Tuesday, August 21, 2007

TATTOOS-Part 1

I am totally amazed at the attitude toward tattoos these days. I hear people say stuff like "Have you seen Kelly's new tattoo? I have just got to get one."

I remember growing up in the early 70's and seeing a lot of people with tattoos. The people, as I remember it, that had the tattoos were the tough-rebellious group. The tatoos were pretty basic with the dark green ink sharing its message with all to see. The 80's and 90's did not seem to be as colorful (tattoos, that is). In the 2000's the needles starting coloring again.

As Christians what is the view that we should have toward tattoos? Should we just think that it is part of the culture and it is not hurting anyone.

"Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord." Leviticus 19.28

Is this verse still applicable today? Does this verse apply if we have a "Christian tattoo?"

What if we have a little one on our ankle like so many today? Is that Ok? What about the new embedded tattoos?

I like what Tony Capoccia said...
"I think the spirit of Lev. 19.28 is that we are to respect the human body for it is a gift from God to us to use, and that it is the temple of the Holy Spirit:"Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body." [1 Corinthians 6:19-20]

Since God said to honor your body, then Satan will try to dishonor it! We have seen the pagan cultures do all kinds of bizarre things to the body to honor their false gods (demons)--they cut their bodies, put rings in many places, paint and tattoo, and do other awful things.

Is it any wonder, as our culture continues to turn away from the true God that we are beginning to degrade our bodies more and more."

"Tattooing is often a magical rite in the more traditional cultures, and the tattooist is respected as a priest or shaman."(Michelle Delio, Tattoo: The Exotic Art of Skin Decoration, p. 73)

"The actual tattooing process, which involved complex ritual and taboos, could only be done by priests and was associated with beliefs which were secrets known only to members of the priestly caste. . . Hambly concluded that historically tattooing had originated in connection with ancient rites of scarification and bloodletting which were associated with religious practices intended to put the human soul in harmony with supernatural forces and ensure continuity between this life and the next." (Gilbert, Steve, Tattoo History: A Source Book, p. 158)

Famous witch and author Laurie Cabot writes of the tattoo:"The origins of tattooing came from ancient magical practices. . . "(Laurie Cabot, Power of the Witch, cited in Masonic and Occult Symbols Illustrated by Dr. Cathy Burns, p. 301)

161 comments:

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

A stretch at best. I Cor. 6 deals with fornication, not tattoos. It is unsafe and subjective to begin with an OT verse and New Testamentize it without a clear teaching. It is this type of Biblical interpretation that gave way to Seveth Day Adventist theology that proclaims a "principle" in the Old Testament can be dragged into today complete with unsubstantiated particulars. This would be in the same vein as those who would say that the principle of forbidding making man made images of God in the OT would translate into no pictures today.

And even if we could ask God if He minded tatoos and said He did not accept them, would they not be a symptom and surely not a point of attack? The church has many more incredibly serious issues that would seem to dwarf tatoos. Man looks on the outward appearance, God ponders the heart.

Anonymous said...

I did some research on Bible Gateway- Keyword Search (graven image) KJV Translation. There are 25 verses that pop up with the words (graven image) in them. Yes, they are all from the Old Testament, but doesn’t the Word say that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever? Hebrews 13:8, and if that is true (and it is) about Jesus, then anything He says in the OT is just as applicable today as it was then.

Dictionary Definition: Graven – cut or impressed into a surface; “an incised design”; “engraved, etched, inscribed, incised, carved, carven-made for or formed by carving…

It seems to me that getting a tattoo could very well fall in to the category of (graven image).

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

"then anything He says in the OT is just as applicable today as it was then."

Then do not work on Saturdays, or wear clothes with different materials, or eat any shell fish etc., etc..

It surely must be evident to you that your premise is faulty. There is no law to the New Testament believer. All things are lawful to him, all things may not be edifying. There are hundreds of specific Levitical laws that no longer apply to the covenant of the Spirit.

To cull out a particular commandment in the Old Testament and bring it into the New Testament is hermeneutically unsound. Tattoos may be painful, expensive, and permanent and thereby unwise, but they are not forbidden in the New Testament.

They may even be a sign of an inward problem which Christ can fullfill, so we as compassionate believers must see the bearers of tattoos with the eyes of mercy.

andy said...

Hi all! I must confess to being some what of a slacker/punky,and i use to love tattoos,unfortunately i have a ungodly one on my arm a dream-catcher, which i do regret..

I think it depends on what artwork you have tattooed to be honest.The o/t verse may have a deeper reasons for not marking your skin,did people celebrate their faith by tattoos?

The increase in tattoos and piercing in England as really taken off!! But surprisingly its true with the parents to!!Sometimes there not much differences talking to someone in there 40s to their children of 18!!

When my parents generation hit their 40s they seemed way older and more responsible..Maybe i'm a prude but talking to a woman of 45 who cant wait to get her bellybutton pierced is odddddddddd..

I remember reading on Ken or Ingrid's site a article about mature Christians acting juvenile, and how acceptable that is today,it seems that Christian are following the worlds trait,dumbed down city!!
andy

Steve Fuentes said...

I agree with Henry, certain tattoos may not be wise, but to say tattoos are sin is to say more than the Lord has said to the New Testament believers.

It is interesting that certain OT laws from the more than 600 seem to be chosen and the rest unkept. Jesus declared that if you're going to seek your righteousness from the Law, than your righteousness from it has to surpass that of the Pharisees.

I opt for a righteousness imparted by faith in Christ alone.

I personally got a tattoo when I was 17, and am not opposed to getting more if I chose to do it. What would hard liners tell me to do with the one I have already. Or what about bikers who get saved and have full body tattoos, should they get them removed and be scarred for the rest of their lives?

I posted about Christian Tattoo Artists on my blog and received some interesting comments.

http://colosseumuprise.blogspot.com/
2007/07/christian-tattoo-artists.html

The beauty of Christ is that he convicts us all in slightly different fashions. Some may get tattoos and feel no conviction about it, while others who get one would know in their hearts that they shouldn't have done it!

Peace Out!

bob said...

Lev 19:27 (directly before the statement on tattoos says- "Do not trim off the hair on your temples or trim your beards."

I'm assuming that your answer to the question of "Is this verse still applicable today?" is "No."
(correct me if I'm wrong).
For your reasoning to stick here, please give me a rationale why I should disregard vs 27 but be constrained by vs 28.

The context of tattoos in Lev 19:28 is cutting your bodies for the dead. What's being outlawed are practices of pagan worship.

Should I cut my body for the dead or inscribe occult symbols in an act of worship of pagan gods? No way.

May I tattoo Psalm 84:11 (on my right arm) and Ps 72:5 (on my left)? I see no biblical reason why not.

As for graven images... that's muslim reasoning my friend. If I follow that line of thinking, then NO artistic representations of anything in creation is allowed. The context is not creating works of art, but creating idols to bow down to. Unless I'm sking/allowing people to worship the images I have tattooed on me, I think I'm okay in the "graven image" dept...

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

And behold - the emergent/emerging brother gives a cojent, Biblical answer to the question. Clear and unambiguous. Perhaps you are not a paga cult leader after all!

Just having a little fun with you, Bob. Thanks for your contribution. I may even get a Dan Kimball tattoo tomorrow. I'm not ready for the MacLaren one, and the ooze one is way too painful.

approvedworkman said...

Wow
I don't have to obey any of the Law,including the big ten?

1 Cor 6 deals with "anything" relating to the body, it happens to be used in reference to fornication in that passage.
It's like Romans 11:29,
"the gifts and callings of God are irrevocable"
Paul is saying that about true Israel's calling and election in this passage, but it is true for them because any and all of the gifts and callings of God are irrevocable.


Matthew 5:
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly, I say to you,until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

No offense guys, all has not been accomplished, as there is still the issue of His return and the administering of justice and the Kingdom in its fullness.
Jesus is saying that He came to keep the Law. He keeps it on our behalf. The law requires two things;
1. It must be kept perfectly
2. If it is not kept perfectly, then it requires the death of the violater.
Jesus "keeps" both requirements for us, "perfectly". Now I don't have to be stoned to death, or stone someone else to death for ...let's say adultery,e.g.

Please don't bring up the stupid emergent argument re: eating lobster, as Mark 7:14-23 takes care of that non-issue.

The root for fulfill in the Greek means to complete or perfect. It is present active. He is doing it right now.
The Law will not pass away until the need for it is removed. That will not happen until the new heaven and new earth are established, and all whose names are not in the Book of Life are relegated to the lake of fire.

Lev 19:28
28You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the LORD.

I believe that this verse is saying that it is forbidden to cut your flesh for the dead, and it is forbidden to tattoo yourself, i.e. cut yourself to make an image, for the same reason. Both of these wrer obvioulsy practices of the surrounding cultures. The Law was given to show separation from these cultures.

"Be Holy,(separate) for I am Holy"


I do not believe that tattoos are sinful unless done in the practice of false religion.

If they are sinful then what do we do about those who come to know salvation, but had their bodies covered with tattoos in their previous lifestyle?

This is why the Bible is to be taken as one complete Word from Genesis to Revelation, and is meant to be read literally as if it makes sense,(what a concept)rather than using culture and sociology as "regula fide"

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

"The Law was given to show separation from these cultures."

You might want to read Galations to see the core reason why the law was given. If you happen to be in bondage to the "big ten" as you put it, I hope you not only worship on Saturday, but you don't pick up any sticks on that day either.

We do not lie because we have the Spirit within us, not because we keep tablets of stone at our church.

approvedworkman said...

"We do not lie because we have the Spirit within us, not because we keep tablets of stone at our church."

You just proved my point. Outside of Christ you are condemned by the Law.
It is still a sin to lie.

Romans 8:
"3For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit."

Only the spiritual man can keep the Law.


Romans 7:
1Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives?

Galatians 2:
I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Romans 7:
7What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." 8But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
13Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.

The Law was given to prove that we were/are dead in our sins. If we were sinless, then the law gives life by our keeping it. Jesus, the only sinless one, kept it perfectly, therefore we receive life through Him, and in Him.

John 5:
39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. 41 I do not receive glory from people. 42But I know that you do not have the love of God within you. 43I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? 45Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. 46For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. 47But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"

Jesus and the scriptures, i.e. the law and the prophet, are inseparable.

Anonymous said...

I wonder how many of the supporters of tatoos have tatoos themselves. I think if a person was unsaved when they got tatoos, then it is a mark of their past. I don't see how marking your body after salvation is honoring to God even if it has a sweet message. Carry a tract around if you want to witness.

Whatever happened to avoiding the appearance of evil. Since this is obviously a gray area for some, perhaps this activity should be avoided altogether so as not to trip up other believers. We aren't a New Testament church, we are a Bible church. They are inseparable.

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. behold, I Paul say unto you, that if you be circumsised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor TO DO THE WHOLE LAW."

You say - "Only the spiritual man can keep the Law."

That is a lie. NO ONE can keep the law. Your hermeneutics is very faulty. If you are still under the law then "Christ has profited you nothing". "Christ is THE END OF THE LAW to everyone that believes".

If the law still applies to you, you must do all of it.

Randy said...

I do think that the answer is unclear... to tattoo or not tattoo? That is the question. I have seven, I wish I had none, but I can't take them off. If I were to consider getting another one I would have to ask myself why?
Who am I trying to impress?
Am I trying to impress men rather than God? Psalm 118:8
Is this holy as He is holy? 1 Peter 1:15-16
What purpose does it serve? Is it pure, noble, & right? Phil 4:8
Am I getting it out of vain conceit? Phil 2:3

Finally, did I prayerfully consider a permanant change to the body God gave me?

Anonymous said...

Whatever happened to II Cor 6:17???

"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,"

Or, I Thessalonians 5:22?

"Abstain from all appearance of evil."

We as Christians are called to be different from the world. NOT just like the world with christian tattoos & christian trappings, but to be a "chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people as I Peter 2:9 says.

If we look & act just like the world why would they want to join us.....we are no different than they are.

approvedworkman said...

This is what happens when you believe that there is such a thing as prevenient grace.

Back to Romans 8:
"4in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."

We walk according to the Spirit; as it is in Christ we walk.The Law is still in force and must be kept He is the one who kept the Law in His flesh,i.e. as a man,(the only one to do so),and keeps it for us. We are dead.Therefore the law requires nothing from us. So I no longer live,it is Christ in me. However He is keeping the law and when we walk according to the Spirit and not the flesh we are keeping it also as a"new creation" in Christ.
This is as plain as anything. I would not be worried about MY hermenuetics.

"That is a lie. NO ONE can keep the law."

Really? All who are in Him can.You do not keep it to attain salvation;you keep it because you are saved,
"and that not of yourself,lest any man should boast"

The gay agenda uses the same argument to support their practice as "gay christians"

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

What law do you keep? There is only one, the "moral" "ceremonial" and other labels are man made.

Which law do you keep?

approvedworkman said...

There is only one Law. Yes i agree.
I am not saying that I keep the law.

approvedworkman said...

Jesus kept all the Law, dietary Holy cdays etc.

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

I agree, Jesus kept all the law so we do not have to. Our law is the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. Paul asks why return to the beggarly elements, which is how Paul views the law.

Hebrews tell us that the law was made intentially weak in order to be done away with. "For there is verily a disanulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a BETTER hope..."

I appreciate that you do not follow the law, none of us do. We no longer answer to God as a lawgiver but as a Father. Our relationship with the Father is one of sons, not just law abiding citizens. He no longer punishes us as lawbreakers but in love as sons. I realize that this can be misconstrued as license for sin, but Paul says "God forbid",

"For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under the law, but under grace".

The love of Christ constrains us to obey Him. "If you love Me, obey my commandments". And Jesus only gave us two commandments, and today the law of Moses is not only dead, it must be completely done away with or we will "fall from grace" in our teachings. Good raporte thogh.

dk said...

Rick,
I very much enjoyed reading your comments. I had a quick look at your blog as well. I hope to be a regular reader of your posts. Your posts are truly food for spiritual life.

