deceived into accepting the 'Judaizers' rather than the simplicity of the gospel, certainly had a problem. The problem was not that they were keeping the sabbaths and feasts of the old sanctuary services, (as Paul himself still observed them) , but rather that they were trusting in that observation as a means to being justified. Similar in fact to those who in Jeremiah's time were saying "The Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord are these"; trusting in historical links to Abraham and Moses rather than in God Himself.

Would anyone dare suggest that it was not wrong to steal? If I as a Christian teach that stealing is morally indefensible which of you would accuse me of legalism? If however I taught that by being honest, I would then be justified before God, then your accusations of 'Judaising' and legalism etc would be justifiable.

There have been claims that there are certain denominations and individuals are guilty of legalism and 'Judaizing' when promoting the Sabbath or in defending it. How do you know that they are trusting in their works for their justification? Maybe they are simply obeying what they sincerely believe to be the commandments of God and are obeying them because they love Him?

While there may be some in my denomination that think they are justified by their obedience, not only would the church officially disagree with them, but so would I.

After having been justified by the precious blood of Christ and been born again of His Spirit, thus being in the sight of God innocent, and looking ahead to the walk and life of discipleship, you read in the Bible that all liars end up in the lake of fire, (Rev 21:8) what do you do? Do you cease from lying? Of course. However, can you do so in your own strength? No. So you enlist the help of the Holy Spirit to overcome. Now is that legalism? Is that 'Judaizing? What of the Sabbath, for I know that the Sabbath is the sticking point of the law for many. Charges of legalism are only seldom raised with the other nine, but when the Sabbath is mentioned, according to many that person is 'Judaizing'.

But I keep the Sabbath on the same grounds that I seek to be honest and tell the truth. By the grace of God and in response to the desires of His heart. His law in my heart, His Holy Spirit empowering me to obey. But is my law-keeping a means by which I am justified? No way. But if I stubbornly and persistently refuse to do that which God's law requires because I don't believe** that or trust in God's clear command, or am fearful of what the rest of Christianity might think, or afraid of being unpopular or in the minority,even after accepting Christ's sacrifice on my behalf, I will end up in the lake of fire.
That is why it is so very very important to live according to what our conscience tells us the word of God teaches, and not on what man says it teaches.
Deception is avoided by having a love of the truth, and Jesus said that it is truth that sets us free. Free from sin, free from condemnation, free from bondage to addictions and habits.Free from traditions of man. And freedom from charges of heresy and 'Judaizing' and legalism.

It has always been obvious to me that the issues that were so controversial in Paul's day centred around circumcision and fasting/diet. These were the constant subjects of debate and argument with the Jewish legalists and traditionalists, and were the topic which concerned the various evangelists when instructing Gentiles in the way of the Christian faith.
Yet considering the great and solemn importance throughout the Jewish economy which surrounded the weekly Sabbath, and the importance that was given to that day by Jesus, can any one explain to me why there was so little agitation regarding the so-called change to the Sabbath.
Jews who all their lives have devoutly observed the Sabbath, become Christians and suddenly cease observing it without a whimper? And thousands of Jews converting to Christianity and the Pharisees and legalists of the old faith raising no outcry when they stop observing the Sabbath?
The obvious answer surely is that the newly converted Jews now Christians did not cease from observing the Sabbath at all, and the book of Acts bears that out. Not only so, but the Gentile converts also began observing the weekly Sabbath.
Face it folks. The Sabbath did not cease to be observed by the majority of Christendom until well into the 3rd, 4th centuries and on as history reveals, and only because they were forced to through persecution and the enforced advance of Sunday by the Roman church.
You can try as you might to search throughout the NT for reasons to substantiate your present non-observance of the Sabbath as commanded throughout scripture, but not one stands up to critical Biblical exegesis.
Romans 14 cannot be referring to the weekly Sabbath because nowhere is there in any part of scripture any indication that the commandment has been annulled. Paul therefore would not here be contradicting the rest of scripture. Especially when he said in Romans the the law is holy and good. Jesus didn't annul it, He magnified it. And once He died and ratified the covenant, it was too late for any one else to annul it. And as the disciples demonstrated the day following Christ's death, they rested according to the commandment.( Luke 23:56.)

