ARCHIVE: Will You Be Celebrating Christmas?

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
As far as I can tell, you and I are in complete agreement. Jim and Christine have erected themselves a new set of commandments which they have no hope of following. And as laws do, they have, and will continue to multiply and become more and more complex as time progresses. Before long, and perhaps already, they will have grown their little 'tree of knowledge and good and evil' to such an extent that they will camp out in its branches and, if human nature is any indication, they will have grown proud of its size and grandeur.

Wow... that is an awesome description... :up:

You continue...

Then on judgment day, their great accomplishment will be run through the furnace and will be reduced to nothing. All of their good works with respect to religious ritual (or lack thereof), holiday non-observance, Lord's super (meal) observance, not meeting in a specifically set aside building for church service, etc, etc. will all be burned up. They, themselves, as you pointed out, are saved and will be saved, but all their rules and observances of the same will gain them nothing. They are indeed, wasting their time.

Again..... :up:

You continue...

I haven't seen the abortion comments so I can't comment on that

Jim says that celebrating Christmas is far worse than abortion. Starting on post #286.

Originally posted by Hilston
I am only conveying what is taught in scripture. One could say the same thing about abortion protestors. The open denial of the Headship of Christ is far far worse than abortion.

You continue...

Okay, this might give me a better opportunity to make it clearer what I'm getting at. Saying that they need to repent is one thing but what is it exactly that they need to turn from and more importantly what do they need to turn to?

They need to repent for spreading the false idea that celebrating holidays is forbidden. Just imagine what unbelievers think when they read Christians saying such things (not to mention the abortion stuff). I can remember before I was a Christian and even then I thought Christmas was pretty cool. I can remember listening to Christmas music and starting to wonder about Jesus and what all this stuff meant. I give partial credit of my conversion to a particular Harry Connick Jr. Christmas song, I realize that sounds silly but I do think the song was another nic in my "armor".

But how would I have been effected if I had heard Christians saying celebrating Christmas was forbidden? I can make a pretty good guess as to what my reaction would have been. :kookoo:

A false gospel is a deterrent to the lost.

You continue...

Getting them convinced that it is okay to either celebrate Christmas or not is great but it doesn't address the real problem. The legalism is only a symptom.
I didn't get into this because I frankly figured you had already gotten into it yourself and didn't want to rehash subject matter that had already been covered. I just read a couple of posts and thought it was an interesting issue and impulsively threw in my two cents. Perhaps it would have been better to have kept my thoughts to myself. I managed to stir up much more than I intended to. But I guess if you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound!
The underlying issue is not legalism, it's not false teaching, it's not setting a bad example, it's not anything like that. God is more than able to work around, and in spite of, all of that. The issue is not as much what they are doing as it is why they are doing it. The question is, where are their actions coming from, what is the source of the lives they live?

Excellent points. :up: :up: :up:

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Knight
Works profit the member of the Body nothing. But to those that are not in the Body works place them under the law and they may falsely think they are making themselves righteous and send themselves to hell.

Would you say that's what the Galatians and the Colossians were thinking? That they were making themselves righteous by their works? Is that why Paul prohibited religious holidays for them?

Originally posted by Knight
Therefore it is wrong for those of us in the Body to make ANYONE think works are a necessity.

Do you distinguish between works that are necessary for obedience vs. works that are necessary for salvation?

Hilston asked:
As long as he didn't view the food laws as salvific, would he still be a hypocrite?

Originally posted by Knight
We know that Peter knew better.

So then why wasn't it OK for Peter to observe the food laws, since he didn't view them as salvific?

It's interesting that you quoted Acts 10. Do you realize that Acts 10 has nothing directly to do with food laws? It has to do with Gentile proselytes of the Gate being righteous without becoming Jews.

Originally posted by Knight
Not only that but..... why would Paul rebuke Peter in the manner in which he did if Peter was just mistaken?

Good question. Why didn't Paul treat Peter as a weaker brother according to Ro 14?

Originally posted by Knight
Paul certainly wouldn't have said... “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? The verse you quote answers my question immediately above. This verse shows that Peter was NOT a weaker brother. Peter was able to eat with and like the Gentiles without violating his conscience. That is the hypocrisy. Peter showed that he was not a weaker brother by eating with the Gentiles. But when the Jews came from James, he changed his tune. Paul rebuked Peter for the confusing message that was sent to the Body saints by his hypocrisy, and he did this on Body turf. Had this happened in Jerusalem, Paul would have been sitting with Peter and the Jews, observing the very same food laws that he rebuked Peter for in Antioch.

Hilston asked:
Do you believe those of the circumcision didn't know the truth? Do you believe they were wrong for observing their food laws?

Originally posted by Knight
I hate to answer a question with a question but.... ...

That's OK. I did the same thing a few paragraphs up.

Originally posted by Knight
... don't you believe that the dietary laws even for the circumcision had been repealed in Acts 10?

Not at all. That wasn't a repeal. The Jews continued to observe dietary laws. Even Paul continued to observe dietary laws among the Jews (Ac 18:21). He also performed ritual circumcisions and blood sacrifices (Ac 16:3 21:24). The sacrifices continued, the Passover rituals and feasts, etc. etc. Nowhere is Israel's program repealed before the regeneration. Jesus taught His disciples to teach all nations everything whatsoever He commanded them (Mt. 28:19,20), which included everything in the Mosaic Law. Ezekiel gives detailed descriptions of the future blood sacrifices in the Millennium. In Acts 15, well after the events of Acts 10, Peter, Paul, James, Barnabas and the Holy Spirit draft a letter to the saved Gentiles. Included in that letter are ceremonial food laws. If God repealed food laws in Acts 10, why is the Holy Spirit endorsing them in Acts 15:28?

Hilston asked:
Was Paul wrong for offering blood sacrifices in the Temple and for circumcising Timotheus?

Originally posted by Knight
No, because at that time there really were to dispensations in action. Paul used wise strategy so that he could get his message out.

But didn't you say these rules were repealed? Were two dispensations in action in Antioch? Why would Paul rebuke Peter if two dispensations were in action?

Hilston asked:
But could you keep the law if you wanted, as long as you didn't view it as salvific? And why devote so much to this subject? The Galatians and Colossians already understood salvation by grace. Do you believe Paul was concerned that they were going to forget that truth?

Originally posted by Knight
Paul was concerned that they were being persuaded away from that truth.

So how is it different if someone celebrates Christmas? If Paul were alive today, wouldn't he be concerned that people might be persuaded away from the truth?

Originally posted by Knight
Paul didn't want a great group of believers being persuaded into believing something other than the correct gospel.

Why would it matter? Why wouldn't someone be able to accept Israel's gospel and join the ranks of Peter and James and the rest?

Originally posted by Knight
... it would adversely affect their own relationship with Christ.

How?

Originally posted by Knight
Paul wanted them to enjoy their new found liberty!

Do you believe Peter and John and James and the rest had liberty in Christ?

Hilston asked:
So would it be OK for me to make blood sacrifices according to the Noahic laws if I wanted?

Originally posted by Knight
As long as you weren't preaching to others that this was the gospel.

But Peter did. The gospel of Christ was the gospel of Moses. And that's what Peter was commissioned to preach. What would be wrong with preaching water baptism and blood sacrifice today?