DT,

I am not discouraging you, but I feel your posts are mostly 'against' something. May be that is the ministry that God entrusted you. But are you sure?

Rick pointed out something that is really missing amoung christians today

"The love of Christ constrains us to obey Him. "If you love Me, obey my commandments".

Hope I have not offended you, DT.

May God bless us all.

dk

Tim said...

Wow, you managed to abuse the old and the new testament in a single post.

Dead Theologians said...

Everyone,

When I posted this post I knew that it would crank up some of you. Good. It is good to get the blood going. It is good when something or someone makes you think through your beliefs and convictions.

I will try to answer either questions or certain people.

dk,
I am an adjunct seminary professor of church history, apologetics and hermenuetics with apologetics being my favorite. I am also a Southern Baptist pastor. Hence, I enjoy addressing the ills that plague the church and hope to steer it back on course. Some might say it is like John the Baptist. I don't know. You asked me "Are you sure?"
You better believe I am sure. Somebody has to call the church out of its sinful sleep while it is trying to Christianize everything.

Rick,
Your fingers must be tired from all of the replies.
1Cor. 6 deals with honoring your body, not just fornication. That is clear.

You said "It is this type of Biblical interpretation that gave way to Seveth Day Adventist theology that proclaims a "principle" in the Old Testament can be dragged into today complete with unsubstantiated particulars."

This does no other comment.

You said "The church has many more incredibly serious issues that would seem to dwarf tatoos."

No one disagrees with you. I don't come to your blog attacking your content...

You said "It surely must be evident to you that your premise is faulty."

Who are you responding to, anonymous?

You said "Tattoos may be painful, expensive, and permanent and thereby unwise, but they are not forbidden in the New Testament."

But you are supposed to honor your body and mutilating it so that it bleeds and altering it doesn't.

You said "so we as compassionate believers must see the bearers of tattoos with the eyes of mercy."

Rick, You need to read the post again. I have no problem with those who already have tattoos. I wanted those who do not who might be considering it to think about it rather than following everyone else.

Andy, good to see your hanging around still.

Steve,
You said "but to say tattoos are sin is to say more than the Lord has said to the New Testament believers"

I am not saying they are sin. But I think there is a big problem with them and their origins.

You said "What would hard liners tell me to do with the one I have already. Or what about bikers who get saved and have full body tattoos, should they get them removed and be scarred for the rest of their lives?"

Once again, I did not say anything about them. If you and Rick would read the posts you would notice that I am quoting others and asking y'alls opinions.
BTW, they already are scarred by the needle.

Rick, BTW, You cannot have grace without the law condemning you. The law is a mirror showing your sin and grace is the balm that forgives that sin. They are hand in hand.

Randy,
Excellent comment. I encourage everyone to read his comment and look at those verses.

Lastly dk, I am not offended. You have asked me this question before when you thought I should be more loving and not calling things out.
My name is not Robert Schuller.

I think the idea of having a tattoo is not just about "if I want to I will get one." Us wanting one or the culture saying that it is ok does not make something ok.

It has been fun watching the lively exchange this afternoon.

What does everyone think about the quotes from the sources I listed?

DT

Dead Theologians said...

Tim,

Please explain yourself as you sling the mud.

DT

dk said...

dt,
I would say, over eating is worse than having a tattoo, as the former does more damage to the body than the latter. Considering that 1 in 5 people in the developed world is obese (whose God is their belly), over eating is something that deserve to be tackled than tattoo. I am not forgetting the connection that you made with ancient pagan religious systems with tattooing, but then is it possible to avoid everything that resembles rituals in pagan worship?

Personally, I wouldn't get a tattoo. I cant see any fun in permanently scarring my skin.

How about Olympics that would have some pagan rituals associated with it when it started? Does it mean we should not support Olympics as well? Probably we shouldn't. What a waste of money!

dk

dk said...

I would like to add that I know obesity can also be caused by not over eating. May God heal such people.

dk

Steve Fuentes said...

DT,

You're the SBC's best kept secret!

You should rename your blog "The UFC", Ultimate Fighting Christians!

Anyway, you know I'm just having some fun with you. I was going to ask if the tattooed arm photos were members of your youth group, but I thought I shouldn't. J/K

You asked about the quotes in your post. I know much of what we utilize today has pagan origins. The days of the week, holidays like Easter and Christmas, etc. So the quotes are hard to argue against. Coming from witches and priests, I'm sure everything they did was an act of worship unto a false god.

So I like to think that Christian Tattoo artists or Christian tattoos (if you'll allow them to be called that) are a form of redemption when done as an act of worship unto the one true God. Like meat sacrificed to idols. Some could eat it, some couldn't. Just depended on their conscience.

Wouldn't it be great if everyone who comments on your blog got "Dead Theologians" tattooed on their forearms? :)

PS - You told me read your posts more clearly. I try, but that darn publik skool ejucation keeps me from comprehending! :0

wade said...

Brothers,

Over the past 13 years as a disciple of our Lord Jesus, I have watched many trends come and go. I'm sure most of you have witnessed this as well. This argument was come up many time and in various ways. How do we men and women of God "walk in a manner worthy of Christ" and not compromise with a worldly demonic system that would love to neutralize our witness to the lost?

I have read some good and not so good comments on this post. In our generation the question seems to be " how close can I get to the edge without falling into the canyon?" This is the wrong question--from my perspective.

I was delivered by the precious blood of Christ from the heavy metal scene. Tattoos were a way to identify yourself as "bad." I believe that attitude is still the same. Over the past ten years I have considered many gray areas that we in the body of Christ tend to bicker over. length of hair, drinking, smoking, tattooing, appropriate dress, which version of Scripture to read....yada yada...I call this denominational evangenlism.

One comment in this post brought up what I believe to be the number one and number two things to consider in the "gray areas" debate, and everybody glossed over it. Number one..."Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind and your and number two... love your neighbor as yourself" LK 10:27
Loving our neighbors as we love ourselves is a huge issue with our Lord. The Apostle Paul said in Phil 2:3-4 " Do nothing from rivalry, or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves....but look out for ths interests of others." Here, I believe is the crux of this tattoo debate or any other "gray area debate". Basically, if my liberty in Christ causes another bro/sis in Christ to stumble, then I am in sin. Even if the issue is extremely gray (cf. 1 cor 10:23-24). I know the context of this is eating meat offered to idols, but the principle is clear in v. 23 that "all things are lawful to me." Theologians correct me if I am wrong. The question should not be "can I have a tattoo? But, "will my cool 'Christian tat' cause any of my brothers to stumble."

Some other practical question for detemining gray areas could be, "How will this benefit me spiritually?" "Will it bring me under another bondage"(1Cor 6:12), "will it defile God's temple?" (1Cor 6:12, Rom 12:1-2) "will it further the cause of the gospel?" "will it violate my conscience"(Rom 14:23), and most important of all, "will it bring glory to God?"

1 Corinthians 10:31-33 "Therefore, whether, you eat or drink, or whatever you do (tattoo?), do all for the glory of God. give no offense, either to the Jews,or the Greeks,or to the church of God. Just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved."

Another practical question--how cool will you look when your 60 and probably flabby" ha ha (just joking)

Unto the King Eternal,
wade <><

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

"I don't come to your blog attacking your content..."

* An observation I made concerning subject priority (which you agreed with), but you are welcome to my blog, do not be offended since what I said was true, was it not? Not an attack.

* I never mentioned tattoos received before salvation. I assumed you had no problem with those.

* The "mutilating the body" statement might need clarification. Does it include pierced ears? Plastic surgery? Does it have to be permanent or does hand stamps at Disney apply?

* Your observation about the law convicting before salvation is true in a general sense. One must be convicted of sin by the Spirit (wich is sorely lacking today) before a sinner can see the need of Christ. But a quote from Moses' law is not necessary, just the working of the Spirit by a convicting mirror.

* I'll take the "tired fingers" remark as good hearted since dialogue and exchange should be within the iron sharpening iron realm. My overall point was two fold.

1. Tatoos may be ill advised but they are not New Covenant sin.

2. The New Testament believer is not under law but he now is under the guidance and chastening of the Spirit. Moses' law, if so desired, must be followed in whole, not part. That is why the Seventh Day Adventists are wrong to observe all the food laws and Sabbath laws but do not observe things they've decided not to. The New Testament is clear, the law was created by God to bring us to Christ (not individual believers but within the economy of God's redemptive plan) and soon after Pentecost it would become evident that God had placed an inherant weakness in the law that was set to manifest itself after Christ.

I love your blog artwork and have enjoyed the lively dialogue by one and all!

"Great peace have they that love thy law and nothing shall offend them."

JSU said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

Wade - I also agree with your Scriptural rendering. It is a question of wisdom, not of law.

bob said...

As an addendum here...
"Whatever happened to avoiding the appearance of evil."

Absolutely the MOST misunderstood verse in the Bible. Read it again. Read it in different translations. Read it in the Greek. It does NOT say to avoid what looks evil (a very subjective standard by the way)- it says avoid every instance of evil.
(watch your toes!) Those who throw the "avoid the appearance of evil" thing around tip off a certain biblical naivete. Kind of like calling it the book of "Revelations"...

approvedworkman said...

The scriptures plainly state what it means to love God, and to love your neighbor as yourself.

God:
Matthew 22:
35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" 37And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38This is the great and first commandment.

Compare this to:
Exodus 20:
1 And God spoke all these words, saying,
2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
3 "You shall have no other gods before me.
4 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.
8 "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, 10but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Your neighbor:
Matthew 22:
39And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Compare this to:
Exodus 20:
12 "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.
13 "You shall not murder.
14 "You shall not commit adultery.
15 "You shall not steal.
16 "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
17 "You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s."

The conclusion of the matter is this:
Matthew 22:
40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

That is the Gospel.

approvedworkman said...

What the Scriptures say:

1. The Law has never been abolished Matthew 5:17-18

2. The Law must be kept, since it is still in force. Matthew 5:19-20

3. Jesus kept all the law. Hebrews 4:15

4. He keeps it for all who are His, right now. Romans 8:1-8

5. Sin existed before there the Law was given Romans 5:12-14

6. The law was given so that men would know that they are sinning. Romans 5:20

6. We are justified in Christ, who kept/keeps the law for us. Galatians 2:15-21

7.We are dead in Christ, and alive in Christ. Romans 6:5-14 and all of chapter 7; Galatians 2:19-20

8.There are no “gray areas”. Paul is stating the fact that we know what to do in every given circumstance, re: our behavior before others. We act as if we don’t know. The Scriptures are given so that we will know. Whatever is not of faith is sin. The double-minded man should not expect anything.
1 Cor 10:23-33;James 1;5-7;Romans 14:22-23;Deut 29:29

This is where I have disagreement with the christian/political right. I say the ten commandments should be publicly displayed for the same reason they were given,not to declare that we are a "christian nation", or try to make everbody keep the law, but so that no one will have an excuse when they stand before the Lord at the judgment.James 4;11-12;Acts 15:5-11
The OT and the NT are one and the same. We should be able to preach the Gospel from the OT alone, if we have to. Jesus did. In fact this works better with the Native American population amongst whom I minister.
John 5:37-47;Luke 24:25-27

As for tattoos, Leviticus is very clear that no one is to cut themselves or tattoo themselves "for the dead", a practice that was common in Baal worship as well as other false religions. All the law dietary, ceremonial, moral was given to create a separation, i.e. holiness/sanctification for those who are God’s people.

Romans 3:
1Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written,

"That you may be justified in your words,
and prevail when you are judged."
5But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? ( I speak in a human way.) 6By no means! For then how could God judge the world? 7But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? 8And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.”

Our separation from the world is in Christ who keeps all this on our behalf.

The unconverted tattoo themselves to attract attention.
What are the valid reasons for the regenerate to do this? To be relevant? To be cool? That is attracting attention to yourself, and not the Gospel. We are not free in Christ to do whatever. Freedom in Christ allows us to deny ourselves for His sake, and the sake of the elect, something that we could not do before we were born again.
Tattoos will not condemn you to hell, but they are more often than not, wood hay and stubble. 1 Cor 3:11-15
All the “free-willers” and “under graceniks” are so intent on proving that they, and their precious wills are free, that they miss the point. We don’t tattoo ourselves simply because we are free to. God help us.

Jude: 17-25

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

AW - Do you keep the entire law? If not then you do not keep the law. Sorry, the law is not the gospel, that is legalism in its purist form.

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

Your comments "free-willers" and "under graceniks" reveal your disdain for other legitimate points of view. The Bilical way of ascertaining truth is to compare Scripture with Scripture, not a condescending labeling that presents different views as so worthless they deserve derision.

approvedworkman said...

Are you saying that the law has been abolished? That would contradict the LORD's assertion from Matthew 5. If it is not abolished, who is keeping it? Someone has to, as that is one of its' righteous requirements.

I never said that I keep the law,it's Christ in me.
The Law was given for us to break.
That's a shock!
It was given in anticipation of the one who would come and keep it in our stead, and who would die on our (the law breakers) behalf as the Lamb without blemish. He could not even die for us if He had not kept the law perfectly, as then He would not be "without blemish".
The law is in force right now. What happens when you or I or anyone else sins? We/they break the Law.
The over arching covenant is the one given to Abraham for both jew and gentile. The Mosiac covenant,i.e. the Law was given to the Hebrews as they were sovereignly elected to possess the oracles of God.
The Passover/crucifixion satisfied the righteous requirements of the Law once and for all.
So by the grace bestowed through this gives us the freedom to do many things, but even more it has given me freedom to deny myself, and use my freedom for Him and others. Prior to conversion I was in bondage to myself and my alleged "free will"

I ask again why get a tattoo?
I was not deriding you, or your point of view. I am saying that in my many encounters with those who promote what is called free will, or the "we are under grace, not the Law" theology, I have found them to be too intent in defending what a loving God He is,(by a hunmanist definition of love) because He gve us the ability to choose.Does God need us to defend or define Him? Ask Uzzah.