I am sure there are many who have searched the scriptures and sincerely believe they have the right answer, though it may differ from mine. And that is what this forum is about is it not? To discuss and debate? Sorry if you think that I maybe accusing people here, I cannot read hearts, I do not know what motives you have for observing Sunday as opposed to the Sabbath, maybe you don't observe any particular day, but go to church on Sunday because every-one else does. I don't know, but God does.
The thing is, whichever day you observe , because the Sabbath was a commandment, as opposed to a choice, you had better have a very good reason for doing what you do, and not do it just because it's popular or traditional.
The issue is not as clear cut as the church has been teaching for 1500 years, and that from what I observe in scripture, none of the apostles observed Sunday as a day of rest or worship, and history tells us that although the church very early began keeping Sunday as a mark of recognition of the resurrection, this was at first confined to Rome only; only through pressure and persecution did it spread elsewhere.
The long and the short of it is that there is no specific scripture that does away with the Sabbath without our reading into the scripture that particular nuance.

The laws of God have never changed. They stand forever, as they are transcripts of His character.
It is the manner in which obedience is effected that has changed. I, nor anyone else, can keep the law by following it to the letter. That is, by focusing upon the written law and attempting in my strength to obeying all the commandments. That is walking in the flesh. But if by the Spirit I do mortify the flesh and allow God to work in me His righteousness, and by His strength then I can find the power to obey all the commandments. It is by focusing upon Him; worshiping Him in Spirit and truth, that He then abides in me and I begin to take on the nature and character of God, my Father. Obedience to the commandments then becomes the natural thing for me to do, and it becomes my delight and greatest pleasure. Jesus said that those who hunger and thirst after righteousness will be filled. This righteousness expresses itself through obedience.
It is this that was hidden from Israel. They could not see the purpose in the sacrificial system; they could not see the end of all that they were attempting to accomplish by following the letter. They could not see Christ.
So God made a new covenant. He has written the law on our hearts and minds.
It is a covenant that infuses us with God's love. And as we express that love to Him and to our fellow man, we find that the commandments are kept, to the letter.
That includes the sabbath commandment, it includes the commandments regarding adultery, stealing, idolatry, and covetousness. None of the commandments will be broken if we are loving God with all our hearts, minds, souls and strength, and our neighbours as ourselves.
As Jesus said, "if you love Me, keep My commandments".

 

[Brakelite]

Continued....

When I refer to God's laws, I speak exclusively of the Ten Commandments. They are immutable, not because they are God, but because they are a reflection of His character. Written upon stone with His own finger is a figure of that immutability. Do we not even today claim that something is unchangeable if written on stone?



Being a reflection of His character, of His righteousness, in order for them to change, then God Himself must likewise change, yet we know God does not change for He is the same forever.
Ps 119:172 My tongue shall speak of thy word: for all thy commandments are righteousness.



Jesus said several times that the law would remain until heaven and earth pass. He also said that anyone not obeying that law, and teaching others to do likewise, would in the kingdom of heaven be called least. Looking as far into man's future, the very verge of his horizon, Jesus assures us that until this point is reached the law will retain it's authority so that none may suppose it was Jesus' mission to abolish the precepts and principles of the law. So long as heaven and earth remain, so the principles of God's holy law will also remain.



Why is it that Christians today are so averse to obedience? What is it about the commandments of the God they profess to love, that makes the commandments so odious? The apostle John didn't have a problem with obedience. He said the commandments are not grievous. And Jesus said "if you love Me , keep My commandments". The Ten Commandments are Jesus' commandments. They are HIS.



1Jo 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.



And in case you would be so foolish as to hope that the example of the apostles and disciples may help your position, think again. Paul speaking:Acts 28:17 ¶ And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.