Originally posted by Knight
Not to mention it would certainly effect your own relationship with Christ ...

How? What's wrong with it if I'm just expressing my faith, without trying to work for my salvation or add to the work of Christ?

Originally posted by Knight
... as you would be attempting to add to something that you cannot add to (His work on the cross).

When Paul made blood sacrifices, and Peter et al, after the resurrection, were they attempting to add something to Christ's work?

Originally posted by Knight
Jim... I enjoy your new tone. I can deal with this. :up:

It's not me, it's you. My tone changes when I see people respect the debate. When people disrespect the debate, refuse to answer questions, refuse to offer scriptural discussion, and persist in making bald unsupported assertions, and just throw logs in the road or red-herring stinkbombs for no constructive reason or purpose, that's when my tone changes. Soooo, backatcha Knight. :up:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Hilston

Would you say that's what the Galatians and the Colossians were thinking? That they were making themselves righteous by their works?

Yes. Or being persuaded to do such.

Is that why Paul prohibited religious holidays for them?

Religious holidays AS A WORK are prohibited for anybody. Keep in mind religious holidays back then are not what they are now at least not the ones we have been discussing.

Although this topic does get sort of complicated so I refer back to my earlier diagram...

Legalism, Not legalism

Assuming Holidays are good...

Legalism...
"I celebrate holidays because it is a good work."

NOT legalism...
"I celebrate holidays because they are fun and a good opportunity to fellowship and preach the gospel. Yet I certainly wouldn't have to celebrate holidays if I didn't want to."

Assuming Holidays are bad...

Legalism...
"I do NOT celebrate holidays because Christians are forbidden to celebrate holidays."

NOT legalism...
"I do NOT celebrate holidays because I choose not to but I certainly could if I wanted to."

You continue...

Do you distinguish between works that are necessary for obedience vs. works that are necessary for salvation?

I don't know... what do you mean? There are no works in our dispensation.

You continue...

So then why wasn't it OK for Peter to observe the food laws, since he didn't view them as salvific?

It wasn't OK for Peter to play the hypocrite. Peter was projecting a false gospel to the gentiles and it wasn't sending the right message.

Good question. Why didn't Paul treat Peter as a weaker brother according to Ro 14?

Because the dietary laws had been repealed. Therefore the was no "weaker brother" scenario.

Not at all. That wasn't a repeal. The Jews continued to observe dietary laws. Even Paul continued to observe dietary laws among the Jews (Ac 18:21). He also performed ritual circumcisions and blood sacrifices (Ac 16:3 21:24). The sacrifices continued, the Passover rituals and feasts, etc. etc. Nowhere is Israel's program repealed before the regeneration. Jesus taught His disciples to teach all nations everything whatsoever He commanded them (Mt. 28:19,20), which included everything in the Mosaic Law. Ezekiel gives detailed descriptions of the future blood sacrifices in the Millennium. In Acts 15, well after the events of Acts 10, Peter, Paul, James, Barnabas and the Holy Spirit draft a letter to the saved Gentiles. Included in that letter are ceremonial food laws. If God repealed food laws in Acts 10, why is the Holy Spirit endorsing them in Acts 15:28?

Tell me... do you believe that Paul's gospel was disseminated all up front? Or was Paul's gospel disseminated strategically either by Paul's doing or possibly the doing of the Holy Spirit?

You continue...

But didn't you say these rules were repealed? Were two dispensations in action in Antioch? Why would Paul rebuke Peter if two dispensations were in action?

Again, because Peter was playing the hypocryte.

Hilston asked:
But could you keep the law if you wanted, as long as you didn't view it as salvific? And why devote so much to this subject? The Galatians and Colossians already understood salvation by grace. Do you believe Paul was concerned that they were going to forget that truth?

Absolutely!

I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, - Galatians 1:6

You continue...

So how is it different if someone celebrates Christmas? If Paul were alive today, wouldn't he be concerned that people might be persuaded away from the truth?

I suppose... that is assuming he could find some folks who were celebrating Christmas because they thought it was an ordinance.

But otherwise no.

Why would it matter? Why wouldn't someone be able to accept Israel's gospel and join the ranks of Peter and James and the rest?

Because that dispensation was over and only those that had signed that contract (so to speak) were still under the dispensation of circumcision. Once the last one under that dispensation died there remained only our dispensation.

You continue..

Do you believe Peter and John and James and the rest had liberty in Christ?

No. I do not believe that the twelve were part of the Body of Christ. Do you?

You continue...

But Peter did. The gospel of Christ was the gospel of Moses. And that's what Peter was commissioned to preach. What would be wrong with preaching water baptism and blood sacrifice today?

Peter was not a member of our dispensation.

You continue...

How? What's wrong with it if I'm just expressing my faith, without trying to work for my salvation or add to the work of Christ?

If you choose to not celebrate Christmas I have no problem with that. However claiming that it is forbidden is another story all together.

You continue...

It's not me, it's you. My tone changes when I see people respect the debate. When people disrespect the debate, refuse to answer questions, refuse to offer scriptural discussion, and persist in making bald unsupported assertions, and just throw logs in the road or red-herring stinkbombs for no constructive reason or purpose, that's when my tone changes. Soooo, backatcha Knight. :up:

Your probably right.

 

[Hilston]

I just noticed that this post has a major formatting error (I missed an end-quote tag). It's now fixed. I hope it didn't cause too much confusion. (JH 8:23 p.m. 12/17/04).

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Jim and Christine have erected themselves a new set of commandments which they have no hope of following.

Clete, do you obey anything that Paul teaches? Or would that be erecting a new set of commandments that you have no hope of following?

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
All of their good works with respect to religious ritual (or lack thereof), holiday non-observance, Lord's super (meal) observance, not meeting in a specifically set aside building for church service, etc, etc. will all be burned up.

What kind of works are NOT burnt up, Clete? Abortion protesting? Gay-bashing? Liberal-mocking?

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
They, themselves, as you pointed out, are saved and will be saved, but all their rules and observances of the same will gain them nothing. They are indeed, wasting their time.

Would you agree with this much?: If Paul indeed commands us to abstain from religious holidays, we are not wasting our time. Are you able to agree with that?

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Indeed! Your reaction should be similar to that of Paul's toward the Galatians and it seems that it has been exactly that.

Clete, Paul was not rebuking the Galatians for legalism. He was rebuking them for being enticed by religious ceremony.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Yes, but they are operating in the flesh. They must crucify their flesh and allow Christ to live His life through them or else they will simply leave this particular brand of legalism and go to straight to another.

Clete, can you and I agree that, if Paul is commanding abstinence from religious holidays, then this is not legalism, but rather honoring the Mystery?

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I would like to ask Jim to give as simple and as foundational an answer as possible to the following question…
Why Jim (or Christine), do you abstain from celebrating Christmas, performing religious rituals, meeting in church buildings, etc.?

Israel's worship was angelically mediated. The ministry of the angelic realm was to function as the many mediators between God and man. They were the many gods and many lords of Israel (1Co 8:5). The key component to this relationship between Israel and the angels was religious ceremony, ritual, symbolism and holy days, months, times and years. This is why the cherubim were depicted on the mercy seat. Theirs was an earthly hope; tangible, symbolic, object-level worship, liturgy, and ceremony.