The atoning substitutionary death, the fact that he gave the Law to condemn us in the flesh (???), are evidence of God's love.

If we are free to tattoo oursleves simply because I am free in Christ, then what about the rest of the Law? Can I murder, steal, lie?
Worse yet, Jesus said all I have to do is think about doing it and it is as if I have actually have done it.

Romans 7:
"12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, and righteous, and good."

I am not enforcing the law or else I would be guilty of judging it to be impotent, i.e. unable to enforce itself. James 4:11-12
I am not saying that I keep it. I am saying that when all of our attention is focused on ourselves and our "freedoms", we waste time defending things like tattoos.
We are not the spiritual ACLU.

Galatians 5:
13For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14For the whole law is fulfilled in one word:"You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

I am not defending things like tattoos, I am defending the New Testament. And if defending "tattoos" as you put it is a waste of time, then attacking them is equally a diminutive point.

Your may not have been deriding me, but your satirical labels of my theological view was indeed derisive. It is sometimes an unpleasant quality that comes in a dialogue with some Calvinists.

I enjoy an exchange with others that is devoid of hyperbole, disdain, and emotional invectives. Also, the "when I was in bondage to my alleged free will" illuminates the prejudice with which you entered the discussion. When you say prior to your conversion do you mean to Calvinism or to Christ?

Prior to your conversion to Christ you were in bondage to your sin, not your alleged free will. I then find it curious that you use the word conversion as it applies to your coming to embrace Calvinism.

approvedworkman said...

Who said I am a Calvinist?

"Prior to your conversion to Christ you were in bondage to your sin, not your alleged free will"

What is the difference?

Romans 3:
10as it is written:
"None is righteous, no, not one;
11no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."
13 "Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive."
"The venom of asps is under their lips."
14 "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16in their paths are ruin and misery,
17and the way of peace they have not known."
18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes."
19Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

I have never found a verse in the Bible that says we possess a free will. Not one that even infers it, as such a concept was not a concern of the Bible writers. The same for prevenient grace.
Now since I have never been a Calvinist nor belonged to a Calvinist, or even a Reformed Church, why would I be accused of such theology? I adhere to the Scriptures alone and my "theology" is based on what I see there.

How can you defend the NT apart from the OT?

Matthew 22:
35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" 37And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38This is the great and first commandment. 39And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

Where did Jesus get his "material"?

Deut 6:4
4"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.

Lev 19:
17 "You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. 18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

Another element of some is word games. Instead of just allowing a general word "Calvinist" to define their overall theology they must be somewhat coy. Doctines of grace, sovereign theology, Calvinism, reformed, and other terms are used in an attempt to provide some cover for their theology.

In a general sense, you are a Calvinist although with some differences that are only known to you. Look at the theologians on your introduction, I just will never understand the way in which some Calvinists want to avoid the title so some of us can understand GENERALLY where they are coming from.

The bottom line is that there is no mix whatsoever between law and grace. Although some NT Scriptures quote some law verses, Paul makes it absolutely claer that we are not under law. Anyone who chooses to be under law is a legalists.

That doesn't mean we use our liberty for personal hedonism, but it does mean that my separation from the world (even going to movies, etc.) is not based on the law, but the law of life in Christ Jesus. Again, if we are under the ten commandments we must worship on Saturday. Remember, if you break the law in one point you have broken it in all.

dk said...

Henry,
My 2 cents worth .. Law came from God and is precious and is ever relevant. When Paul says we are not under Law, I think he means that we are not justified before God by Law, as none is righteous.

But ten commandments is still relevant. Even Sabath when we put into the context of the new testament is relevant, isn't it? Do we not keep Sunday for worship and rest? Does it make much difference if we do that on Saturday or Sunday?

How do we know adultery is wrong, unless we know the ten commandments? Of course, Jesus and the apostles have preached against adultery, but I think they treat it as wrong because ten commandments says so.

I have non -believing friends who thinks adultery is ok, if agreed by the partners, and if it doesn't hurt anybody.

Then there are other parts of the Law that we have to see in the light of the new testament. Is that not what Jesus taught us to do?

Approved, I totally agree with you in this.

Henry, it is also better not to get caught up with terms like 'Calvinist'. It can only help in being prejudiced.

dk

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

dk - you mean also not get caught up with terms such as free willers and undergraceniks? Calvinism is a generally accepted term that even people like the Pyro crowd gladly use, so why do you chastise me for using that and ignore the derisive terms that AW used?

dk said...

henry,
I didn't mean to chastise you, I wouldn't dare. I was just suggesting. I would also suggest AW to be careful with his language. AW has previously offended MM.

I can't believe I am doing this!! Sitting around chastising people!!

DT, I know it is your blog, and you didn't authorise me to watch over others' comments. I will try to resist the temptation from now.

Regards,

dk

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

dk - thank you for your gracious response. I believe Christ is honored when we can dialogue with grace and respect.

dk said...

Not a problem, Henry. I really enjoy reading your comments. Please keep commenting.

dk

JSU said...

DK,

It isn't necessary for you to moderate the comments and the "language" of others.

As for Approved offending MM, he was completely right in all his dealings with her. She was a pelagian papist. If he offended her, he only offended her with the truth and Scripture. Sometimes people can't accept those two.

dk said...

JSU,
How about telling her (MM) that she must have had an unhappy childhood (or something like that, I can't remember). Is that in line with the scriptures??

dk

Dead Theologians said...

Everyone,

It is good to see such a lively discussion here.

Steve,
If you can design a DT tattoo I will stick it on my arm and put it under water (like the old days).

The models for my tattoo post picture are two senior adult women in our church. JK

Approved, thanks for all of the scripture.

Rick, What do you think about the scripture that Approved has shared?

Does reformed theology bother you? If so, why?
Maybe a Reformed Theology post is in order.

dk,
MM left because she could not handle the darts and sarcasm that she first dished out coming back at her. Simply as that.

DT

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

"Rick, What do you think about the scripture that Approved has shared?
Does reformed theology bother you? If so, why?"

You're kidding, right? As if any of us hasn't been through this a thousand times. One man's "proof texts" are another man's "out of context". It isn't the theology that is most bothersome, it's the attitude that often comes through as if we poor Arminians are so Biblically illiterate that we are in need of the same epiphany.

I cannot believe that no one else challenges AW when he lists the Ten Commandments and equates them with the gospel. The Ten Commandments aren't good news, they're DEATH. The letter kills but the Spirit gives life. Wow, and you ask me what do I think about the Scripture he shared?

This was an eye opener. I used to think that only the Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Charles Finney were the ones espousing the law in the New Testament. And when you get to certain elements of the OT that you do not desire you say you have to change them in light of the New Testament. And everyone just buys that? Where does the New Testament say follow the law except the parts that you need to change?

And we now can pull out a Scripture from Leviticus and say "There!". Rightly dividing the Word? Can I marry my brothers widow? Well I'm sure you had no idea when you posted about tatoos. Part 1? How many parts could there be?

Steve Fuentes said...

Rick,

I'm not sure if AW equates the 10 commandments with the gospel. Only he can answer that. I do appreciate your passion in making sure that the gospel is never contaminated with human works.

I like what Mathew Henry says, "the mosaic law was not given to be rested in, but to make way for the institution of the gospel."

I believe AW, DT, and the rest know that no one is justified by keeping the law, not even Jews who it was given too along with the 10 commandments. However, the law does serve a purpose even today to NT believers.

It illuminates our sinfulness, and the uglier we see ourselves, the more glorious we see the Lord and His gospel.

Like Paul says in Galatians, the law was given to be a tutor that leads us to Christ.

AW,

You said, "I have never found a verse in the Bible that says we possess a free will. Not one that even infers it, as such a concept was not a concern of the Bible writers."

I'm not looking to argue, but what do you think of the following verses...

John 7:17 "If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.

Romans 9:16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.

John 5:40 "But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

DT,

You have cutting edge senior adult women at your church!

JSU said...

"However, the law does serve a purpose even today to NT believers.

It illuminates our sinfulness, and the uglier we see ourselves, the more glorious we see the Lord and His gospel."

Well said Steve.

Dead Theologians said...

Everyone,

Rick,

Do you ever preach from the OT? If so, why? I tend to think that Christ can be preached from the OT just as easy as the NT.

I hope you are not one of those "let's just throw out the OT since we are in grace and not the law" kinda people.

To think that some might be put in the same camp as the heretic Finney is a scary thing.

Steve hit it with "It illuminates our sinfulness, and the uglier we see ourselves, the more glorious we see the Lord and His gospel."

Steve, the Barbarian,

Romans 1.14 made me think of you.

DT

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

The Old Testament is maent to give perspective to God's redemptive plan, to teach about God's covenant to Israel, to be edified by the prophetic revelations about Christ, to be exhorted by the prophetic reveltaions about the Second Coming, and a host of other things.

But the Old Testament is not the basis for church doctrine. The epistles are and specifiacally the Apostle Paul to whom Jesus revealed the mystery of the church.

Our freedom in Christ should never be used for sin or uncleanness, but we not under law. When God chastens us He does it as a Father to His child. Someone like me is mischaracterized as using freedom as a cloak for sin, I am not.

Paul says all things are lawful (because there is no law) but all things are not expedient. That means it isn't sin to get a tattoo but it may not be wise on several levels. It is sin to commit adultery not because the ten commandments say so, but because the New Testament teaches it and the Spirit convicts us of sin.

Most unbelievers come to realize their sinful condition not because of the OT law, but because the Holy Spirit who was sent to convict the world convicts them of their condition.

Charles finney (who I think was used in revivals not theology) taught that the church was still under law. No one keeps the law completely for even one day. Jesus also ratched it all up be teaching the mental breaking of the law.

Peter tells the church at Jerusalem that even the patriarchs couldn't keep the law so why ask the Gentiles to observe it. No one in the New Testament ever made a distinction between ceremonial, moral, and other divisions of the law, that is man made. As a matter of fact, the writers made it clear if you are under the law you must keep it ALL.

Grace doesn't mean free to sin (God forbid), but it does reject the beggarly elements that God clearly states are to be done away with. On some level, when we claim we are to obey the law, we are pridefully saying we are and we can. We cannot keep the law, only embrace the one Who did for us, and then follow, love, and obey HIM, not the law.

Dead Theologians said...

Rick,

You said "It is sin to commit adultery not because the ten commandments say so, but because the New Testament teaches it and the Spirit convicts us of sin."

What???

Was it sinful to commit adultery before the intertestimental period?

Yes!! Why? Exodus 20

Luke 18.20 corrects you on this.

Do you ever preach from the OT? If so, why? If not, why not?

What was holy writ to the New Testament saints?

DT

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

When we preach from the Old Testament it is to illumniate Christ, the church, and other areas of New Testament teaching. The law is now written in our hearts and with that the Holy Spirit convicts us. The OT saints did not have the Holy Spirit so they relied on stone tablets.

The law now written in our hearts is not the Mosaic law, it is the Word of God (Ps. 119 - law).

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

By the way, I am edified by dialogue such as this, energetic yet Scriptural and respectful. Thanks.

Dead Theologians said...

Rick,

Don't forget Romans 3.20.

The reason I think this is a big issue is that I feel that the OT is being downplayed. It is Scripture plain and simple. It is not inferior or to be neglected.

DT

Dead Theologians said...

Rick,

I am equally so being challenged and edified through this type of discourse.

DT

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

DT - we may be closer in our views than had originally appeared. I reject any OT law as part of the New Testament. We are commanded to leave it.

But if I understand you correctly you are saying that although we are not under law, God still uses it to convict and show us sin, but you don't discount the Holy Spirit and the New Testament Scriptures. If that is your position I can see that even though I would still disgree.

Again, good exchange. I have to go now, I'm getting Lev.1:1 tattood on my forehead! (just kidding)

Zan said...

Approved,

You quoted Deut.6:4...I love those verses, the shema. My husband has them tattooed on his chest in Hebrew in the form of a cross. No joke!

Another point, in regards to our witness: Someone earlier talked about if tattoos cause someone else to stumble. Well, just about everything in our world can cause someone to stumble, but many of these things can also make a Christian, motivated by Godly ideals, more approachable also. I believe that we, as humans, were made to find beauty in all kinds of things, man-made as well as God-made. That is not a sin. If it were, then God would not have given some of us gifts such as architects (think modern AND classical), interior designers, artists, etc. We are allowed and made to find beauty in things in our world. Just because someone else used x, y, or z as a way to worship another god doesn't mean that we aren't allowed to ever use x, y, or z to the Glory of the one true God. God can sanctify all things to Him.

Galatians 3 does a great job beginning to explain the differences between living by faith and living under the law. I would start there with your studies of these two ideas...maybe that will help explain the ideas better.

approvedworkman said...

Wow I could feel my ears buzzing!!There is even a good shot at the rcc folk also. Well done!
:-)

I wasn't being coy. The general reaction to those who adhere to sola scriptura is that they are pharisees and those who see God's complete foreknowledge in all things are called "calvinist", of which there is very little understanding of what that even means.

Let's put it in simplest terms

Is the OT the word of God?
If so then, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word.

The writer of Psalms 119 was speaking of the law, which is a lamp to our feet and a light to our path. Forever oh Lord your word shall stand, I love your Law!... Ps 119 verses 97;105;89
I think you will find that three fourths of the NT is comprised of either direct quotes or indirect reference to the OT.

Paul was a pharisee instructed by Gamaliel. Who else would be able to so masterfully expose Jesus from the OT? Even then he had to be taken up to the third heaven and be intsructed by the Lord Himself to do this.

As for Finney, the seventh day crowd, and jw's, my calling you a free-willer does not even begin to measure up to those insults, LOL!!

Finney did not even believe in original sin, and preached a do-it-yourself revivalism ans salvation. He was pelagian to the core. Can any say "heretic"?
The Law will be done away with when the Lord does so. It is not our job to crucify the law, we are to crucify the flesh.