If Paul taught that the laws of God (the Ten Commandments) had been abrogated, or that the Sabbath in particular was no longer to be observed, how could he claim the above without the Jews coming down on him like the proverbial ton of bricks?

 

[Phoneman777]

Under the New Covenant... it's not a sin to eat port as long as you use a fork!

In the OC, the people promised but couldn't deliver.
In the NC, the same blessing and law apply, but with "better promises" provided by God:

"Since you failed to keep your OC promise to obey, I'm going to make a NC where My promise to bless is the same, your promise to obey is the same but since you people can't keep your promises, I'll come into your heart and obey My own law for you and give you credit for that obedience."

The NC is not the removal of the law, but the relocation of it - from tables of stone to tables of the heart.

You did know that the old covenant has been taken away and a New Covenant has come in to effect right?

Yes. You do know that in the NC, we don't "make void the law through faith, but we establish the law" - the Ten Commandments...right?

No true Christian sees any need to rely on any blasphemous OSAS License to Sin --- he relies on the promise of God for a Substitute: to die the death the sinner deserves and to live out His eternal life in us that He alone deserves.

 

[Phoneman777]

Okay, let's get down to the Nitty gritty. Under the old covenant every Hebrew knew it was not a good thing to murder someone. Since Calvary, the power and grace of God comes into play, and rather than attempting to obey simply because the law says to, and failing, we now have a change of heart, a nature that is born again by the Spirit of God, and righteousness comes to us by faith. Our core inner being is radically altered to such an extent Paul was able to describe himself as a new creature. That new creature is now free from the bondage of the old sinful, rebellious, carnal mindset. That old man is dead and buried, the new Christian is empowered and through His relationship with Christ, through being a branch of the Vine, obedience becomes as natural, as comfortable, as joyful, normal, as a beautiful plump grape in the vineyard.. Throughout the NT obedience is described as a fruit, as a result of the relationship the Christian has with Christ. All the objections regarding law, and salvation by works, etc etc, are just fluff and meaningless in light of the truth.

I addressed it alright. Some sections of the law became obsolete because Christ Himself was the culmination of the types and symbols to whom they pointed. However, not every part of the law was a type or shadow. So even though the Hebrew nation was the vehicle through which God's righteous requirements were delivered, the new covenant did not reduce those requirements, laws commandments etc to mere suggestions.
So what became obsolete? The temple/sanctuary and it's rituals and sacrifices, including the priesthood, the furniture, and the various items within, because they pointed to a future Messiah who would fulfil those purposes in person. Such as the sacrifices, the laver, the showbread, the candles, and the incense. All pointed to the Bread of Life, the Lamb, the Light of the world etc. Jesus Himself is now our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary, replacing the priests of the sanctuary. The sanctuary (make Me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them) itself is obsolete because Christ and the Father now dwells in US, in our minds and hearts by their Spirit. The law however, while it's requirements were fully met by Christ throughout His life (making Him our example), His obedience did not at any time negate our obligation to obey.

I've never seen such legalistic nonsense by the OSAS crowd to get out of their obligation to stop doing that which made necessary the death of Jesus on the Cross in the first place.

A son once asked his father for a car. The father bought him one and told him to always be careful. The son goes out driving, gets drunk, and caused a serious accident, totals the car, and is arrested. After thousands of dollars, court hearings, making deals with the DA, and many many sleepless nights, the heartbroken father finally was able to get his son back home with him.

After some time, the father reluctantly blesses his son with another car.

The Conditional Salvationalist son strives to always obey all traffic laws - because he loves his father for all he's done for him and never wants to let him down.

The Antinomianist son rips the keys from his father's hand, roars down the road with a bottle in hand, celebrating "freedom in dad!" for bailing out his worthless.