The Body of Christ does not have an earthly hope, as did Israel, but a heavenly hope. Jesus Christ, the Head of the Body, died to secure for us a place with Him, co-seated on the Father's throne in the heavenlies, far above all principalities and powers, those elemental spirits, the stoicheia of this kosmos, the entire angelic realm. This is why we have direct, unmediated, non-ceremonial, non-ritualistic, non-symbolic access to Christ. We are not earthly, we are heavenly. Our worship is not external and tangible and restricted to certain places and times. Our worship is constant, invisible, internal and unrestricted to certain places and times. There is no need for the angelic ministry in this dispensation because we have direct access, because we are seated above the angelic realm, and therefore, we must not do those things that invoke the angelic realm and that would subjugate us under it. There is One Mediator between God and man for the Body of Christ, and that is Christ Himself. There is One Faith, not the many faiths of Israel's kingdom. There is One Baptism (that of the Spirit), not the many ceremonial baptisms of Israel's kingodm. There is One Father-God, not the many angelic gods of Israel's kingdom. There is One Body, not the many ethnic bodies of Israel's kingdom. There is One Spirit and Lord, not the many angelic spirits and angelic lords of Israel's kingdom. There is One Hope, not the many ethnic hopes of Israel's kingdom. All of these distinctions point to the Body of Christ as seated with Christ above the angelic realm. That is what Christ died to secure for the Body of Christ.

Col 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

That verse is misleading in the English. It sounds as if Christ vanquished the angelic realm. That's not what it means. It's saying Christ "put off," that is, took out of the way, the angelic realm for the Body of Christ, and declared openly that removal of angelic authority.

For a member of the Body of Christ to celebrate a religious holiday, to participate in a religious ritual, to observe a religious food restriction, to regard a place, time, garb, or symbol as spiritually beneficial in any way is to subjugate himself to the angelic realm. That is why Paul chides the Galatians, not for forgetting they were saved by grace, not for suddenly thinking they needed to work for their salvation, but for going back to the subjugation of their former religion.

Gal 4:8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. 9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? 10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

The obvious question is: Why does Paul equate the religious/ceremonial observances of the Jews with the pagan practices of their past? Answer: Because ALL religious rituals, ceremonies, symbolisms and holidays are angel worship for the Body of Christ, and it is forbidden.

Col 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind.

And notice that Paul does not distinguish between the holy/elect angels or the fallen/demonic ones. Neither are acceptable authorities over the members of the Body of Christ. But since the holy/elect angels will not participate when Body saints wrongly presume to invoke them, which angels are participating? Answer: 1Co 11:14,15. The short answer is: I will not participate in demonic activity.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I'm not looking for "because Paul said so, I know you believe that already. What I want to know is what you intend to gain by following these rules; what is your motivation?

My motivation my love for Jesus Christ, my desire to demonstrate my love for Him by obeying His word and honoring the distinctive blessings that He died to give me. Another motivation is my love for my church and my desire to see it grow spiritually as a collective, and for individuals to recognize their specific blood-secured place in the created order. Another motivation is reward. I will not let anyone beguile me of my reward by false religiosity and angel worship (Col 2:18).

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Also, would you feel guilty if you did celebrate Christmas or did any of the several things that you feel are forbidden?

Yes, because I would be sinning.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
If so (which seems obvious), why? Why are they wrong?

Because the scriptures forbid it. Because I will not participate in demonic activity.

 

[Lighthouse]

Merry Christmas to the Hilstons!

 

[Hilston]

Knight,

I need to hit the hay. I won't be able to finish my reply until later tomorrow. In the meantime, I wanted offer a comment and question regarding one statement you made after I said:

Do you distinguish between works that are necessary for obedience vs. works that are necessary for salvation?

You replied:

I don't know... what do you mean? There are no works in our dispensation.

I've been trying for several posts to find out what you mean by works, whether "salvific" (i.e., required for salvation) or not.

What, in your view, is Paul referring to when he talks about works? Please consider the following:

1Co 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

1Co 15:58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

1Co 16:10 Now if Timotheus come, see that he may be with you without fear: for he worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do.

2Co 6:1 We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.

2Co 9:8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work:

Ga 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

Ga 6:4 But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: ... 28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.

Php 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

Col 1:10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; ... 29 Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.

1Th 1:3 Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;

1Th 5:13 And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves.

2Th 2:17 Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work.

1Ti 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

1Ti 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

1Ti 5:10 Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work. ... 25 Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.

1Ti 6:18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. ... 21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2Ti 4:5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

Tit 2:7 In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, ... 14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Tit 3:1 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, ...8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. ... 14 And let ours also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.

Now, either Paul was very confused, or you need to clarify what you mean by "There are no works in our dispensation." Please help me to understand what you mean and/or do not mean when you say there are no works in our dispensation.

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Merry Christmas to the Hilstons!

Aw, isn't that cute? Lighthouse needs attention, but since he can't seem to keep up with the conversation, he makes a lot of noise just so he'll be noticed. Don't worry, Lighthouse, there are plenty of people who are nice enough to pat you on the head whenever you feel needy. For now, just run along and play, OK? The grown-ups are talking and you shouldn't interrupt. Run along now. Go on and read your comic books or play with your sock puppet or something.

:freak:

 

[Lighthouse]

I don't need any attention Hilston. I just feel like making fun of your ignorance.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Hilston
What, in your view, is Paul referring to when he talks about works? Please consider the following:

Jim, if you notice Paul never says the Body needs to perform "works of the law" not the mosaic law or any other law.

There can be no "laws" (for salvation) within the dispensation of uncircumcision otherwise grace is no longer grace. (Romans 11:6). Paul makes it clear that our calling is grace through Jesus and not through works. who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began, - 2 Timothy 1:9

And to those who attempt to work... well..... their work is in vain.
Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. - Romans 4:4

So what type of work is Paul talking about in the verses you referenced? Well if you read them closely I think it comes rather clear. As a member of the Body of Christ we are given the Holy Spirit as a guarantee (2 Cor 1:22 & 5:5) . And if we allow the Holy Spirit to work within us we can produce the fruit of the Spirit. Which is the Holy Spirit working through us....

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. 24 And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

In other words the more we walk in the Spirit the more the Holy Spirit can produce ripe juicy fruit from us! These are the "works" that Paul refers to in his epistles.

In fact...
Take a closer look at some of the verses you posted....

Php 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

Col 1:10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; ... 29 Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.

Tit 3:1 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, ...8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. ... 14 And let ours also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.

These works are the works of the Holy Spirit working through us as in producing the Fruit of the Spirit.

Notice none of these works have to do with specific regulations but just doing good things! Being nice, helping one another, doing the Lords work so to speak. These works are not an ordinance but yet a natural manifestation of the Holy Spirit working through us.

You continue...

Now, either Paul was very confused, or you need to clarify what you mean by "There are no works in our dispensation." Please help me to understand what you mean and/or do not mean when you say there are no works in our dispensation.

Hopefully my above explanation will help do just that.

 

[novice]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Jim and Christine have erected themselves a new set of commandments which they have no hope of following. And as laws do, they have, and will continue to multiply and become more and more complex as time progresses. Before long, and perhaps already, they will have grown their little 'tree of knowledge and good and evil' to such an extent that they will camp out in its branches and, if human nature is any indication, they will have grown proud of its size and grandeur. Then on judgment day, their great accomplishment will be run through the furnace and will be reduced to nothing. All of their good works with respect to religious ritual (or lack thereof), holiday non-observance, Lord's super (meal) observance, not meeting in a specifically set aside building for church service, etc, etc. will all be burned up.