Matthew 5: (sigh) again:
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly, I say to you,until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

When you preach Christ and Him crucified, how do you explain the need for a crucified Savior who also happens to be the Son of God. The traditional Navajo culture, where I labor, has no word for sin, nor any concept of sinning, or of a God who would shed blood for men.
Kind of like Romans 7:7.

What we have found is that if you start in Genesis 1 and begin to teach through, by the time you get to Exodus they "get it" and come to Christ.
The OT Law is as much a part of the Gospel as Jesus being crucified,as it reveals the need for Him to do this, and our need to receive it. I know former orthodox jews who came to believe in Jesus by reading the genealogy of Matthew 1. Why then could one not be convicted when confronted with the ten commandments?
BTW, as I cited earier, Jesus' two great commandments come from Deuteronomy and Leviticus and they encompass all of the ten commandments. So as you suggest, let us follow those "NT commands".

It's all the Word then, and faith comes by that Word. It is living and active and exposes every thought and intent.

So the law is dead to those who have been baptized into His death, which also makes us dead to it. The law requires nothing from the dead.
However if we walk in the flesh and not the Spirit, then we fall under the conviction of the Law and suffer the due penalty until we repent,i.e. do an about face and run back to Christ who happens to be keeping it for us at this very moment. That is grace!!


Steve,
I undertsand your point with the verses you cited. Man has a "will" my question is; is it "free"?
Do these scriptures say that man has a free-will?

For example, I'm not willing to come to Himn perhaps because I am unable to; as faith comes from hearing and hearing by the Word, and that faith is the gift of God, and no man comes to Christ unless the Father draws him.
Romans 10:17;Eph 2:8-10;John 6:44 and 65.

zan
The question for me is always, why are we doing what we do? Are we in obedience to Christ, or are we doing things because we are "free in Christ"?

Matthew 5:
19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

The scriptures are one complete word from Genesis to Revelation.


tim
I agree with DT. Explain yourself,... if you are able.

Zan said...

AW,

Why can't it be both? Are they truly mutually exclusive? I don't believe they have to be different. I choose to do right or I choose to do wrong. But don't you believe that there are some things that God says,"it is neither right nor wrong, it is just different"? I do. There are degrees to everything we choose, ranging from the darwin-esque stupidity to the solomon--like wisdom. God made us all different--therefore what you like or desire isn't the same as what I like or desire. (understand this is in regards to subjects that don't have clear "thou shalt/shalt not" in them). Why am I, under your presumption, not allowed to do something that I find beautiful/meaningful? It doesn't mean that you are wrong in finding it disturbing, but you do have to accept that I have been given the freedom in Christ to make that choice for my life, just between me and God. What choices would you make if you truly lived as though you had total freedom in Christ?

About the Matt 5:19 text, Jesus is not speaking about following every thing from the laws and prophets, or relaxing those laws. If that were so, then we would be under that, and would have to follow all dietary, hygienic, etc. laws. We must take what he is talking about in context. We can't just start applying that to whatever we are talking about. He didn't gesture by holding up his leather-bound Tanakh when he says, "...these commandments..." Reread the entire sermon...what was He referring to?

Dead Theologians said...

Zan,

Your last post sure hints at relativism. ie "It is right for me because I feel it is right for me."
or "What is right for you might not be right for me."

DT

approvedworkman said...

zan
I was not making a presumption.
I asked a question, are we doing things out of obedience or simply because we are free in Christ?
If I am being obedient, then I am free in Christ to do as I am told.
If I am not being obedient then I am simply doing as I please since Jesus made me free to do so, and I am "under grace".
This is antinomianism.
Romans 6:1-15
I am not talking about the "stupid" mistakes, we make in our walk of learning faithfulness.
we are under grace you know....am I sounding like Romans 7 yet?

As for the sermon on the mount;it is the exposition of the "spirit" of the Law, specifically the ten commandments.
Unfortunately Jesus' teaching makes the keeping of the law beyond the impossibility that it already was, as now our heart's intent is called into the mix.
Name me a man here who hasn't lusted "in his heart".
Thank God for the imputed righteousness of Christ.

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

DT - "It is right for me because I feel it is right for me."

A saved man asks the question "I ahve a desire for a tattoo. Is that right in God's eyes?"

He reads the entire New Testament and finds nothing substantive. He finds there are scholars who apply principles of the epistles to the issue, and he also finds scholars who do not.

He prays and asks God to show him, but no personal revelation is forthcoming. He has two friends, both committed and zealous believers. One with tattoos he got after conversion, and one without any.

After all this consideration he comes to the conclusion that it is a subjective issue that comes under the law of liberty. If he comes to the conclusion therefore that he doesn't get one, is this not rejecting it because it is right for me to reject it?

Isn't that how all subjective, non-sin issues are arrived at?

Zan said...

DT,

I understand what you are saying, and I know that when contemplating such ideas we do have to be very careful that we don't adopt a "relative" attitude. But look at all of Romans 14. There is so much food for thought (pardon the pun), and it is good and okay to really ponder and pray over how to apply these teachings on food to such things as body art, tattoos, piercings, etc. But it makes it clear that we are not to judge and condemn each other for our individual decisions.

AW,

you said...
I asked a question, are we doing things out of obedience or simply because we are free in Christ?
If I am being obedient, then I am free in Christ to do as I am told.
If I am not being obedient then I am simply doing as I please since Jesus made me free to do so, and I am "under grace".

I would say that it is the other way around:
*I have the freedom in Christ, and I choose to be obedient. I have the freedom in Christ, and I choose to be disobedient. Either way, God has given me that freedom. I can choose to grow closer to Him, love him, obey him, and recieve rewards/consequences of those actions. Or I can choose to disobey him, dishonor him, grow apart from him, and receive those consequences. And more often than not, my life is actually a combination of the two...because I am human. I understand what Paul says about antinomianism, but remember also him talking about doing what he didn't want to do and not doing what he should. This is part of the human struggle.

In the end, I think, though, that at the root, you and I still disagree about whether or not tattoos are sin or not. So maybe the conversation can't go further until we can see eye to eye on that point.

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

The conversation cannot go any further until you see it as I do!!

(relax - satire)

approvedworkman said...

zan, or should I say Mrs. Lyons??
Where did I say that a tattoo was sinful? What is a tattoo? Ink...

I do not believe that we are free to disobey, which is why I mentioned grace. Why would grace for our mistakes and/or unintentional sins be needed?
You are correct in that first we are free to obey Christ. Then we are free to do.
I am free to deny myself and pick up my cross, to exhibit the fruit of the Spirit,especially self-control. I am not free to make anyone stumble nor contradict the Word.
All the law is in the book for a reason.

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

Zan is Suzanne Lyons? Wow, hello Mrs. Lyons. Hey, does AW get to spend time with Scooter Libby for outing you?

approvedworkman said...

Rick
Read Chris' latest post on tattoos over at CRN.info then read zan's first comment.
I truat Iwas not being offensive,except to the papists. :)

Zan said...

no offense given or taken...Chris P. Actually I told Chris that everyone was very respectful in their comments. I really appreciate that. Yeah, Chris' tattoo on crn.info was what did it, huh? I'll have to have a talk with him...Here I was trying to fly under the radar...aaargh! :)

Dead Theologians said...

Wade,

Could you write me at
deadtheologians@gmail.com

Thanks,
DT

approvedworkman said...

Well that and the name "zan" cenented it.
Elementary my dear Watson, it was the colonel with a gun in the library.

iggy said...

workmanapproved,

You stated:

"Really? All who are in Him can. You do not keep it to attain salvation;you keep it because you are saved,"

and..

"There is only one Law. Yes i agree.
I am not saying that I keep the law."

Besides the double mindedness of your arguments... you say one place WE must keep the law... then you negate it then you argue for it...

So, until you settle on your decision I will let Jesus be the one who Kept the Law for me and let Him Live His Life in and do His works t=in and through me... thus by that Jesus still keeps the Law and I live by His Law of Love.

That is what 1 John teaches... and Galatians and Corinthians... and...

BTW, I am emerging also... and hold to the "certainty of truth" by the revealed revelation of God's Word, and by the Life imparted to me by Jesus by His obedience unto death...

BTW, MacArthur uses this phrase and you guy gush! I used the phrase and was accused of being "Barthian" in thought! What a crock! LOL!

So I think that those who state we do not beleive in truth are lying... and again I repeat... that you need to study more to find yourself a "workmanapproved".

It is times like this when all I can do is laugh a bit and wonder how some of you guys see that you are such authorities and yet contradict yourself and scripture so often! LOL!

Get serious dude you only want to believe the convenient parts that you like and can use to hammer others with...

Be blessed,
iggy

iggy said...

workmanapproved,

"The gay agenda uses the same argument to support their practice as "gay christians""

Yet, the big difference is that homosexuality is still called a sin in the NT... why... it is a matter of identity... one cannot be a homosexual and a child of God... one can be a child of God and struggle with homosexuality... and still be saved by Grace through faith...

So, you are throwing out a straw man and still negate grace and the finished works of Jesus at the Cross...

So you once again teeter totter as a double minded thinker...

No offense, but you have some really bad theology going on... on one hand you speak of grace, then negate it by stating we must live our lives in such a way... dude WE ARE DEAD IN CHRIST and it is He that Lives in us... dead people no longer sin! They are dead... we are place in Christ and in Him there is NO SIN!

We are saved by Grace through faith not by works so none shall boast... to even say we are empowered to keep the law, negates that it is by Grace as you have returned to US keeping the Law...

Paul stated clearly in Galatians

"Galatians 3

1. You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.
2. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?
3. Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?
4. Have you suffered so much for nothing--if it really was for nothing?
5. Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?


You are teaching that we began with Jesus and now must maintain ourselves by human effort... yet you do not see it... you are teaching that we need to be "self-righteous" and that negates Grace.

blessings,
iggy

Steve Fuentes said...

Everyone,

If Tattoos are wrong or bad, what do we do about "Tattoo" from Fantasy Island? HeHe :)

This has been quite a debate. Are all you Pastors ready for Sunday?

"Love God and do as you please!"

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

"Love God and do as you Please"

I love it! OK, here's my message:

"Keeping the Camel's Nose of Law out of the Tent of Grace"

approvedworkman said...

iggy
Nothing wrong with my theology.
As usual too little, too late.

I said that Jesus keeps it for us, because it must be kept. That has been my point throughout.
Paul said reckon yourself to be dead, as this is a matter of fact. In the Greek the word (logizomai) stresses the fact that we are dead as reality. It means reach the conclusion as it is so. The problem comes when we treat the scriptures as one big allegory.

Doubleminded??
You prove that you don't even read the comments.
We keep it as Christ lives in us and keeps it. In the truest sense I do nothing. The law does not require obedience from a dead man.
So, following the Word of God, may I "graciously" suggest that you drop dead. :-)

Also, refrain from the use of strawman. The overusage of this term by all that is emergent/liberal leads me to believe that their theme song must be "If I Only Had a Brain"

Sorry Heinrich,
The law and grace are synonymous.Grace was given fro the very beginning in the garden.
I have never seen such a lack of understanding of how great a salvation we have.

I am more worried about the camel's other end peeking in.

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

The overusage of this term by all that is emergent/liberal leads me to believe that their theme song must be "If I Only Had a Brain"

Hilarious!

Law and grace are synonymous? That's a first and I hope the last. Troubling.

approvedworkman said...

Is God a legalist??
He gave the Law

approvedworkman said...

Romans 7:
4Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to Him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
7What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." 8But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
13Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.

The Law brings the knowledge of the need for a "savior".
"who will save me from this body of death?"

The Law of God leads me to the one who wrote it.
If that is not grace then I don't know what is.

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

Yes, God is a legalist. However He knew we could only be lawbreakers, hence grace. Any definition or explanation of God's grace that doesn't SEEM to give license to sin falls short of its essence.

Can I get drunk today? Absolutely I can. Do I want to get drunk today? No. If I get drunk will God be pleased? No. If I get drunk will I still be His child? Yes.

If I get drunk will I have broken Moses' law? No, I don't answer to that law. If I get drunk will I have broken my Father's command? Yes, God through Paul tells us not to get drunk.

If i get drunk and I don't answer to the OT law, to whom do I answer? God Himself through the Spirit.

If I get drunk will I have to sacrifice an animal? No, Christ's blood covers my sin. If I get drunk will I need to confess it to restore a right relationship with my Father? Yes.

Law and grace - oil and water.

iggy said...

workmanapproved,

"The law and grace are synonymous."

You proved my point for me... again.

The law was given to show our sin and reveal we are dead in our sin...

Grace, while I agree was given in the Garden, and through out all of scripture was given when the Hebrews did not follow the law...

Yet, they still died under the Law...

Jesus died for the forgiveness and the propitiation of our sins... while the resurrection was so that we can have His Life which is eternal... and the Holy Spirit was given to seal that promise of Grace by faith....

You combine law and grace... you have pure law... which leads to death... or pure Grace that leads to Life through faith in Jesus Christ....
Yet you miss your own doublespeak again....

So you have too much law in your grace and to little grace in your law and have lost the purity of both!

Jesus fulfilled the law... and I trust in His obedience and perfection as Hebrews 5:8-9 and Romans 5:19 teaches.

You are still seeking your righteousness from the law... in that you are like the foolish Galatians... thinking you can attain by works what God started in your by faith.

be blessed,
iggy

approvedworkman said...

iggy said;
"You are still seeking your righteousness from the law... in that you are like the foolish Galatians... thinking you can attain by works what God started in your by faith."

Where did you read this in any of my comments?
We are not saved by works nor are we sanctified by works. God's works, (not good works,Eph2:10) are evidence that I am saved, justified, and being sanctified.

Phillipians 2:
12Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

iggy said;
"Grace, while I agree was given in the Garden, and through out all of scripture was given when the Hebrews did not follow the law...
Yet, they still died under the Law..."


So did we iggy, so did we.

iggy said...

Workman,

You quote:

Phillipians 2:
12Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.


Yet, from what I have read you seem to miss what this verse means.

1. It is God who works in you... so these are not our own works.
2. It is God who give the will to do those works which or Gods...
3. These works God is doing in and through us are for His good pleasure.