 

[Phoneman777]

Okay, let's get down to the Nitty gritty. Under the old covenant every Hebrew knew it was not a good thing to murder someone. Since Calvary, the power and grace of God comes into play, and rather than attempting to obey simply because the law says to, and failing, we now have a change of heart, a nature that is born again by the Spirit of God, and righteousness comes to us by faith. Our core inner being is radically altered to such an extent Paul was able to describe himself as a new creature. That new creature is now free from the bondage of the old sinful, rebellious, carnal mindset. That old man is dead and buried, the new Christian is empowered and through His relationship with Christ, through being a branch of the Vine, obedience becomes as natural, as comfortable, as joyful, normal, as a beautiful plump grape in the vineyard.. Throughout the NT obedience is described as a fruit, as a result of the relationship the Christian has with Christ. All the objections regarding law, and salvation by works, etc etc, are just fluff and meaningless in light of the truth.

I addressed it alright. Some sections of the law became obsolete because Christ Himself was the culmination of the types and symbols to whom they pointed. However, not every part of the law was a type or shadow. So even though the Hebrew nation was the vehicle through which God's righteous requirements were delivered, the new covenant did not reduce those requirements, laws commandments etc to mere suggestions.
So what became obsolete? The temple/sanctuary and it's rituals and sacrifices, including the priesthood, the furniture, and the various items within, because they pointed to a future Messiah who would fulfil those purposes in person. Such as the sacrifices, the laver, the showbread, the candles, and the incense. All pointed to the Bread of Life, the Lamb, the Light of the world etc. Jesus Himself is now our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary, replacing the priests of the sanctuary. The sanctuary (make Me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them) itself is obsolete because Christ and the Father now dwells in US, in our minds and hearts by their Spirit. The law however, while it's requirements were fully met by Christ throughout His life (making Him our example), His obedience did not at any time negate our obligation to obey.

I've never seen such legalistic nonsense by the OSAS crowd to get out of their obligation to stop doing that which made necessary the death of Jesus on the Cross in the first place.

A son once asked his father for a car. The father bought him one and told him to always be careful. The son goes out driving, gets drunk, and caused a serious accident, totals the car, and is arrested. After thousands of dollars, court hearings, making deals with the DA, and many many sleepless nights, the heartbroken father finally was able to get his son back home with him.

Some time later, the son asks for another car.

After the father grants him another one, should the son rip the keys out of the father's hand and tear down the road with a liquor bottle in hand, yelling "freedom in dad!!!" --- or rather, should he humbly thank his father for all he's done and purpose in his heart to be responsible and to strive to obey all traffic laws and spare his father more heartache?

"For it is impossible...if they should fall away, to renew them again unto repentance, seeing that they crucify the Son of God afresh and put Him to an open shame."

 

[Phoneman777]

I answered the question... you can go back and read about how the old covenant has been taken away so the Lord could establish the new covenant.

Your question was faulty. Would you like to try another?

"Do we make void the (Old Covenant) through faith? God forbid. Yea, we establish the (Old Covenant)." - Romans 3:31 KJV, according to the Antinomian crowd.

 

[GracePeace]

Okay, let's get down to the Nitty gritty. Under the old covenant every Hebrew knew it was not a good thing to murder someone. Since Calvary, the power and grace of God comes into play, and rather than attempting to obey simply because the law says to, and failing, we now have a change of heart, a nature that is born again by the Spirit of God, and righteousness comes to us by faith. Our core inner being is radically altered to such an extent Paul was able to describe himself as a new creature. That new creature is now free from the bondage of the old sinful, rebellious, carnal mindset. That old man is dead and buried, the new Christian is empowered and through His relationship with Christ, through being a branch of the Vine, obedience becomes as natural, as comfortable, as joyful, normal, as a beautiful plump grape in the vineyard.. Throughout the NT obedience is described as a fruit, as a result of the relationship the Christian has with Christ. All the objections regarding law, and salvation by works, etc etc, are just fluff and meaningless in light of the truth.