So, instead of erecting a Christmas tree with family heirlooms as ornaments they have erected their own tree of knowledge of good and evil with forbidden fruit as ornaments?

Clete, that is just down right brilliant.

I am speechless.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by novice

So, instead of erecting a Christmas tree with family heirlooms as ornaments they have erected their own tree of knowledge of good and evil with forbidden fruit as ornaments?

Clete, that is just down right brilliant.

I am speechless.

Wow! Thanks!
If you think that's good you should read The Plot and Principles of Spiritual Growth, in that order!
Your life will never be the same!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[novice]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Wow! Thanks!
If you think that's good you should read The Plot and Principles of Spiritual Growth, in that order!
Your life will never be the same!

Resting in Him,
Clete

I am a already a big Plot fan.

In fact, if you still have some slight confusion about the "weaker brother" thing I suggest chapter 11 of the Plot starting on page, 271. :up:

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Hilston
Clete, do you obey anything that Paul teaches? Or would that be erecting a new set of commandments that you have no hope of following?

Paul teaches that I have been crucified in Christ and raised with Him as well. I am in Him, seated at the right hand of the Father in the heavanly places. I must obey the same rules which Christ must obey.

What kind of works are NOT burnt up, Clete? Abortion protesting? Gay-bashing? Liberal-mocking?

All works are subject to burning. It's not the work that is the issue, it is the motivation behind it. If your actions are born out of love for God and for your neighbor then you will recieve a reward from the Father in heaven. If your actions are born out of obedience to a set of rules, then you have your reward in full and will suffer loss on judgment day. Faith works by love, not law (rules).

Would you agree with this much?: If Paul indeed commands us to abstain from religious holidays, we are not wasting our time. Are you able to agree with that?

If Paul did indeed command such a thing then he is in conflict with his own ministry and should be completely ignored all together. There is no system of rules superior to that which was given by Moses. If all Paul did was to make a new set of rules then we may as well go back to the original and superior set.

Clete, Paul was not rebuking the Galatians for legalism. He was rebuking them for being enticed by religious ceremony.

Religious ceremony is legalism. In fact, circumcision (as a religious rite) is/was a symbol of the law as a whole (The Plot establishes this quite well).

Clete, can you and I agree that, if Paul is commanding abstinence from religious holidays, then this is not legalism, but rather honoring the Mystery?

That depend on what you mean. If someone is celevrating some religious holiday as though it were some ordinance of the church then I agree, Paul would not want for us to observe such things. But I nor anyone I know, think of Christmas or Easter or Thanks Giving as an ordinance. No one has ever suggested that I aught to celebrate Christmas and that if I don't I've commited some sort of sin or damaged my relationship with God in some way or even that I'm not as good a Christian. I am sure that such people exist but I don't know any of them and those people has errected there own set of commandments just as you have and are up the same tree that you are only on a separate branch.

My motivation [is] my love for Jesus Christ, my desire to demonstrate my love for Him by obeying His word and honoring the distinctive blessings that He died to give me.

It is interesting that you are actually doing the precise opposite (with realizing it, of course). You have died to the law. Making new ones suggests that Christ died in vain.

Another motivation is my love for my church and my desire to see it grow spiritually as a collective, and for individuals to recognize their specific blood-secured place in the created order.

Terrific motive but your action is stagnating their and your spiritual growth. The faith that saved you is the very same faith that will take you on to perfection. Your attempts to follow rules only resurects your flesh. You must crucify your flesh and walk in the Spirit if you want to experience real spiritual growth.

Another motivation is reward. I will not let anyone beguile me of my reward by false religiosity and angel worship (Col 2:18).

Again, terrific motive but 'false religiosity' is the exact title I would give to your set of rules.

Yes, because I would be sinning.

Because the scriptures forbid it. Because I will not participate in demonic activity.

No one is suggesting that you participate in demonic activity Jim. Going to church on Dec. 24th and singing Silent Night is not demon worship!

Do you think that it would be demonic activity to sing Silent Night on July 14th? Why or why not?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[STONE]

Hilston,
Regarding what you've been saying regarding Christmas, I will agree with you to the point that Paul's scriptural passages relating to the subject of 'observing days' show he does not condone legalism for believers. This is in context with the rest of Paul's teachings.

Originally posted by Hilston

It doesn't have to be. It is how the word was understood at the time.

1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one who persecuted Jesus? Uh. No. According to several lexicons and dictionary references, the word means "abortioned" or "miscarried."

"to cut or excise out, to cause or suffer abortion, miscarry. An abortion, one born prematurely" S. Zodhiates, Complete Word Study Dictionary

"a child untimely born, an abortion" E.W. Bullinger, Critical Lexicon and Concordance of the English and Greek New Testament.

"an abortion, baby prematurely born," Wm. D. Mounce, The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament

"'an abortion, an untimely birth'; from ektitrosko, 'to miscarry'" W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words

"a miscarriage, an untimely birth," Wigram-Green, The New Englishman's Greek Concordance and Lexicon

There are plenty more I could cite. Now don't get me wrong; just because all these men agree doesn't mean they're right. I have often gone against the various scholars and linguists when I've found the context and usage of a word to be contrary to their claims. I don't think this is such a case. But if you want to make an argument to the contrary, I'm all ears.

Of course it's going to seem that way to you. I, however, was forced to this conclusion, and have seen it borne out elsewhere in scripture, because of the framework by which I understand the scripture.

Fair enough, I understand it is part of the framework by which you understand scripture.

To my understanding of scripture it is irrelevant whether Paul is an abortion or not, but the point interests me.
I understand scholars believe 'ektroma' was used to denote abortion; maybe it was. I am not convinced it was used exclusively to denote abortion. I extensively researched the word and all explanations relating abortion in 1cor 15:8 varied significantly and seemed quite fumbling.
Further, I see no evidence that Paul was referring to himself instead of Jesus. The greek text reads literally "And last of all as the 'ektroma' appeared also to me."
Consider that Paul is contexually referencing Jesus appearing on the road to Damascus "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest." Paul along with the rest of the pharasses are more the aborter or the persecuter than the abortion in context.
Also consider this passage:

"Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city(Rev 21:2) and the sanctuary(Is 8:14);"

This seems to follow the course of events of the crucifixion and the early church, and also 1 Cor 15:9.

 

[STONE]

Originally posted by Hilston
Hilston wrotes:No. If the Body of Christ is going to adminstrate over the affairs of the created order with Christ, it behoves us to know and understand the scriptures of all dispensational households.

Of course it concerns you, because it is contrary to you believe. Everybody under the sun who cares about doctrine is going to think this verse gives sufficient grounds to dismiss every doctrine different from their own, just as you may think this verse gives you grounds to dismiss my doctrine. Now that we have this out of the way, perhaps we can actually discuss the content of what Paul is talking about in this passage?

I am not condemning you Hilston, but am concerned that through dispensational logic you have abandoned Jesus' teachings. This is why I hate dispensationalism.