In that verse you might notice that there is not reference to us keeping the Law as you have stated.

Only the spiritual man can keep the Law."

No man can keep the Law... Man can only trust in that Jesus kept and fulfilled the Law.

You state:
"Really? All who are in Him can. You do not keep it to attain salvation;you keep it because you are saved, "and that not of yourself, lest any man should boast""

Again, It is Jesus then and now who keeps the law... you keep asserting WE keep it... nope, we are in Christ and HE KEEPS THE LAW AND US.

You keep falling into the "i can help God" or " I can be righteous and keep the Law with God's help" which are both unscriptural...

We can only trust by faith in God's grace to save us... we cannot add to anything God has done.... If God has made you holy... what more can you add?

You stated "There is only one Law. Yes i agree.
I am not saying that I keep the law."

Then you negate that YOU do not keep the law... after you just stated... "you keep it because you are saved,"

So, again... it seems I am reading you... and seeing you contradict yourself... the issue then is that you cannot accept that you are doing this. Why?

workman, you stated that the bible does not teach the law was abolished by Jesus.... yet the bible states:

"Ephesians 2:13 - 16. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility."


You claim it contradicts Matt 5


again that is because you misunderstand that verse...

Matthew 5:
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished."


Jesus mission was not to abolish the law... but as he lived on earth to fulfill it... after Jesus fulfilled it, it was abolished...

You have left out the Cross and the Resurrection that ushered in the New Creation!

So either the scripture contridicts itself under your understanding or there is more that you need to learn.

So again, you need to decide if you beleive in Grace or the Law...

Blessings,
iggy

approvedworkman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
approvedworkman said...

Sorry iggy
Heaven and earth have not passed away, so the law has not either.

The point of Eph 2 is this
"His purpose was to create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility."

That passage is about the uniting of both jew and gentile. God promised Abraham that "all" the nations would be blessed and that he would be the father of many nations. Therefore the covenant given to Abraham, the covenant of faith/belief being accounted to us as righteousness, is the all encompassing covenant. The Mosaic covenant is part of that, and was meant to produce a nation from which the Messiah would come.
He has come, but he has not returned, so all things are not fulfilled,i.e. times of the gentiles etc, and as I said heaven and earth have not yet passed away.
Which means 2 Peter 3:7 is to be taken literally, btw.
This is also what Paul is talking about in Romans 9-10-11.
He "abolished" the Law as the distinction, separation,(enmity) which made the jews the people of God,(even though they broke it constantly) and kept out the gentiles, as they were not given th law.
Now both can enter in through the one who keeps the law for them.
The law brings us to the point of salvation, as Moses brought Israel to the Jordan, but only Yeshua, i.e. Joshua could take them into their inheritance. They carried the ark containing the tablets of the law into the water and the water divided so that all Israel(both jew and gentile) could enter the land. Romans 11:25-27
There were those who left Egypt with Moses who were not Hebrews.

(FYI, John saw the Ark of the Covenant in heaven. Rev 11:19)

The law still stands, and the Law is still kept for all who are in Him.
If the law is not in effect then the unbeliever will not have his sins counted against him and sin is not sin. Romans 5:13.
That would create an excellent grounds for appeal for all whose name swere not in the book of life.

For the believer it is possible to live without sinning otherwise
1John 2:1 makes no sense. Sin is the violation of the Law, so if it is possible for the believer to not sin, then it is possible to keep the Law.
So it is God working it in me, for His good pleasure and will, i.e. Christ in me the hope of glory keeps the law of God in me and for me. When I walk in the spirit and not the flesh, I can keep the law therefore only the spiritual man has even the remotest possibility to keep the law.

iggy said...

workman,

"Heaven and earth have not passed away, so the law has not either."

But they have at the resurrection...this creation died and the New Creation began... or else Jesus died in vain.

That is the issue... do we beleive that Jesus is the Reality that Hebrews teaches... or believe our eyes here... do we live by faith or by what we see...

Do you hope in what you have yet to attain?

Jesus sits on the Throne in Heaven... it is the eternal Now... where there is no time... just all things being drawn unto Jesus.

Again, you seem to lack an understanding of the resurrection let alone the incarnation and the reality of the Cross.

You have all the details in place but miss the important nuances of these details...

It seems you want to be under the Law... and forsake the Higher law we are now under... the Law of Love.

We are no longer under the Levitical priesthood as you are trying to defend... but under the Priesthood of Melchizedek... which has not beginning or end...

Jesus is now the High Priest of the Higher Law... in that we do agree He fulfilled and fulfills in us.

Yet, it seems from there we depart as you insist on mixing the law of Moses with the Law of Love and in that drag the Higher Law of Love down to works...

Blessings,
iggy

dsstanfield said...

As I read these comments, I realize herein lies the problem with most evangelical churches. Yes, even some "Reformed" Baptists make the following claim:

"It is all about grace, we aren't under the Law."

A wedge is driven between the Old and New Testaments that God never intended to be there.

Have any of you ever studied Covenant Theology? Many of you love to read Calvin, have you ever read Knox? Most of the Reformers were Theonomic to the core. Why??? Why aren't all who claim Reformed Theology?

Without a proper understanding of the Old Testament, how can one ever fully understand the New? To disregard the OT is to throw away 2/3 of the Bible. My Bible says ALL SCRIPTURE is given... this would most definitely include the OT. Unless the NT abrogates a law found in the OT, I would posit that the law is still valid. Do we need the ceremonial law anymore? Not since Christ came and fulfilled it (although there is much to learn from its underlying principles), however the Moral Law is still binding... not as a means for salvation, but as an example to believers on how they should live and worship a Holy God who demands obedience. Without any such guidance, we would be left on our own determining for ourselves what pleases God. Jesus quoted the book of Deuteronomy more than any other OT book. One could deduce that the Law was very important to Him.

How do I love the Lord my God with all my strength, heart, and mind... Look to all 10 commandments, especially the first four.

How do I love my neighbor as myself....Look to the last 6 commandments.

I have a stepsister who got a tattoo of the Christian fish symbol on her lower back so that when her low rise jeans show it, she can "witness" to others...... This seems to be the mentality of many who receive Christian tattoos (whether they be on the back, the ankle or the arm). They reduce sharing the gospel to "witness wear" or "body art."

I can't see how God is glorified by Christians receiving tattoos. To me, it is just another example of the church trying to be like the world.

D. Stanfield

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

I do not have to read Calvin, Lujther, or Knox. I can read Paul and with that be fully equipped to have the Spirit teach without human dilution.

Rom.7:1-6 openly tells us that when a woman's husband dies she is free to marry another, but if her husband dies she can remarry. It goes on to say that "Wherfore, my brethren, you also are become DEAD TO THE LAW by the body of hrist; that you should be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead"

"But now we are DELIVERED from the law, that being dead wherin we WERE held; that we should serve in newness of SPIRIT and NOT IN THE OLDNESS OF LETTER.

I realize it is difficult because we so desire to measure ourselves by some written test, and even more so the Jews when they come to Christ (see Galations, Romans, Hebrews,etc.), but we are free from the law and married to Christ. Even Christ showed He was the Author of the law and did not have to be ubder it. He was not even of Aaron's priesthood, and He worked on the Sabbath so He could show He was Lord of the Sabbath, the Sabbath wasn't Lord over Him!

You guys obviously are lovers of the Word, but using the law to witness is one thing, but bring the body of Jesus Christ under the law is quite another. The teaching is eroneous.

dsstanfield said...

Henry (rick),

You stated:

"But now we are DELIVERED from the law, that being dead wherin we WERE held; that we should serve in newness of SPIRIT and NOT IN THE OLDNESS OF LETTER."

My question is:

From which one of the Commandments were you delivered? Which Commandment (Moral Law) is it now o.k. to break?

D. Stanfield

Dead Theologians said...

D. Stanfield is in the house.

Thanks for the great comment.
"Stan", my fear is that we have some here who love to remind others "Grace, Grace, I am under Grace." I think this can become a license to sin (I am not meaning tattoos in this sense).

The law is a constant reminder of the holy demands of God and where we all miss them. To me it raises the view of the majesty and power of God. The OT also highlights in many (too many to list) the Grace of God.

Can we not see Christ in the OT?
Rick, I sure hope you don't teaching tithing? You had better just teach cheerful giving.

DT

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

Of course I don't teach tithing, it isn't taught in the New Testament. As far as whioch law is it OK to break, the question has a faulty premise, Christ is the end of the law to everyone who believes.

Example - A child's mother teaches him it is wrong to steal. Sweden has a law against stealing. The child steals a dollar from on top of the dresser and his mother catches him.

She doesn't punish him because Swedish law forbids stealing, she punishes him because she told him not to steal. They are not under Swedish law. Pretty much the same thing happens here. I never told my children that #112.5 in the US penal code forbids stealing, I taught them that God said it was wrong. And later I taught them that mental sin was unacceptable as well, even though there was no written law about it.

The law had a central purpose. It accomplished other residual purposes but its core purpose was to teach us God's redemption which brought us to Christ. Yes it taught sin, and it insulated Israel from mixture, yes it preserved the messianic line, but its core purpose was to teach us God's process of blood sacrifice and eventually bring us to the final blood sacrifice.

And when in Christ, the OT law in any form has no place in me and all the OT commandments are past shadows not the substance. A New Testament believer walks in the Spirit, taught by the New Terstament, edified by seeing the Old Testament's wonderful chronology unfold, but inwelt by God Himself, not His tablets.

Liberty in Christ, in reality it not only directs a follower more substantively than tablets, it does what the OT could never do - it empowers obedience. Throw out te bondwoman, she is dead to me!

dsstanfield said...

henry (rick):

What about this passage in the NT. How would you handle the following passage from the NT? What Law did Christ promise to write on the hearts of believers?

Hebrews 8: 10:

"For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people."

I will be away for a little while, but look foward to reading your response.

D. Stanfield

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. The teaching you quote is a revelation of the God indwelt church as opposed to the bondage of the "beggarly elements"

Good dialogue.

dsstanfield said...

henry (rick),

I am enjoying the dialogue too.

You stated:

"The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus."

My question to you is: What is that? What does it look like? This kind of subjective answer allows humanism and relativism to creep in to the church. I mean, after all, my "law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus", may not look like yours. What is the Spirit's standard?

Which in my opinion, illustrates my point. With no understanding of the Law and what God requires, it is a theological free for all, with each man or woman deciding for themselves what is right in God's eyes.

You also stated:

"The teaching you quote is a revelation of the God indwelt church as opposed to the bondage of the "beggarly elements."

Are you saying that the OT church was not indwelt by God?

D. Stanfield

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

Yes - Itwas not until Pentecost that God indwelt the believer. Let me put it in this light.

An OT driver goes down the highway and he sees signs that say 55 mph. He knows that is the law and he obeys it but somtimes goes over and on that occasion he is stopped and given a citation for breaking the law.

The NT driver goes down the road and there are no signs. So he accelerates past 55 mph and he hears a voice within him saying "You are going too fast for safety". He slows down even though there is no posted speed limit.

Once he accelerated and ignored the voice and he had an accident and was injured. The voice told him he had reaped what he had sown. As he started to drive again he saw that there was still no speed limits, but he now listened more intently to the voice.

Now this NT driver studied how the process used to work on the OT highway and it gave him a fuller understanding and appreciatin for the NT process. There still were no speed limits as in the OT highway, instead of the law being displayed outwardly, now the lawgiver lived inside the drivers and dealt with them as a Father not as a written sign.

Crude illustration but I obviously have communicative limits. Not being under the OT law does not free us to sin, but it frees us to grow in a relationship based upon sonship not just citizenship.

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

Also it is impossible to remove all subjectivity. Even interpretation varies among people who espouse inerancy, so subjectivy comes with the territory.

And with that in mind, our individual journey (walk) has major components of subjectivity however within accepted Biblical parameters.

approvedworkman said...

Romans 8:
"24For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience."

iggy
I miss no "nuances" at all.
I believe in a literal Kingdom. I read the Scriptures literally. I do not subscribe to preterist views which lead to the "it's all about the first century type theology."
Paul is quite clear that there is a hope for the future release of our bodies,i.e. a literal "resurrection" body. Do you have one of those yet?
Creation waits for it also, so there has been no passing away of heaven and earth as yet. The "new creation" is both within and without, and we are still waiting for the without. So Jesus did not die in vain.

This leads me to this;

"I do not have to read Calvin, Luther, or Knox. I can read Paul and with that be fully equipped to have the Spirit teach without human dilution."

Gee Rick,if I comment like this over at CRN.Info, of which iggy is part and parcel, or post a statement like that at my own blog, I am called a"modern gnostic"
How did you get to be a contributor there?
My point has always been the Spirit reveals the Word as we study it.
That does not preclude me from reading Luther, Calvin or Knox among many others. I simply view it all in submission to the Scriptures.

What is evident is that many read the Scriptures literally as if (imagine this) they actually speak today, and there are others who think everything was accomplished by 70 a.d.

iggy is talking about an unseen Kingdom only,and they call me gnostic. There is a literal one yet to come.
A gnostic is one who relies more on outside sources for revelation than they do on the Word.

dssatnfield
Good show!
Let's look at the scripture which the writer from Hebrews is quoting:

Jeremiah 33:
31 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
35Thus says the LORD,who gives the sun for light by day
and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night,
who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar—
the LORD of hosts is his name:
36 "If this fixed order departs
from before me, declares the LORD,
then shall the offspring of Israel cease
from being a nation before me forever."

He writes the Law on their hearts. Now we can say that the two great commandments, which Jesus quoted from the OT btw, emcompass all the law and the prophets. The point is they encompass ALL the Law and the prophets.If they are written on my heart then I will keep them. You can't keep the speed limit unless you know the speed limit.
The NT has the lae written on his heart and the OT has it written on a sign. Even though I know the limits on any given street or highway, there are still signs telling me what they are. I see the sign ans I keep the limit as what is written on my heart tells me to do so.