I addressed it alright. Some sections of the law became obsolete because Christ Himself was the culmination of the types and symbols to whom they pointed. However, not every part of the law was a type or shadow. So even though the Hebrew nation was the vehicle through which God's righteous requirements were delivered, the new covenant did not reduce those requirements, laws commandments etc to mere suggestions.
So what became obsolete? The temple/sanctuary and it's rituals and sacrifices, including the priesthood, the furniture, and the various items within, because they pointed to a future Messiah who would fulfil those purposes in person. Such as the sacrifices, the laver, the showbread, the candles, and the incense. All pointed to the Bread of Life, the Lamb, the Light of the world etc. Jesus Himself is now our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary, replacing the priests of the sanctuary. The sanctuary (make Me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them) itself is obsolete because Christ and the Father now dwells in US, in our minds and hearts by their Spirit. The law however, while it's requirements were fully met by Christ throughout His life (making Him our example), His obedience did not at any time negate our obligation to obey.

Don't answer a matter before hearing it (Prov 18:13). I haven't encountered a single "Torah Observant" Christian who isn't an absolute fool.

 

[GracePeace]

You guys agree with one another that there are no days to observe as an obligation, but add that it's okay to do so if you want. Same with meats. It's okay to eat anything, so long as you believe it's okay right? Yet here you go quoting Paul claiming he is reprimanding the Galatians for doing what you say is okay, observe days and eat meats so long as you believe it's okay. You are wrong. Paul wasn't rebuking anyone for observing times and seasons etc per se. He was rebuking them for doing so, believing that by so doing they were gaining their salvation.

He reprimands the Galatians because they are NOT following their convictions from the Spirit, not serving one another by faith which works by love, but have submitted to being under the Law.

The ones who might have a conviction about a day or a food might be Jews who grew up under the Law, or a former idolater might be convicted about not eating food sacrificed to an idol, but Jesus's Name is "God Is Our Righteousness". We're expected to serve in newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the Letter. This is how the Gentile believers were deemed "doers of the Law" without even knowing the Law (Ro 2:13-15, 26, 27). God's righteousness is revealed from faith to faith (Ro 1:17, 14:5, 23).

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Seems like if they were Christians... they would observe the New Covenant and accept Jesus as their High Priest

"Do we make void the (Old Covenant) through faith? God forbid. Yea, we establish the (Old Covenant)." - Romans 3:31 KJV, according to the Antinomian crowd.

Romans 3:31
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

One of these days you gotta learn that the Law of the Spirit of Life IN Christ Jesus set us from from the law of sin and death.

The law of Moses could not give life, so it has been taken away so that the Law of Christ would be established.

Galatians 3:21
if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

You did know that the old covenant has been taken away and a New Covenant has come in to effect right?

Hebrews 10:9
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Hebrews 7:12
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Law of Christ (Galatians 6:2, 1 Corinthians 9:21, James 2:12, James 1:25, Romans 8:2)

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Yes. You do know that in the NC, we don't "make void the law through faith, but we establish the law" - the Ten Commandments...right?

No true Christian sees any need to rely on any blasphemous OSAS License to Sin --- he relies on the promise of God for a Substitute: to die the death the sinner deserves and to live out His eternal life in us that He alone deserves.

The 10 Commandments were just a fraction of the Law of Moses... and in the New Covenant 9 or the 10 are present as commands, but they are not called the 10 Commandments anymore as we are under the law of Christ.

I'm not an advocate of OSAS and oppose that sort of thinking.... as well as the thinking that NT believers are required top keep the Law of Moses which was refuted by the Apostles (as led by the Holy Ghost) at the Counsel of Jerusalem on acts 15

There is a difference bestrewn the L:aw of Moses (OT) versus the Law of Christ (NT) which is what Christians are under now... the difference is Jesus has raised the standard because now we abide IN Him and He IN us.

Those trying to keep the law of Moses... are backing up!

 

[GracePeace]

Further to above...
The Galatians who were being deceived into accepting the 'Judaizers' rather than the simplicity of the gospel, certainly had a problem. The problem was not that they were keeping the sabbaths and feasts of the old sanctuary services, (as Paul himself still observed them) , but rather that they were trusting in that observation as a means to being justified. Similar in fact to those who in Jeremiah's time were saying "The Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord are these"; trusting in historical links to Abraham and Moses rather than in God Himself.