"All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

 

[Hilston]

Hilston asked: Would you say that's what the Galatians and the Colossians were thinking? That they were making themselves righteous by their works?

Knight writes:
Yes. Or being persuaded to do such.

The text doesn't support that idea, Knight. Neither the Galatians nor the Colossians were suddenly forgetting their salvation by grace. Just as Peter was not forgetting that he was saved by grace through faith. Paul's rebuke of Peter, the Galatians, or the Colossians was not out of fear that they somehow forgot the means and Source of their salvation.

Ga 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

Why are they called foolish? For thinking that they must work for their salvation? The text doesn't support the idea. Rather, Paul chides them for thinking that their perfection (maturity, completion) depends upon upon works. They understand their salvation ("having begun in the Spirit") is secure. They've been bewitched into thinking their being "made perfect" must come by works of Jewish Law.

Here's what Paul says of the Colossians:
Col 1:2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 3 We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, 4 Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints, 5 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; 6 Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth: 7 As ye also learned of Epaphras our dear fellowservant, who is for you a faithful minister of Christ; 8 Who also declared unto us your love in the Spirit.

Can there be any doubt that Paul's audience understood their salvation by the blood of Christ alone? To suggest that these faithful, loving saints who "knew the grace of God in truth" were suddenly working for salvation is not supported by the text.

Hilston asked:
Is that why Paul prohibited religious holidays for them?

Knight writes:
Religious holidays AS A WORK are prohibited for anybody. Keep in mind religious holidays back then are not what they are now at least not the ones we have been discussing.

They're no different. Paul emphatically states this. The Jewish holidays were no different than the pagan ones, and precisely for the same reason. It is a subjugation to angels, and is strictly forbidden. Is it OK to subjugate yourself to angels as long as you don't view it as a salvific work?

Gal 4:8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods (i.e. the angelic realm, cf. 1Co 8:5). 9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements (i.e., the angelic realm), whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

Hilston wrote:
So then why wasn't it OK for Peter to observe the food laws, since he didn't view them as salvific?

Knight writes:
It wasn't OK for Peter to play the hypocrite. Peter was projecting a false gospel to the gentiles and it wasn't sending the right message.

How so? Peter wasn't telling them that eating with Jews was required for salvation, just as you guys aren't telling me that celebrating Christmas is required for salvation. By what scriptures do you know Paul would not rebuke you for what you're doing?

Hilston asked:Good question. Why didn't Paul treat Peter as a weaker brother according to Ro 14?

Knight writes:
Because the dietary laws had been repealed. Therefore the was no "weaker brother" scenario.

That's not true. Paul wrote the epistle to the Galatian BEFORE the epistle to the Romans, that means the events at Antioch were still under the "weaker brother" scenario. So I still need to know: Why didn't Paul treat Peter as a weaker brother according to Ro 14?

Hilston wrote:
Not at all. That wasn't a repeal. The Jews continued to observe dietary laws. Even Paul continued to observe dietary laws among the Jews (Ac 18:21). He also performed ritual circumcisions and blood sacrifices (Ac 16:3 21:24). The sacrifices continued, the Passover rituals and feasts, etc. etc. Nowhere is Israel's program repealed before the regeneration. Jesus taught His disciples to teach all nations everything whatsoever He commanded them (Mt. 28:19,20), which included everything in the Mosaic Law. Ezekiel gives detailed descriptions of the future blood sacrifices in the Millennium. In Acts 15, well after the events of Acts 10, Peter, Paul, James, Barnabas and the Holy Spirit draft a letter to the saved Gentiles. Included in that letter are ceremonial food laws. If God repealed food laws in Acts 10, why is the Holy Spirit endorsing them in Acts 15:28?

Knight writes:
Tell me... do you believe that Paul's gospel was disseminated all up front? Or was Paul's gospel disseminated strategically either by Paul's doing or possibly the doing of the Holy Spirit?

It was taught to Paul all up front. Once his thorn was removed and he was given free course to preach it openly, the Mystery proliferated quickly.

Hilston wrote:
But didn't you say these rules were repealed? Were two dispensations in action in Antioch? Why would Paul rebuke Peter if two dispensations were in action?

Knight writes:
Again, because Peter was playing the hypocryte.

What was hypocritical about Peter's behavior?

Hilston asked:
But could you keep the law if you wanted, as long as you didn't view it as salvific? And why devote so much to this subject? The Galatians and Colossians already understood salvation by grace. Do you believe Paul was concerned that they were going to forget that truth?

Knight writes:
Absolutely!

I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, - Galatians 1:6

Knight, you've read into this passage something that isn't there. The "different gospel" is the Jewish gospel. The very same gospel is what Peter and the Eleven legitimately and properly followed. So why is Paul saying that following a legitimate gospel was equivalent to "turning away from Him"?

Hilston wrote:
So how is it different if someone celebrates Christmas? If Paul were alive today, wouldn't he be concerned that people might be persuaded away from the truth?

Knight writes:
I suppose... that is assuming he could find some folks who were celebrating Christmas because they thought it was an ordinance.

But Knight, two of the 4 definitions I've found for ordinance define Christmas perfectly:

"A custom or practice established by long usage, A Christian rite, especially the Eucharist."

Knight writes:
But otherwise no.

Can you show evidence from the texts of Galatians or Colossians that either audience thought Jewish rituals would save them?

hilston asked: Why would it matter? Why wouldn't someone be able to accept Israel's gospel and join the ranks of Peter and James and the rest?

Knight writes:
Because that dispensation was over and only those that had signed that contract (so to speak) were still under the dispensation of circumcision.

So what? What's wrong with someone wanting to sacrifice a lamb on Passover? Or have a bris for their 8-day-old male infant? What's wrong with wanting to obey Jesus' commands to follow Moses?

Hilston asked:
Do you believe Peter and John and James and the rest had liberty in Christ?

Knight writes:
No. I do not believe that the twelve were part of the Body of Christ. Do you?

Neither do I. What compels you to conclude that the saved of Israel were somehow deprived of liberty in Christ?

Jas 1:25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

Jas 2:12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

1Pe 2:16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

Eleutheria is the very same word Paul uses in Ro 8:21 1Co 10:29 2Co 3:17 Ga 2:4 5:1,13. Its root is the same word Jesus uses in the following:

Joh 8:33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? ... 36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

You and I agree that John 8 was not written about the Body of Christ, right? So again I ask: Where do you get this idea that Israel did not have liberty in Christ?

Hilston wrotes:
The gospel of Christ was the gospel of Moses. And that's what Peter was commissioned to preach. What would be wrong with preaching water baptism and blood sacrifice today?

Knight writes:
Peter was not a member of our dispensation.

I agree, but in your view, what's the harm as long as he doesn't preach it as a salvific work?

Hilston wrote: What's wrong with it if I'm just expressing my faith, without trying to work for my salvation or add to the work of Christ?

Knight writes:
If you choose to not celebrate Christmas I have no problem with that. However claiming that it is forbidden is another story all together.

But that wasn't my question. As long as I'm not trying to work for my salvation or add to the work of Christ, why can't I water baptize, why can't I observe blood sacrifices or ritual circumcision?

 

[Yorzhik]

Originally posted by Yorzhik
I wasn't talking about which crimes are worse or not. I was talking about the obviousness of the crime.