The Law will not passed away,until heaven and earth, i.e. the "fixed ordrr" passes away.

I am not putting the Body under the Law. we now have a greater resposibility to see that we don't violate it.


FYI
Here is a good site re: hermaneuics:
http://www.girs.com/library/theology/syllabus/interp.html

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

DT - I would never call you a name. I believe they are counter productive and unchristian. My point about authors is we can provide many authors from all over the theological map.

One man's hero is another's heretic.

dsstanfield said...

henry (rick):

I posed the following question to you:

"Are you saying that the OT church was not indwelt by God?"

Your answer:

"Yes - Itwas not until Pentecost that God indwelt the believer."

How then were OT saints saved? Without God's presence (i.e. the Holy Spirit), there can be no salvation.

What about OT David when he stated in Psalm 51:

"Do not cast me away from Your presence, and do not take Your Holy Spirit from me."

May I direct you to Ephesians 2:8

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is THE GIFT OF GOD,

Faith is the gift of God, and the Holy Spirit brings faith.

Now, look at Hebrews 11:39:

"And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise..."

Who were those who obtained a good testimony "through faith," which is brought by the Holy Spirit?

All OT figures: Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses' parents, Moses, Joshua and Rahab....

How about Isaiah 63:10:

"But they rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit..."

How could they have done that if the Holy Spirit were not present?

D. Stanfield

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

The Holy Spirit was present, of course, but as Jesus told his disciples "He has been with you but soon will be in you".

The bride of Christ was a mystery, the revelation given to Paul by Christ. On Pentecost the Holy Spirit indwelt the first members of the church. That is why Hebrews tells us the law is now IN us. Rom.1:8 teaches us the Spirit has freed us from the law of sin and death.

Most of the teachers you mentioned (Calvin, Luther,MacArthur) teach that the Holy Spirit entered into believers on Pentecost. No more stones, now hearts.

dsstanfield said...

henry (rick):

Were the hearts of the OT saints ever changed? If as you say the Holy Spirit was just "with" them and not "in" them.

I will have to ask you again, how were the OT saints saved?

Also, please don't lump MacArthur in with Calvin and Luther. I think MacArthur has a lot of good things to say, but his dispensationalism causes him to fall short theologically in many areas.

I need you to reference for me where you found that Calvin (who was considered the theologian of the Holy Spirit) stated that the Holy Spirit entered believers for the first time at Pentecost.

Still enjoying the dialogue.

D. Stanfield

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

The OT saints were saved by faith in Jehovah, but please refernce any Scriptures that teach that the Holy Spirit, which was no as yet descended into those saints, inhabited them in like fashion as NT believers.

In Acts there were some believers in chapter 19 that had believed but had not received the Spirit. It was a completely new phenomenon that was also accompanied with tongues (Acts 10) at the begining so Peter and others could discern that Gentiles were included in Christ's atonement.(Acts 15)

I'll look into the Calvin thing.

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

Here is a website that refers to Calvin and his teaching. There are numerous sites you can google that will unmistably quote Calvin as teaching the Holy Spirit WITH the OT saints, but IN the New Testament saints.

http://www.omegafaith.org/theholyspirit.htm

Basic stuff.

dsstanfield said...

henry (rick),

Can you have regeneration without the Holy Spirit?

Can you have perseverance without the Holy Spirit?

In the OT there was an inward operation in believers. Believing Israelites were saved. Hence, they must have received saving grace. And since saving grace is out of the question without an inward working of the Holy Spirit, it follows that He was the Worker of faith in the OT saints as well as the NT saints.

I think we would agree that the "fullness" of the Holy Spirit was not poured out until Pentecost. However, the Holy Spirit, being part of the eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent Godhead, has always been present and has always played an active role in salvation whether it be in the OT or the NT.

Numbers 27:18: "And the Lord said to Moses: 'Take Joshua the son of Nun with you, a man IN whom IS THE SPIRIT, and lay your hand on him;"

Nehemiah 9:30: "Yet for many years You had patience with them, and testified against them by Your Spirit IN Your prophets."

I Peter 1:11 "searching what, or what manner of time, the SPIRIT of Christ who was IN them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow."

As I was posting this comment, I looked across the screen and saw this comment you made as well:

"This would be in the same vein as those who would say that the principle of forbidding making man made images of God in the OT would translate into no pictures today."

I believe that images of Christ violate the 2nd commandment. If an image or picture of Jesus (and let's be real, who even knows what he looked like) makes us somehow feel closer to him, or aids us in our worship, that is idolatry. The Roman Catholics have been guilty of it (among many other things) for years. We have a huge Baptist church in town that has these little puppet Jesus dolls in a display case. Can you imagine anyone thinking that they could reduce the sovereign creator of the universe into a child's doll? How about a cartoon character? How about an image in a coloring book upon which your child may scribble? How about a tattoo on your back?

Just some extra thoughts....

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

No gospel movies of the passion? No plays or portrayals with a person playing Jesus? No pictures in children's books? No puppet ministry?

To each...

approvedworkman said...

In addition to the excellent Scriptures just mentioned by dsstanfield:
Luke 1:
"15for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.
16And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, 17and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared."

This re: John the Baptist who is an OT prophet btw.
See also Malachi 4:5-6; Matthew 17:10-13: Matthew 1:7-19; Mark 9:11-13

There is also 1 Samuel 16:13

Judges 3:10;6:34;11:29;15:14

Isaiah 63:10;Acts 7:51-53;
1 Thess 5:19

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

OK then, you guys teach that the OT saints were indwelt by the Holy Spirit as are we. Calvin and Luther or Spurgeon taught no such thing. John the Baptist was an exeption which is God's perogative. But I have not met many who believe what you teach.

Please give me some names of present day preachers who teach that doctrine.

dsstanfield said...

Hey henry (rick),

I went to the website and read the Calvin quote. I remain unconvinced that Calvin believed about the Spirit as you say he did. When I have more time, I will try and do some more digging.

How about Arthur Pink? He was even a Baptist to boot. (I am a member of a Reformed Presbyterian Church.)

Here is just a sample of what he has written on the Holy Spirit. It is from the introduction of Chapter 6 in his book entitled "The Holy Spirit." The Chapter title is "The Holy Spirit During the Old Testament Ages."

Pink states:

"Much ignorance prevails today concerning this aspect of our subject. The crudest ideas are now entertained as to the relation between the Third Person of the Godhead and the Old Testament saints. Yet this is scarcely to be wondered at in view of the fearful confusion which obtains respecting their salvation, many supposing that they were saved in an entirely different way from what we are now. Nor need we be surprised at that, for this, in turn, is only another of the evil effects produced by the misguided efforts of those who have been so eager to draw as many contrasts as possible between the present dispensation and those which preceded it, to the disparaging of the earlier members of God's family. The Old Testament saints had far more in common with the New Testament saints than is generally supposed.

A verse which has been grossly perverted by many of our moderns is John 7:39. 'The Holy Spirit was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified.' It seems passing strange that with the Old Testament in their hands, some men should place the construction which they do upon those words. The words 'was not yet given' can no more be understood absolutely than 'Enoch was not' (Genesis 5:24); they simply mean that the Spirit had not yet been given in His full administrative authority. He was not yet publicly manifested here on earth. All believers, in every age, had been sanctified and comforted by Him, but the 'ministration of the Spirit' (2 Cor. 3:8) was not at that time fully introduced; the oupouring of the Spirit, in the plentitude of His miraculous gits, had not then taken place."

D. Stanfield

approvedworkman said...

"OK then, you guys teach that the OT saints were indwelt by the Holy Spirit as are we"

It should be apparent from the Scriptures referenced that it is the Bible that teaches this.

Here is a wonderful, but lengthy teaching on this very subject:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/
Baptism/McMahonInternalizationLaw.htm

dsstanfield said...

henry (rick):

No gospel movies of the passion? Nope.

No plays or portrayals with a person playing Jesus? Nada.

No pictures in children's books? Negative.

No puppet ministry? Most definitely not. Who wants their 3 year old thinking that some sad-looking little puppet is Jesus?

iggy said...

Workman,

"iggy is talking about an unseen Kingdom only,and they call me gnostic. There is a literal one yet to come."

Huh?

I believe the Kingdom is now and in the present... I see that it started at the Resurrection of Jesus and given to us by faith here now to use here now... I do not beleive it is "about an unseen Kingdom only" that would be John MacArthur who teaches that bunch of baloney...

Jesus told Peter that Faith is the Key to the Kingdom... and Jesus also taught to pray "on earth as it is in Heaven"...

If I am a New Creation, then it is now and will be in it fulfillment later.

Again John MacArthur teaches that the Kingdom is "only spiritual" and i agree that is Gnosticism.

Wow we agree!

Blessings,
iggy

iggy said...

"OK then, you guys teach that the OT saints were indwelt by the Holy Spirit as are we" ~ Rick

"It should be apparent from the Scriptures referenced that it is the Bible that teaches this. ~ WMA

There is a big difference and if you are a true Calvinist you are missing it totally...

In the OT the Holy Spirit came on the person... and God took it away when they fell out of relationship with Him....

The NT we are sealed with the Holy Spirit after being indwelt and immersed by the Holy Spirit... and though possibly Rick and i might disagree on this, God does not take back the Holy Spirit if one is indwelt... God does not take back His gifts... including salvation...

Think of Saul, who was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied with the prophets and later fell into disfavor with God and the Holy Spirit was removed. Also King David prayed that God not take His Holy Spirit from him after sinning with Bathsheba.


So, there is a huge difference that I see in the idea that the OT saints were indwelt the same as the NT saints...

Now the OT saints were saved by Grace through Faith the same as us... but not indwelt the same. That is what Jesus came to do... to be indwelling His creation forever and to later cloth us in immortality... as a mortal cannot have the immortal dwell permanently... which leads me back to the Kingdom as Now and later in it fullness.

Be Blessed,
iggy

Mark said...

WOW!

I can hardly get all these opinions figured out.

Has any man ever been saved by the work of the Law? No, all fall short.

All people from Adam to now, if they believed God, they are saved by grace. Always have, always will.

Since the Lord Jesus Christ assended into heaven after he conquered death, those on earth who die will not in anyway be judged according to any law, Mosaic, or otherwise. The law is done and gone, as many have stated Jesus fulfilled it completely.

When we stand before God our eternal fate depends on one thing only, did you BELIEVE the testimony that God has given of His Son.Did you believe Jesus died according to the Scriptures, was buried, and rose again and that in Him alone and His work alone was all that you need to have faith in.

Law has nothing watsoever to do with it, the righteous law of God is imputed to those who believe the Lord Jesus is the Son of God and that He died in your place.

John 16:7-11 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged."

Jesus said "Of sin, because they believe not on Me." You guys make this way to complicated.

If your life, your thoughts, your motivation for anything is not completely consumed with being obedient, focused completely without reservation on the Lord Jesus Christ you need to earnestly seek that desire in prayer.

1 John 2:1-4 "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."

Mark said...

I overlooked addressing the 'Tattoo" question, seeing as we do not live under "the law" but still we must live by something, some rule to govern our thoughts and deeds!


2 Peter 1:3 tells us "According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:"

So in short, if you study you will find that we should know the full council of God, not just bits and pieces, the whole Bible is to be heeded and the Holy Spirit in us teaches us through His Word.

Tatoos we should see as vanity, what glory can it give God?

dsstanfield said...

Mark,

You stated:

"The law is done and gone, as many have stated Jesus fulfilled it completely."

Yes, the ceremonial law (although I have mentioned before that there is much one can learn about the person of Christ by studying them). What about the Moral Law?

If the Moral Law is invalid, then how can we "Keep His Commandments" as commanded in I John?

"And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."

For example, obviously we don't need to put fences on our roof tops to protect life. (I don't know anyone who hangs out on their roofs."

But what about a fence around our swimming pools? The same underlying principle is evident. Or, take it a step further. We should protect innocent life. What are we doing to stop the heinous murder of millions of unborn babies in our country? One of the reasons our country is so wicked today is because we have forsaken God's Law.

Anybody on here ever read R. J. Rushdoony? Although I don't agree with everything the late Dr. Rushdoony espoused, he was one of the most brilliant theologians our world has seen in some time.

Here is a quote from Volume III of his Institutes of Biblical Law (which by the way were some of the most thought provoking books that I have ever read):

"There is a growing recognition that the source of law is the god of a people or country, and the modern state is the god of the modern age. Sovereignty belongs to God, and He is therefore the only valid source of law. Whose law we acknowledge as our true law is our god and sovereign. Too many churchmen, by denying the validity of God's law, acknowledge thereby that they worship a false god, and they do this shamelessly. They say in effect with Pharaoh, 'Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice?' (Ex. 5:2). To obey God means to obey His law, His commandments."

Some of Rushdoony's articles can be found at www.chalcedon.edu. I challenge any of you who believe that the Law is invalid to go to this website and see if you can BIBLICALLY challenge his ideas on the Law and its validity today.

D. Stanfield

dsstanfield said...

iggy,

You sound like a postmillenialist, and yet from viewing your profile I know that it could never be!

"and Jesus also taught to pray "on earth as it is in Heaven"

I agree with you concerning John MacArthur's eschatological views... He fails to see that Dispensationalism is foreign to the teachings of Scripture. Yet, I do respect many of his view concerning God's sovereignty.

How about the Great Commission? Would Christ have given the Apostles a Commission/Command that would never be fulfilled?

"Go therefore and make disciples of ALL THE NATIONS, baptiziing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

All nations will be made disciples of Christ. God is placing ALL of His enemies under His feet.

Matthew 22:44: "The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.'"

approvedworkman said...

iggy
might I suggest that you utilize the link I provided on my last comment. It is an excellent exposition on the OT saints, the internalization of the Law, and the outopuring of the Holy Spirit.
It also addresses Spurgeon's views on this.
The Holy Spirit's outpouring was something the OT saints understood very well. They wrote and spoke of it;and not just in a future ,i.e. prophetic tence.
Pentecost, to the jews, is the feast of firstfruits and the celebration of the day that the LAW as given on Mt. Sinai.
It is not the first time that God's spirit was poured out.
It may surpise you to learn that I am not a dispensationalist either. The Scriptures do not teach it.
The teaching I linked to, tackles that issue also.
Mark, no one is saying that we are saved by the Law. However according to iggy and Rick, the OT saints are damned.