Would anyone dare suggest that it was not wrong to steal? If I as a Christian teach that stealing is morally indefensible which of you would accuse me of legalism? If however I taught that by being honest, I would then be justified before God, then your accusations of 'Judaising' and legalism etc would be justifiable.

There have been claims that there are certain denominations and individuals are guilty of legalism and 'Judaizing' when promoting the Sabbath or in defending it. How do you know that they are trusting in their works for their justification? Maybe they are simply obeying what they sincerely believe to be the commandments of God and are obeying them because they love Him?

While there may be some in my denomination that think they are justified by their obedience, not only would the church officially disagree with them, but so would I.

After having been justified by the precious blood of Christ and been born again of His Spirit, thus being in the sight of God innocent, and looking ahead to the walk and life of discipleship, you read in the Bible that all liars end up in the lake of fire, (Rev 21:8) what do you do? Do you cease from lying? Of course. However, can you do so in your own strength? No. So you enlist the help of the Holy Spirit to overcome. Now is that legalism? Is that 'Judaizing? What of the Sabbath, for I know that the Sabbath is the sticking point of the law for many. Charges of legalism are only seldom raised with the other nine, but when the Sabbath is mentioned, according to many that person is 'Judaizing'.

But I keep the Sabbath on the same grounds that I seek to be honest and tell the truth. By the grace of God and in response to the desires of His heart. His law in my heart, His Holy Spirit empowering me to obey. But is my law-keeping a means by which I am justified? No way. But if I stubbornly and persistently refuse to do that which God's law requires because I don't believe** that or trust in God's clear command, or am fearful of what the rest of Christianity might think, or afraid of being unpopular or in the minority,even after accepting Christ's sacrifice on my behalf, I will end up in the lake of fire.
That is why it is so very very important to live according to what our conscience tells us the word of God teaches, and not on what man says it teaches.

Yet you're not bothered by the fact that Paul teaches that this is not binding on all Christians, that it's just a personal conviction.

Deception is avoided by having a love of the truth, and Jesus said that it is truth that sets us free. Free from sin, free from condemnation, free from bondage to addictions and habits.Free from traditions of man. And freedom from charges of heresy and 'Judaizing' and legalism.

Truth is observing days and diet aren't binding on every Christian (Ro 14), yet you don't recognize that.

It has always been obvious to me that the issues that were so controversial in Paul's day centred around circumcision and fasting/diet. These were the constant subjects of debate and argument with the Jewish legalists and traditionalists, and were the topic which concerned the various evangelists when instructing Gentiles in the way of the Christian faith.
Yet considering the great and solemn importance throughout the Jewish economy which surrounded the weekly Sabbath, and the importance that was given to that day by Jesus, can any one explain to me why there was so little agitation regarding the so-called change to the Sabbath.
Jews who all their lives have devoutly observed the Sabbath, become Christians and suddenly cease observing it without a whimper? And thousands of Jews converting to Christianity and the Pharisees and legalists of the old faith raising no outcry when they stop observing the Sabbath?

Actually, they DID hear of what Paul was teaching, and they DID complain! I think you know that passage, right?

The obvious answer surely is that the newly converted Jews now Christians did not cease from observing the Sabbath at all, and the book of Acts bears that out. Not only so, but the Gentile converts also began observing the weekly Sabbath.
Face it folks. The Sabbath did not cease to be observed by the majority of Christendom until well into the 3rd, 4th centuries and on as history reveals, and only because they were forced to through persecution and the enforced advance of Sunday by the Roman church.
You can try as you might to search throughout the NT for reasons to substantiate your present non-observance of the Sabbath as commanded throughout scripture, but not one stands up to critical Biblical exegesis.
Romans 14 cannot be referring to the weekly Sabbath because nowhere is there in any part of scripture any indication that the commandment has been annulled. Paul therefore would not here be contradicting the rest of scripture. Especially when he said in Romans the the law is holy and good. Jesus didn't annul it, He magnified it. And once He died and ratified the covenant, it was too late for any one else to annul it. And as the disciples demonstrated the day following Christ's death, they rested according to the commandment.( Luke 23:56.)