Originally posted by Hilston
Was the law to keep the Sabbath obvious? Why does a crime have to be obvious? Paul said his gospel will judge the men of this age. Judgment will be based on a specific standard that is not obvious to everyone. The obviousness of laws is not at issue.

Thanks for proving my point. The Sabbath laws were not obvious. A crime does not have to be obvious. Even after being told (without so-called emphatic indirection, but directly) what the Sabbath law was and how violations were handled in Moses, they still checked with God. That's why they had to clarify the first offense against the Sabbath with God.

Exd 31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it [is] holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth [any] work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

Num 15:33-35 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

I'm using the word "obvious", and what I mean by that is some laws, like ceremonial laws, must be explicitly laid out because we couldn't possibly come to the conclusion that these things are wrong on our own. However, despite the unreliability of the law that God placed in our hearts, it has been reliable enough (obvious enough) that cultures at all times and in all places have at least some kind of law against stealing and murder.

The whole point is that a prohibition against Christmas must be a ceremonial law. That's all I'm saying. Can we agree on that?

Originally posted by Hilston
... And even transdispensational laws were spelled out…

We agree. Even laws written on the heart are also written in stone for a good reason.

Originally posted by Hilston
Do you really believe God intended multiple interpretations of His Word?

No, I don't think God intended multiple interpretations of His Word. However, we humans are fallible at interpretation and some wrong interpretations are more understandable mistakes than others. The point that you didn't comment on is that God did not clearly state this particular ceremonial law that you claim is in the Col 4 and Gal 2 passages. You can beat the drum on how much more emphatic it is to use a 3rd person imperative, but to be clear when you create a ceremonial law, you must be direct.

Take your example. You tell your child, "Tabitha will not scream again because you pulled her hair." And you've stated a good example where the third person imperative delivers more force to the law you are stating. But your example is weak. Your son already knows he isn't supposed to pull his sisters hair. It doesn't work if the law wasn't already clear.

Originally posted by Hilston
Do you have any comments regarding his sloppy exegesis?

I'll comment as soon as you tell us how long you've had homosexual tendencies.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
"God doesn't want you to have any fun!" Hilston means.

Originally posted by Hilston
Is that the best you can do, Yorzhik? Demonize me as an ascetic? My church doesn't do dour and somber communion rituals. We have a feast. My church doesn't mandate Sunday as a religious day of sober reflection and meditation. We hang out together all afternoon, root for the Steelers, have a cookout, and light up our Macanudos. You already know this, Yorzhik. You're just lashing out because the scriptures threaten your ritualistic and religious "fun." Peter thought it would be "fun" to eat with his Jewish buddies in Antioch, and Peter rebuked him to his face in public. But Peter had the sense to recognize that Paul wasn't just saying, "God doesn't want me to have any fun!"

I accept your scathing remarks. My quote was supposed to have been removed from my reply, but somehow it got back in (I remember highlighting and deleting it). But there it is, so pile on.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
For every ceremonial law that God had, there was an analogy reason for it. And for every non-ceremonial law God has, there is a practical reason for it. This fits neither. It cannot be ceremonial because that would defeat the purpose of having a law that existed solely to be not ceremonial. And we already agree that it isn't non-ceremonial (all non-ceremonial laws are across all dispensations).

Originally posted by Hilston
Yorzhik, what are you talking about? Non-Levites were not allowed to touch the ark. If they did, they were killed on the spot. What kind of law is that? Religious ceremony invokes the ministry of angels. Paul makes that point several times. The Body of Christ is not to submit to angels, but the other way around.

Right, that was the point, not very well made, of my quote. All laws must be either ceremonial or non-ceremonial. All non-ceremonial laws have a practical application, so your prohibition against religious celebration cannot be non-ceremonial. Your prohibition is ceremonial by definition - and thus you submit to the very thing that you claim the law was created to avoid.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
Yes, grace was underneath the law in the prior dispensation.

Originally posted by Hilston
It's no different in this dispensation, Yorzhik.

It's different. The whole point of this dispensation is to be different. The reason this dispensation is more glorious isn't because we have better laws, but because our relationship with God is different. Despite your claims to the contrary, if we are the same with different laws, our relationship with God; only the times change.

Hilston continues:

That's the point of Paul comparing Abraham's faith with the Body's in Gal. 3.

Abraham was a special case, he is the father of both dispensations. And they are separated by law and grace. Rom 4:16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all

Originally posted by Hilston
It didn't matter in prior dispensations? This is where your logic leads, Yorzhik, contrary to scripture. Love for God and love for His Law were no less important than they are today.

No, in the prior dispensation they were supposed to do certain ceremonial works. And regardless of how good a person was, if they didn't do certain ceremonial works, they were executed anyway.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
If you don't follow the laws it doesn't matter directly.

Originally posted by Hilston
What an embarrassment. Did you even read this after you typed it?

Yes, this I actually double-checked and approved. It's only embarrassing to those who don't understand the nature of God.

BTW, "it don't matter directly". It do matter, but not in the same way as the prior dispensation.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
What matters directly is your attitude/motivation toward God, and if your attitude/motivation is bad, that will probably mean you will not do things to please God, including breaking laws.

Originally posted by Hilston
This is relativism, Yorzhik. This is not moral clarity. This is ambiguous self-styled religiosity. It's sickening.

By relativism, do you mean that I'm claiming "anything goes"?

Originally posted by Hilston
Yorzhik, there are some portions of the Bible that must've fallen out of yours. Rather large sections. You might want to replace your Bible with a complete one, because I think you'll find the missing portions to be quite important and instructive regarding ceremonial laws. For example, there's a section called Leviticus and one called Numbers. There are dozens and dozens of chapters that give detailed instruction regarding ceremonial laws. I encourage you to get these and read them.

Yes, and all the ceremony is controlled by a civil government, that's a big chuck of those books I'm missing from my bible… I think. Since my bible is missing those books perhaps you could confirm that for me.

Originally posted by Hilston
Why does God spell things out if the law is known naturally?

Because the conscience is unreliable. That doesn't mean it is valueless, but that any heart can be hardened against any law or laws.

Originally posted by Hilston
So, in your view, is God simply restating the obvious?

No, God is setting the standard.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
Rom 2:14-15 explains that even non-believers have some kind of naturally known law in their hearts.

Originally posted by Hilston
The mistake you are making is that verse does not give authority to their understanding, because doing what is right in one's own eyes leads to the death (Pr 16:25). You cannot rationally tell a person "Murder is wrong because I know it deep down inside." So-called "natural law" has no authority. The very next verse indicates that God's law, not natural law, but specifically the law He gave to Paul, will judge all men of this age.

Yes, I know the verse does not give authority to their understanding. You missed the point. There are laws, Godly ones, that are written on the heart of every human. Ceremonial laws are not written on our hearts.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
Hilston, the sin nature is not what drives you to celebrate the anniversary of someone's birthday. Especially someone you love.

Originally posted by Hilston
I didn't say that.

Yes, that is what you are saying… unless you are saying Christians don't love Jesus.

Hilston continues:

It is the sin nature that drives you to celebrate religious birthdays and anniversaries and holidays. These things entice and bewitch men of today, just as they did the Galatians. Sin is dispensationally specific. When people rebel against God, they do so in a way that is specific to the current law.