Genesis 14:
18And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.) 19And he blessed him and said,
"Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
Possessor of heaven and earth;
20and blessed be God Most High,
who has delivered your enemies into your hand!"
And Abram gave him a tenth of everything.

Psalm 110:
(speaking of the Messiah)
The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, "You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek."

Hebrews 5:
5So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him,

"You are my Son,
today I have begotten you";

6as he says also in another place,

"You are a priest forever,
after the order of Melchizedek."

7In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. 9And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, 10being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 6:
19We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, 20where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 7:
1For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. 3He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.
4See how great this man was to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the spoils! 5And those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people, that is, from their brothers, though these also are descended from Abraham. 6But this man who does not have his descent from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 7It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior. 8In the one case tithes are received by mortal men, but in the other case, by one of whom it is testified that he lives. 9One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, 10for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.
11 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? 12For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. 13For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. 14For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.
15This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, 16who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. 17For it is witnessed of him,

"You are a priest forever,
after the order of Melchizedek."
18For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness 19(for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.


John 8:
54Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, 'He is our God.' 55But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad." 57So the Jews said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" 58Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

The OT is rich with the Holy Spirit, salvation and Kingdom theology; and the understanding of the Law, and its purpose, is lacking.

The heavens and the earth have not been done away with literally therefore not one iota has been abolished.

iggy said...

workman,

Did you even read what I wrote.... the OT saints are saved by Grace through Faith in the messiah... yet to them that was in the future... they were not indwelt with the holy Spirit for AS WE ARE NOW AS BELIEVERS otherwise there need no day of Pentecost nor outpouring of the Holy Spirit... the Holy Spirit was given conditionally as God pleased and as He desire to do His will. If you teach what you are saying... then you contradict scirpture as God stated:

Gen 6:3 3. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."

Also you contradict scirpture as it states then that Saul would be saved according to your theology....

I do not care what a mans opinion on teachings like this I only care what the Bible teaches... man is mortal and dies... it is because of sin... yet with the Resurrection the Holy Spirit was poured out on ALL FLESH as the Prophet Joel prophesied

It seems though I write clearly and even others in this thread disagree with you, you hold to an unbiblical assertion.

One need to be "in Christ" to be saved... and to be filled with the Holy Spirit.

I have stated now at least twice the OT saints were saved by Grace... and you have stated twice what I am stating leaves them dead in their sins... And according to scripture and Romans chapter One... there were... but because of their faith in the Messiah, and God's grace, the works of Jesus split history as well as the curtain that separated the Holy of Holies in the Temple. You are trying to sew that up again by combining the Law and Grace... You are stating that the OT saint were filled and sealed by the Holy Spirit and there is no sealing until after the Resurrection.

As I stated from the beginning you have bad theology.

You are stating that the OT saints are saved by the infilling of the Holy Spirit and then must throw out chapter 11 of Hebrews... for it was by faith... and in that faith in the coming Messiah, they were giving the promise of the resurrection and will receive their fulfillment of the promise then... we receive it now.

1. Exod. 31and 35 Note that Bezalel was filled for a specific purpose of God and not because of "faith"? Was Bezalel saved? He did not recieve it as we do today...


2. Num. 24:2 Your theology also would make Baalam "saved"... are you saying that the Holy Spirit stays with one who does wickedness?


1 Sam. 10:10, 11:6 Then Saul is also "saved" as he too was "filled"? Was Saul permanently "sealed" or did God withdraw His Spirit from him?

John Chapter 20:22 shows us that Jesus filled the Disciples with the Holy Spirit, yet they were not indwelt until the day of Pentecost as Jesus promised (Acts 1:5)... so again, there is a difference between being filled and being indwelt permanently.

It seems that you miss that.

Be Blessed,
iggy

iggy said...

Workman,

Since this is way off the topic of discussion feel free to email me to continue this conversation.

Blessings,
iggy

iggy said...

btw Workman,

"The OT is rich with the Holy Spirit, salvation and Kingdom theology;"

This we agree on.

"and the understanding of the Law, and its purpose, is lacking.

And I see this as true of you... as you yet if I may point out I have not been discussing these points but that whether your assertion that the holy Spirit "indwelt" the OT saint the same as the NT saint... though they were "filled" they were not "baptized" or "indewlt" until pentecost...

You are throwing in other things not part of THAT discussion. And still as this discussion has started and will end... you combine the law with grace and get neither in their purity.

You have the OT saint "saved" by a "filling" and claim they are "indwelt"... and you miss that the seal of Abraham righteousness was circumcision and the sign today is the Holy Spirit. (Romans 4:25)

The OT saints were only anointed for a time... and purpose... and the NT are as stated in 2 Cor 1: 21--22 "Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come." Note he anointed and set His seal on us. the seal is what you miss. Ephesians 1:12 and 4:30 also teaches this.

The seal on the Ark of the Covenant represented the seal we now have in Christ Jesus.

Be Blessed,
iggy

approvedworkman said...

I don't see that Genesis 6:3 pertains to this topic.

"I do not care what a mans opinion on teachings like this I only care what the Bible teaches"

You say this and it's ok, as your views are "correct". I say this and it is not ok, as I have bad theology.
My point exactly about most of the contributors and commenters from CRN.Info; elitists and hypocrites all.

Also your refusal to read the link or even glance at it speaks volumes. You are unteachable.
I do not ever want to be accused of being dogmatic again. lol

"One need to be "in Christ" to be saved... and to be filled with the Holy Spirit."

uh.... yeah??!!

I belive that the scriptures provided show that the OT saints were in Christ.

"9 One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, 10for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him."


and would this not be true of all who are Abraham's descendants through Isaac by faith?

Abraham saw not just the day of the Messiah, He saw the day of Jesus.
He was save by faith.

Hebrews 11:
1Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
According to this definition, faith is the thing until we receive it. IOW we already have what we believe and hope for by faith. Now exegete the rest of the chapter. Though they did not see this manifest in front of their eyes, they still had it as faith evidences that the "thing" exists, and it existed in their day.

The writer of Hebrews is saying that Jesus, though not yet born, was a reality for the OT saints. Their faith proved His existnce and therefore the existence of the NT fulfillment of what they wre promised.
It existed then, or faith is just an abstraction..

Hebrews 11;
39And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

The incarnation, the cross, the resurrection, etc works both ways, forward and backward, in time.
The OT had it by faith and the NT saints have it by...... oh my gosh "faith"


"yet with the Resurrection, the Holy Spirit was poured out on ALL FLESH as the Prophet Joel prophesied"

Hebrews 11:
17By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, 18of whom it was said, "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." 19 He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.

Re: Balaam
The word used for the Spirit coming "upon him" should be more properly tramslated as "over and against" hardly an "indwelling"
Same for saul. Bezaleel was filled with the Spirit. God said He filled Him and gave him the gift of craftsmanship. Only the spirit- filled would be commissioned to build God's temple, so it is today.


"John Chapter 20:22 shows us that Jesus filled the Disciples with the Holy Spirit, yet they were not indwelt until the day of Pentecost as Jesus promised (Acts 1:5)... so again, there is a difference between being filled and being indwelt permanently."

Huh??
The Bible does not say this??
Penetcost as I said was an OT feast and it is the day that the gift of tongues was given for the preaching of the Gospel.

Do a study thorough the OT re: the pouring out of His Spirit.

approvedworkman said...

O yeah almost forgot:

Hebrews 13:
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Mark said...

Dsstanfield,

I agree, I did not intend to say it in a way that said we are free from all law. Although in Christ we are free from the "Mosaic, Old Testiment cerimonial laws" but our responability to be obedient to the "law of God" (as you refer to as moral law) as in "be ye holy because I am holy", does not relieve us of accountability by claiming "liberty" in grace. I see the New Testament saint as having a greater responsability to walk worthy of our calling because of the full disclosure of the grace of God!

Also I concur, to your statement that by studying the law we can see the perfections of Christ, Amen. I went through Psalm 119:7-11 and used the descriptions David used to describe the law and found the same perfections used in the New Testament to describe the perfections of the Lord Jesus Christ. It's amazing what we can find in the Old Testament if our eyes are on Him!

Thanks for your response.

iggy said...

workman,

"Also your refusal to read the link or even glance at it speaks volumes. You are unteachable.
I do not ever want to be accused of being dogmatic again. lol"

the only thing I have gotten out of this exchange is that you have made a lot of stuff up about what I beleive even though I state it clearly here... It seems you do not want to see that being filled is not the same as "indwelt and sealed".

In John Chapter 20: 21 -22 Jesus breaths on the disciples...

" Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." and yes they were filled, but then why did they need to be filled again at Pentecost? I mean this is liken to the "second blessings" teachings... do you beleive that? I do not. The shift is in Acts 2, especially in verses 16-21:

"No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: "`In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy. I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below, blood and fire and billows of smoke. The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord. And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'"

Further you refuse to acknowledge the difference of the Old and New covenant...

Isaiah teaches of the covenant of death. Isaiah 28: 116 5.
You boast, "We have entered into a covenant with death, with the grave we have made an agreement. When an overwhelming scourge sweeps by, it cannot touch us, for we have made a lie our refuge and falsehood our hiding place.""

And then deny the New covenant of Grace by adding death to it.

I did later as i had time... go to your recommended site and saw right off your issue... I have never stated the Holy Spirit was not present in the OT nor that He was not active... as the site states...

Further my disagreement with the said site, is that Dr. C. Matthew McMahon misses that these men awaited for the Messiah for their salvation... until Jesus came they were not saved... and if you will turn to Hebrews 9, We will also not be FULLY SAVED until the return of Jesus.27-28

"Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him."

They had the PROMISE of salvation to come through Messiah and we have the PROMISE by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit...

Now all men will be reborn at the Resurrection in its fullness... though some will be born to eternal life and some to will still die the second death... This is the issue are still missing... we have the promise of the indwelling and sealing that will give us salvation at the resurrection... though we have this as assurance NOW for the FUTURE.

So, besides your continuous accusations that I refuse to admit I am wrong... (which is not true) nor that I refuse to be teachable (which again is not true as I have taken great time to study this out and it seems you refuse to listen and would rather cast stones than converse) I see that you seem to be the one that may still need to study more.

this is not a matter of what I read from some "guy" it is a matter of what the scripture teaches and what I hold as my foundation... so mock me all you will but you mock the foundation of the bible as you do.

Be Blessed,
iggy

iggy said...

I find it interesting though that workmanapproved turned outside the scripture to prove his point and I have stayed with scripture only...

So I wonder who really holds to the authority of scripture more?

I am the "emerging" heretic after all...

Also, I find it interesting that Rick Rrueh and I can disagree respectfully with each other on many points yet not resort to the name calling and attacks that I have from workman... Rick and I seem to be able to debate pretty aggressively yet not have to hold the other in contempt...

I have not held workman in contempt and have only tried to show him by scripture what the Bible teaches... and I have been called "unteachable".

Workman,

""One need to be "in Christ" to be saved... and to be filled with the Holy Spirit." ~iggy

uh.... yeah??!!" ~ workman

I will point out again that the OT saints were not "in Christ" they hoped for Messiah that was yet to come but were not yet "baptized" into Jesus Christ... again you miss that.

Be Blessed,
iggy

iggy said...

Workman,

So show me where the OT saints were "in Christ Jesus" in the scripture?

Thanks,
iggy

dsstanfield said...

Mark,

"I see the New Testament saint as having a greater responsability to walk worthy of our calling because of the full disclosure of the grace of God!"

I totally agree with you. I have heard it said that if you "cut" the OT in ANY place, it bleeds Jesus. It is such a shame that most modern evangelicals don't even bother studying the OT. Without a proper and full understanding of the OT, one can never fully understand the NT.

God gave us the OT at the BEGINNING of the Bible. That is where one's hermeneutics should begin, with Genesis 1:1.

D. Stanfield

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

"That is where one's hermeneutics should begin, with Genesis 1:1."

I disagree. That is what the Jews would say. Our hermeneutics must begin with the open revelation of the New Testament and be supported by the hidden revelation of the OT. Jesus said the OT Scriptures speak of Him, Who is the Rock.

No one can understand the OT without the foundational context of the New Testament revelation of Christ. So we start at Matt:1 and use the OT to substantiate and support.

dsstanfield said...

Hey henry (rick),

Is the NT more authoritative than the OT? What about the issues in the OT that are not repeated in the NT?

D. Stanfield

iggy said...

Rick,

I agree...

The OT is Christ concealed, the NT is Christ revealed.

Anyone can "know" scripture, Satan does...

We need the Holy Spirit to help us to understand scripture.

Workman,

Jesus' character has never changed He is the same from before the begining and when all creation came through Him... yet, Jesus did change in some ways... Jesus came in the flesh, was born, He became a man, He grew as a boy, and He "learned obedience even unto death" which are all examples of "changing" so I see that the use of the verse to justify that the OT saints "filling" is the same as NT "indwelling and sealing" simply is more about proof texting ones theology than what the Bible truly teaches.

Now, wasn't this all about tattoos at one time? LOL!

blessings,
iggy

approvedworkman said...

" Our hermeneutics must begin with the open revelation of the New Testament and be supported by the hidden revelation of the OT."

And vice versa, Rick.
So now we are Jews?

Romans 3:
1Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written,
"That you may be justified in your words,
and prevail when you are judged."

Sounds like the law was a good thing.


iggy
I will leave out my contentions aboutt CRN.Info out of the mix.

I did not go outside of scripture. I went to someone who was exegeting scripture properly.The ecm is famous for utilizing non-believers as source material.

"Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him."

Who are the ones waiting for His return?
The "saved".