7th Day Sabbath commemorates God's rest after creating, but we're a new creation, so God created anew, so there is a new rest and a new commemoration: the 7th Day Sabbath concerns the old creation, it's not binding on me.

I am sure there are many who have searched the scriptures and sincerely believe they have the right answer, though it may differ from mine. And that is what this forum is about is it not? To discuss and debate? Sorry if you think that I maybe accusing people here, I cannot read hearts, I do not know what motives you have for observing Sunday as opposed to the Sabbath, maybe you don't observe any particular day, but go to church on Sunday because every-one else does. I don't know, but God does.
The thing is, whichever day you observe , because the Sabbath was a commandment, as opposed to a choice, you had better have a very good reason for doing what you do, and not do it just because it's popular or traditional.

Jesus called keeping vows, "commanded" in Torah, "of the evil one" Mt 5, so, no, not everything in Torah is God's will for us today, and it's not where God's will is to be found, God writes His Law on the heart, and you are to live by faith.

The issue is not as clear cut as the church has been teaching for 1500 years, and that from what I observe in scripture, none of the apostles observed Sunday as a day of rest or worship, and history tells us that although the church very early began keeping Sunday as a mark of recognition of the resurrection, this was at first confined to Rome only; only through pressure and persecution did it spread elsewhere.
The long and the short of it is that there is no specific scripture that does away with the Sabbath without our reading into the scripture that particular nuance.

The laws of God have never changed. They stand forever, as they are transcripts of His character.

This nonsense has been debunked.

It is the manner in which obedience is Jesus said that those who hunger and thirst after righteousness will be filled. This righteousness expresses itself through obedience.
It is this that was hidden from Israel. They could not see the purpose in the sacrificial system; they could not see the end of all that they were attempting to accomplish by following the letter. They could not see Christ.
So God made a new covenant. He has written the law on our hearts and minds.
It is a covenant that infuses us with God's love. And as we express that love to Him and to our fellow man, we find that the commandments are kept, to the letter.
That includes the sabbath commandment, it includes the commandments regarding adultery, stealing, idolatry, and covetousness. None of the commandments will be broken if we are loving God with all our hearts, minds, souls and strength, and our neighbours as ourselves.

Again, this faulty exegesis has already been addressed and disproven.

As Jesus said, "if you love Me, keep My commandments".

Yeah, His commands are to believe in the Name of God's Son and love one another (1 Jn 3:23,24).

 

[GracePeace]

And in case you would be so foolish as to hope that the example of the apostles and disciples may help your position, think again. Paul speaking:Acts 28:17 ¶ And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.

Yes, there was no basis for their having arrested him. That is true. He became as one under the Law around those under the Law, became a Jew for Jews' sakes, so he is correct in saying he had been arrested under false pretenses.

If Paul taught that the laws of God (the Ten Commandments) had been abrogated, or that the Sabbath in particular was no longer to be observed, how could he claim the above without the Jews coming down on him like the proverbial ton of bricks?

Yeah, they DID hear and complain about Paul's teaching!

 

[Davy]

The Jewish believers came and confronted Peter about eating with Gentiles (re: Cornelius).

There are laws detailing how ovens and pots and pans and what not become defiled by the corpses of certain animals, and there are laws for purifying some of these things, and the law stipulates they are to "BE CAREFUL" in observing all of these laws, but Peter went and ate with Gentiles on account of the vision. The vision must have meant that God had accepted the Gentiles THE WAY THEY ARE (as Paul argues over and over and over), including their foods.

Regarding this, Paul says he becomes as one under the Law, becomes as a Jew to Jews, and he becomes as one without the Law, becomes a Gentile to Gentiles (though not without God's Law--as if he would also commit immorality--but under Christ's Law).

Still not the point.

The law changed via Christ, but God's creation science about eating healthy vs. unhealthy did not change. It's no longer a salvation issue; but it still can be a health issue.