No, it is only religious because the person happens to be the head of our religion. We cannot stop Jesus from having that position, but since we love Him we want to celebrate the anniversary of His birthday.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
The Col 2 passage is not emphatic.

Originally posted by Hilston
Says you.

It uses the third person imperative. Emphatic, in this context, would be using second person imperative.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
The passage is Col 2:14 sets the context that there is a reason why ordinances are not imposed on this dispensation. Because they are contrary to us, ...

Originally posted by Hilston
Why are they contrary to us?

Because ceremonial laws cannot exist in a time of pure grace.

Originally posted by Hilston
You miss Paul's point. He is equating Jewish ordinances to pagan ones.

No, he was stating that the Jewish laws are deleted in this dispensation. The previous passage should have, if we had other laws, made exceptions. But it doesn't.

Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Originally posted by Hilston
Was Paul rebuking Peter in public for not "ignor[ing] judgments concerning the kinds of ordinances that were a part of the previous dispensation"?

Yes.

Originally posted by Hilston
Yorzhik, this completely false. "Let no one trouble me" is nothing like "Let no one judge you." The third-person imperative doesn't grammatically correspond at all.

You have to be kidding. "Let no one trouble me" is nothing like "Let no one judge you"… Actually, people that trouble other people are judging them. What you are saying is "Let no one [judge me]" is nothing like "Let no one judge you". Ohhhhhhh now I see it. Right; they are nothing like each other.

You have to study real hard to get that obtuse.

Originally posted by Hilston
Notice how you ignore all the other passages that DO correspond directly to the grammar of this passage just so you can have your Christmas cake and eat it too. Here's one that corresponds nicely:

Mt 9:30 And their eyes were opened; and Jesus straitly charged them, saying, See that no man know it.

You would rather focus on a verse that does not correspond just so you can claim that Paul was not being emphatic. You ignore this and other verses that unambiguously correspond because they convey emphatic commands. Go figure. People will do anything to justify their sin.

Your mistake is that Mt 9:30 does not dictate that Col 2:16 uses the third person imperative the same way. The context sets the usage, and Col 2:16 is not equal to the commands given in Lev about the ceremonial laws.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
Gal 4:24 explains emphatically, clearly, and strictly, that the law that Paul did not want the Galatians to follow was the law given on Mount Sinai. It was the ceremonial laws, required, and obligatory for the previous dispensation. ...

Originally posted by Hilston
Why are they prohibited, Yorzhik?

Because we don't have ceremonial laws in this dispensation.

Originally posted by Hilston
You miss Paul's point: When they observed pagan holidays, they did service to the angelic realm (elemental spirits). Now that they are allowing themselves to be enticed and bewitched by the Jewish holidays, they are turning again to the angelic realm. That is the point. Celebrating religious holidays, whether pagan or Jewish, is angel worship (Col. 2:18).

No, the point was that they (the Jews) had ordinances and this dispensation doesn't. He didn't want the body believers to be beguiled by the Judizers who were puffed up in the mind because they kept the law. A puffed up mind is the same problem you could fall into, and undoubtedly will be a prevalent problem among people that believe the same as you. It's unavoidable in a dispensation of works.

Originally posted by Hilston
This is eisegesis, Yorzhik. All dispensations were ruled by law and practiced by grace among God's elect. That's the point of Paul's discussion about Abraham and the faith and grace he had BEFORE the giving of the Mosaic Law.

Then they are all the same.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
What you are trying to do is create a dispensation that is the same as the last - same design, different laws.

Originally posted by Hilston
That is what the scriptures teach, Yorzhik. What you are trying to do is to bury grace away from God's people of previous dispensations just so you can call Paul's laws "optional" and thereby justify your violations.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
I'm just curious, do you view all the dispensations the same? Just a different set of laws?

Then this dispensation is no more glorious than the last.

Originally posted by Hilston
Of course, Yorzhik! That's what dispensation means! A different set of laws.

Then this dispensation is no more glorious than the last.

 

[Hilston]

Hilston asked:
Clete, do you obey anything that Paul teaches? Or would that be erecting a new set of commandments that you have no hope of following?

Paul teaches that I have been crucified in Christ and raised with Him as well. I am in Him, seated at the right hand of the Father in the heavanly places. I must obey the same rules which Christ must obey.[/quote]So are you able to follow those rules or not?

Hilston asked:
What kind of works are NOT burnt up, Clete? Abortion protesting? Gay-bashing? Liberal-mocking?

Clete writes:
All works are subject to burning. It's not the work that is the issue, it is the motivation behind it. If your actions are born out of love for God and for your neighbor then you will recieve a reward from the Father in heaven.

So if I offer blood sacrifices and perform water baptisms out of my love for God and my neighbor, will I receive a reward from the Father in heaven?

Clete writes:
If your actions are born out of obedience to a set of rules, then you have your reward in full and will suffer loss on judgment day. Faith works by love, not law (rules).

Faith works "what" by love?

Hilston wrote:
Would you agree with this much?: If Paul indeed commands us to abstain from religious holidays, we are not wasting our time. Are you able to agree with that?

Clete writes:
If Paul did indeed command such a thing then he is in conflict with his own ministry and should be completely ignored all together. There is no system of rules superior to that which was given by Moses.

Paul says HIS gospel will judge the men of this age, not the law of Moses (Ro 2:16). For this age, the standard of righteousness given via Paul IS superior to that given via Moses.

Clete writes:
If all Paul did was to make a new set of rules then we may as well go back to the original and superior set.

That would put us under angels, Clete. Do you see that point? Do you agree that subjugating ourselves to the angelic realm is wrong? Or is it OK to do as long as you have the right motive?

Hilston wrote:
Clete, Paul was not rebuking the Galatians for legalism. He was rebuking them for being enticed by religious ceremony.

Clete writes:
Religious ceremony is legalism.

Christmas is religious ceremony, Clete.

Hilston wrote:
Clete, can you and I agree that, if Paul is commanding abstinence from religious holidays, then this is not legalism, but rather honoring the Mystery?

Clete writes:
That depend on what you mean. If someone is celevrating some religious holiday as though it were some ordinance of the church then I agree, Paul would not want for us to observe such things.

Why not? As long as they were not viewing it as a salvific work, what would be the harm in your view? Isn't Communion an ordinance in your view?

Clete writes:
But I nor anyone I know, think of Christmas or Easter or Thanks Giving as an ordinance.

It is an ordinance. Try not celebrating and you'll see.

Clete writes:
No one has ever suggested that I aught to celebrate Christmas and that if I don't I've commited some sort of sin or damaged my relationship with God in some way or even that I'm not as good a Christian. I am sure that such people exist but I don't know any of them and those people has errected there own set of commandments just as you have and are up the same tree that you are only on a separate branch.

You have yet to prove your case, Clete. Scripture indicates that angel worship is sin. Religious ceremony, whether Jewish or pagan, is subjugation to angels. Christmas is demonic, Clete.

Hilston wrote:
My motivation [is] my love for Jesus Christ, my desire to demonstrate my love for Him by obeying His word and honoring the distinctive blessings that He died to give me.

Clete writes:
It is interesting that you are actually doing the precise opposite (with realizing it, of course). You have died to the law. Making new ones suggests that Christ died in vain.

Where do you get this idea? Christ's death does not abolish law. I do not obey law for my salvation. I obey law because God has a standard of righteousness that I desire to meet. Just as my son recognizes my standard of righteousness and desires to meet it. What does Christ command of you, Clete? Anything?

Hilston wrote: [i[
Another motivation is my love for my church and my desire to see it grow spiritually as a collective, and for individuals to recognize their specific blood-secured place in the created order.[/i]

Clete writes:
Terrific motive but your action is stagnating their and your spiritual growth.

How so?

Clete writes:
The faith that saved you is the very same faith that will take you on to perfection.

What is perfection?

Clete writes:
Your attempts to follow rules only resurects your flesh. You must crucify your flesh and walk in the Spirit if you want to experience real spiritual growth.

What is spiritual growth, Clete?

Hilston wrote:
Another motivation is reward. I will not let anyone beguile me of my reward by false religiosity and angel worship (Col 2:18).

Clete writes:
Again, terrific motive but 'false religiosity' is the exact title I would give to your set of rules.

How do YOU avoid angel worship, Clete?

Hilston wrote:
Because the scriptures forbid it. Because I will not participate in demonic activity.

Clete writes:
No one is suggesting that you participate in demonic activity Jim.

By celebrating Christmas I would be. That's what Galatians and Colossians teaches.

Clete writes:
Going to church on Dec. 24th and singing Silent Night is not demon worship!

You can plug your ears and clench your eyes all you want, but that is what the text says, Clete.

Clete writes:
Do you think that it would be demonic activity to sing Silent Night on July 14th? Why or why not?

Of course not. That would not be a symbolic ritualistic act of religious ceremony. I could sing it right now without offending God. But as soon as I step into a situation of ritualistic ceremony, symbolism and holiday observance, I've disrespected and dishonored that for which Christ died to secure: My position with Him above the angelic realm.

 

[Hilston]

Desperate. Not serious.

Desperate. Not serious.

Yorzhik writes:
The point that you didn't comment on is that God did not clearly state this particular ceremonial law that you claim is in the Col 4 and Gal 2 passages.

Yes, He did. You just refuse to acknowledge what is in the text. You even sought out a Greek scholar whose own effort to whiggle free of the force of the passage suffices to indict him. Your uncritical acceptance of his sloppy exegesis suffices to indict you, too, and affirms your own pre-commitment to disobeying the scripture.

Yorzhik writes:
You can beat the drum on how much more emphatic it is to use a 3rd person imperative, but to be clear when you create a ceremonial law, you must be direct.

It is direct, Yorzhik, as direct as Mt. 9:30, which you MUST disregard lest your convenient dismissal be shown for the sham that it is. I can't tell how disappointing it is to see you focus on passages that do not grammatically correspond to Col 2:16 and disregard passages that do. I come to expect more from you, Yorzhik.

Yorzhik writes: Take your example. You tell your child, "Tabitha will not scream again because you pulled her hair." And you've stated a good example where the third person imperative delivers more force to the law you are stating. But your example is weak. Your son already knows he isn't supposed to pull his sisters hair. It doesn't work if the law wasn't already clear.

Your desperation is embarrassing and I'm quickly losing respect. Are you actually saying that a command is weak if the person commanded already knows what he is supposed to do or not do? Where does this principle come from? Do you simply disregard whole portions of Deuteronomy? ("the second law" the Mishneh Torah "the repetition"). It's amazing how far someone will go, and the things people will just make up as they go, just to push the authority of scripture away from themselves.

Yorzhik write: The whole point is that a prohibition against Christmas must be a ceremonial law. That's all I'm saying. Can we agree on that?

How can a prohibition be ceremonial? By definition, a ceremony is an action, not a non-action. Jesus, via Paul, prohibits ceremony. There is no symbolism or ceremony expressed in obeying the prohibition, it is therefore NOT a ceremonial law.

Yorzhik writes: Because we don't have ceremonial laws in this dispensation.

Why not, according to your view? Why not have wedding ceremonies and baptism ceremonies and rededication ceremonies and communion ceremonies?

Yorzhik, would it be OK to submit ourselves to the angelic realm as long as we didn't do it as an ordinance or as a salvific work? Why or why not?

Yorzhik writes: No, the point was that they (the Jews) had ordinances and this dispensation doesn't.

Yeah. Right.

1Co 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the ordinances which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the ordinance which he received of us.

 

[Hilston]

STONE writes:
To my understanding of scripture it is irrelevant whether Paul is an abortion or not, but the point interests me.

That presumed irrelevance, in itself, should be a concern. Paul thought it was relevant. Why shouldn't we?

STONE writes:
I understand scholars believe 'ektroma' was used to denote abortion; maybe it was. I am not convinced it was used exclusively to denote abortion.

No one is saying it's "exclusively" used to denote abortion. Nor does it have to be. The context makes it clear whether or not to apply that meaning. Even contemporary secular usage concurs:

"... thn men Tahsin barean ousan ek ton plhgon avton exetrosen ..." ("... to Taesis who was pregnant they occasioned by their violence the miscarriage of her child.") [Moulton/Milligan, Vocab. of the Greek New Testament].

Consider it usage in the LXX:
Job 3:16 Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light.

Eccl 6:3 If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he.

STONE writes:
I extensively researched the word ...

Why? Didn't you say it was "irrelevant whether Paul is an abortion or not"?

STONE writes:
... and all explanations relating abortion in 1cor 15:8 varied significantly and seemed quite fumbling.

Of course! That's because having a correct framework brings clarity. Having an incorrect framework (preterism, covenantalism, dominionism, kingdomism) brings ambiguity and "fumbling." That's why Keil and Delitszch admit to having such a huge difficulties with the last chapters of Ezekiel.

STONE writes:
Further, I see no evidence that Paul was referring to himself instead of Jesus. The greek text reads literally "And last of all as the 'ektroma' appeared also to me."

That's not true. The Greek text literally says "last yet of-all, as to-the abortion He-was-viewed", or more idiomatically, "last of all, as to an abortion, he appeared also to me." There is no question grammatically whom "abortion" referred to.

STONE writes:
Consider that Paul is contexually referencing Jesus appearing on the road to Damascus "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest."

Yes, and Paul is the abortion to whom Jesus appeared.

STONE writes:
Paul along with the rest of the pharasses are more the aborter or the persecuter than the abortion in context.

Messiah was not aborted! Good grief, think about the implications of what you're suggesting, Stone!

STONE writes:
I am not condemning you Hilston, but am concerned that through dispensational logic you have abandoned Jesus' teachings. This is why I hate dispensationalism.

I understand and appreciate your concern, but let me assure you: Paul's teachings ARE Jesus' teachings for the Body of Christ, the Mystery, which was held in silence from the foundation of the world. We are to obey Jesus Christ and follow Him as Paul followed Him (1Co 11:1,2), not as Peter did. The verse you quote was given to Peter and elect Israel, not to the Body of Christ.

Note the part you underlined:

"All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

That includes the following:

Mt 23: 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Mt 8:4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Lu 5:14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Not to mention the food restrictions, ceremonial washings, spice tithing, etc. And you can't claim these things were abrogated at the death, burial and resurrection of Christ because the verse you quoted and underlined above was given AFTER His resurrection. Also, we see the disciples in their continuation of Mosaic ceremonial law after the resurrection.