The seal of our salvation, at His return,will be the receiving of the incorruptible.
We are already born again. We are awaiting the redemption of our bodies.
1 Cor 15:35-57
1 Thess 4:13-18
Romans 8:18-30

As for the "re-filling " of the Holy Spirit, what about this episode?

Acts 4:
31And when they had prayed,the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.

Would this not be a "re-filling"?
As for second blessings,I have nothing to do with it.

"`In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people."

I said in my previois comment that Pentecost is the celbration of the feast of firstfruits (James 1:18), rather appropriate, and the celebration of the giving of the law on Sinai, also rather appropriate.

It is not the first time the Spirit was poured out. It is the first time it was poured out ON ALL FLESH. That is why it fulfills Joel. Salvation is to the Jew first, and then to the Greek.

What is the Lord saying here?

John 4:
22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. 24God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

Pentecost is the beginning of God's plan of "ingrafting", as later in the Book of Acts we see the redeemed also includes the gentiles.

As for Isaiah 28, is the Law a covenant of death?

Romans 7:
13Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14For we know that the law is spiritual but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.

Isaiah 28 is addressing a separate issue.

You and others are so fixated on your "freedom" that you fail to realize that the Scriptures are one complete Word. Without the law you wouldn't know grace.
Quit accusing me of proclaiming a works salvation, as I have never done that.

It is also evident that you haven't answered to any of the Scripture I have brought in, except to say that I am wrong.

"this is not a matter of what I read from some "guy" it is a matter of what the scripture teaches and what I hold as my foundation... so mock me all you will but you mock the foundation of the bible as you do."

Pretty audacious claim there.
So if I "mock" you I mock the Bible? Of course I don't hold to the Scriptures as foundation.
You sound just like what you accuse (allegedly) and criticize elsewhere. Thanks for proving my point.
BTW I wasn't mocking you.

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

The New Testament is the basis for church doctrine. Most of the OT is the history of Israel and is only authoritative as it pertains to the shadow of Christ and the church. The word you use "authoritative" is mislaeding.

All of Scripture is authoritative but not all is applicable in the same way. Leviticus is authoritative but not directly applicable to the church. All church doctrine (practices, ordinances, etc.) comes from the New Testament and specifically the epistles and more specifically Paul's epistles. Paul is the revelator to the church.

http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2006/10/unique-calling-of-apostle-paul-in.html

approvedworkman said...

ok iggy
Now I am satanic. Henry says I'm a jew. You sound like sedevacantist papists. What as hoot.

As for Hebrews 13
I believe it's referencing the pre-incarnate/incarnate/post-incarnate Christ,and you bring up His biological development.He hasn't changed.

The OT,i.e. all the law and the prophets are fulfilled in Christ.
Therefore part of that fulfillment deals with the time between His ascension, and the time of His return.
Heaven and earth will not pass away until all is fulfilled. The Law will not pass away, until all is fulfilled.
I thought we were talking about tattoos.

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

I never said you were a Jew, I never called you anything. That was an inadvertent slip?

dsstanfield said...

henry (rick):

You stated:

"All church doctrine (practices, ordinances, etc.) comes from the New Testament and specifically the epistles and more specifically Paul's epistles."

What specific "doctrines" did you mean in the above statement? Which doctrines do you consider to be essential to the church.

Just so I can stay on topic, let me reiterate that I definitely do not care for tattoos.

Approved Workman:

For the record, I don't believe you to be a Satanist, or a Jew. I am curious as to your theological positions.... How would you "label" yourself theologically?

D. Stanfield

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

All the church doctrines:

Justification by faith
Baptism
Lord's Supper
Church Offices
Gifts of the Spirit
The Bride of Christ
Christ the High Priest
The Trinity
Adoption
Advocate
Gospel
Resurrection
etc.

All must be taught in the New Testament

dsstanfield said...

Henry (rick):

Can you produce a list of the 10 commandments from the NT?

How about the literal 6 day (24 hour) creation account?

What about the account of the Fall?

All of these are vital doctrines of the church found in the OT. Does Deuteronomy 28 apply to the church today?

D. Stanfield

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

Those doctrines you mentioned are not specific church doctrines. They are taught to Israel and can be taught in the comntext of truth, but they are not CHURCH doctrines, they apply outside the church as well. The ones I mentioned are exclusively the doctrines of the ecclesia.

iggy said...

WOrkman,
"ok iggy
Now I am satanic. Henry says I'm a jew. You sound like sedevacantist papists. What as hoot."

Which most like was what Luther stated to Zwingli! LOL!

Call yourself what you want as those words or even that thought never once crossed my mind... it originate again from you...

So in my most postmodern manner...

Whatever!

As far as the rest of your comment... there is a lot we do agree on... I am pointing out the subtle nuance you are missing... and that was all... you seem to be too defensive to even listen and have even now resorted to calling yourself names and implying I am doing that!

Please stop... that is very dishonest.

LOL!
Blessings,
iggy

iggy said...

workman,

if i was "sedevacantist papist" I would hold that we are never certain to our salvation...

I am certain of my salvation.

Now, remember that Calvin was highly influenced by Augustine and St. Barnard... both pretty much entrenched in the Roman Catholic Church as well as both will in the mystical school of said Roman Catholic Church, so actually if you are a Calvinist you have a more pure linage to Catholicmom that I will ever have. I am not a Calvinist nor am I Arminian... I view both as missing the point.

Which was what I was trying explain to you while you began to call yourself names! LOL!

Be Blessed again!
iggy

iggy said...

workman,


"Acts 4:
31And when they had prayed,the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.

Would this not be a "re-filling"?
As for second blessings,I have nothing to do with it."

So are you asserting that man can lose salvation then be re-saved again? Again the idea of "filling" is different... we can be filled again... but we are sealed now as far as salvation.

The re-filling is the empowering... as it was in the OT that has not changed... yet what has is that we now can have the certainty that even King David did not have.

Be Blessed,
iggy

Dead Theologians said...

Everyone,

Not to get you off this post or anymore off subject but I would be interested to hear your comments on the newest post "How Dead is Dead?"

Thanks,
DT

dsstanfield said...

Good morning Henry (rick)!

"They are taught to Israel and can be taught in the comntext of truth, but they are not CHURCH doctrines, they apply outside the church as well."

Herein lies the problem betwixt the two of us. Don't fall off your chair when you read this, but I would like to make the assertion that:

THE CHURCH IS ISRAEL NOW.

*Gasp......*

For the record, I was once about as Dispensational as one can get. I remember days when I just sat around waiting on the rapture. I was constantly trying to figure out whether it was Bill or Hillary who was the antichrist. (If I still thought that way, my vote today would definitely go to Hillary.)

I believe Dispensationalism has had a hand in our country's problems today. It has made Christians lazy. After all, who wants to get involved in politics or making our country a better place? For the average Dispensationalist that would just be polishing brass on a sinking ship. Few Christians vote, few run for office..... We have allowed the liberal minority to run our Christian nation. We have allowed millions of innocent babies to be murdered, while paying for it with our taxes.

I am not blaming all of our problems on Dispensationalism; weak and shallow topical preaching has had its hand in the decline of our nation as well. Post modernism (sorry iggy) and her sisters pragmatism and relativism have also wreaked havoc in our evangelical churches today. Absolute truth.....what does that look like?????

What about Deuteronomy 28?

iggy said...

dsstanfield,

You don't need not apologize to me about "postmodernism" as there is a great misrepresentations to what we in emerging beleive about it...

We use the tools of postmodernism as we and yourself use the tools of modernism... yet we are well aware of the anti-Christian philosophy that is of both modernity and post-modernity...

I can only hope to understand those lost to the post-modern mindset to explain why it is still leads one to death and that Jesus is the only way to Life.

Yet, there are many out there too busy declaring war to actually listen to us emerging folk to really understand what we do believe and would rather make things up and say we beleive in their straw-men and fantasy games of war...


You do not know how many times I am condemned for defending the biblical definition of truth over the definitions from modernity that have infused themselves into Christian thought... in fact I find it ironic that I being of emerging who supposedly denies "truth" debate those who claim that for a pure biblical understanding verses the modernity and Platonist dualism that has corrupted many peoples understanding of scripture...

Be blessed,
iggy

Dead Theologians said...

dsstanfield,

Of course this opens a whole 'nother conversation but the church cannot be Israel. Israel is still Israel. :)

DT

Dead Theologians said...

Iggy,

You said "Yet, there are many out there too busy declaring war to actually listen to us emerging folk to really understand what we do believe and would rather make things up and say we beleive in their straw-men and fantasy games of war"

If you will give me a couple of days I am goig to have a post dealing with the Emerging issue. I would welcome you to dine with us on that one.

DT

dsstanfield said...

Hello DT,

I have so enjoyed your blog and the discussions that are present. Thank you for allowing me to participate.

If it is o.k., I would like to clarify. I do believe this to be relevant to the discussion that has ensued concerning the OT and its relevance for the church today.

After centures of Israelite rebellion against God, which culminated in their rejection of Jesus the Messiah, the titles, attributes, and blessings of Israel were transferred to all those who are in Jesus Christ, and to no one else regardless of Abrahamic descent. Therefore, the Church is Israel now....

Membership in Israel now is a matter of faith, not race.

Because of this, the OT blessings and cursings upon Israel, are relevant to the Church today.

Israel is just a geographical location over in the Middle East and is no more favored in God's eyes than Iraq or Iran.

Dead Theologians said...

dss,

Please do elaborate. But watch out...my dispy buddies might come out of the woodwork. :)

DT

dsstanfield said...

Here goes, DT.

Any dispy buddies out there care to parley?

The following are a few OT verses that refer to Israel. These verses are then quoted again in the NT referring to Christians.

I can't type all of them out, there are too many.

Lev. 26:11-12: "I will put my dwelling place among you, and I will not abhor you. I will walk among you and be your God, and you will be my people."

2 Cor. 6:16: "What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: 'I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.'"

Paul is writing to Gentile Christians applying the prophecies to the Church of Christ. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that Paul regards the Christians as the real Israel of God, now under a covenant which has no need for stone and wood temples, or for genealogical restrictions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psalm 130:8: "He himself will redeem Israel from all their sins."

Titus 2: 14: "who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness...."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isaiah 52: 7: "How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news..."

Romans 10: 15: "And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, 'How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!'"

In Isaiah, the messengers go to desolate Jerusalem. In the NT, the messengers go into the world of sinners. This results in conversion. Paul strips the Isaiah passage of its race consciousness and geography. He refers it to the New Israel, the Christian Church.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joel 2:32: "And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be deliverance, as the Lord has said, among the survivors whom the Lord calls."

Romans 10: 13: "for, Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Here Joel gives the location of where people will call upon the Lord, Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, places quite remote from Rome, where the people Paul was writing to lived. How could Paul apply this passage to Christians? The only way is if this passage has been taken from "racial Israel" and now it belongs to the true Israel...the Church.

approvedworkman said...

iggy
I will not play word games with you. You know what you are inferring.
Repeating the same thing over and over does not make it true, although that concept is commonly taught in today's institutes of "higher learning"


dss
I lean more to the side of reformed/calvinistic theology. I do have a problem with limited atonement.
The article I linked to from the Puritan's Mind site also reflects much of what I believe. In fact teaching such as that makes me want to shout Hallelujah, more than any of the manipulative charismatic/pentecostal/emergent/
postmodern teachers that are around.
My focus is on Scripture alone and then how the teachings of others stand up against them.

That being said I don't argue things like musical styles,do we wear suits, and such. The Gospel is not a westernized anglo gospel.

I do agree in that true Israel is both jew and gentile. The over-arching covenant is the one God made with Abraham.
The jews rejected the message as God placed a partial hardening upon them. So Paul says when the times of the gentiles are fulfilled, then the veil will be lifted for remnant jews and as Paul says in that way ALL Israel will be saved. All Israel is both jew and gentile and according to Ephesians 2 that would be the Body of Christ, i.e. the Church.
A pox on John Hagee, Tim LeHaye, and others for the unscriptural message they bring.

iggy said...

DT,

"Of course this opens a whole 'nother conversation but the church cannot be Israel. Israel is still Israel. :)"

Jesus is the New Israel that we are all grafted on to by faith... He is the Tree... It was He who wrestled both with man and God like Jacob.

So though there is a physical Israel, it is the shadow of the reality that is Jesus. This is taught in Romans 11 though I will acknowledge the words "New Israel" is not there... but the thought is...

Israel where the chosen people but since they did not fulfill the Abrahamic covenant, Jesus came to fulfill it for them (this was the original plan but God used Israel as an object lesson of sorts.)

In that now we are a chosen people as we are saved by Grace through Faith and grafted on to Jesus... He then become this New Israel. Again this is related to the other post you have on How dead is Dead in which those who were born of the flesh Jewish (descendants of Abraham) are the branches that are broken off as they are not born of faith. While the gentiles that are born of faith are grafted onto Jesus... the Tree of Life.

It is there, one just need to look.

Be Blessed,
iggy

approvedworkman said...

Jesus wrestled with man and with God?? Where did you get that?

Romans 11:
"17But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you."

iggy said:
"those who were born of the flesh Jewish (descendants of Abraham) are the branches that are broken off as they are not born of faith."

So,.....
That would mean that there are jews who are born again, as not all the original branches were broken off.

Israel is what it has always been, jew and gentile who have believed by faith which was accounted to them as righteousness. Israel are all who believe like Abraham and therefore are the beneficiaries of the Covenant that was given to him.
On the other hand There is still the remnant that is yet to believe, so "eretz" Israel cannot be discounted.

iggy said...

workman,

"So,.....
That would mean that there are jews who are born again, as not all the original branches were broken off."

do you deny then that there are a remnant of Jews as taught in Romans 9?
5. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
6. It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.
7. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned."
8. In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.

I see there that there are Jews that are born of the Spirit... and that would mean that "there are jews who are born again, as not all the original branches were broken off."

It seems that the rest of your comment is in line with what I have already stated...

So?

Are you agruing agaisnt me, it is hard with your comment to tell.

Be blessed,
iggy

approvedworkman said...

I believed I mentioned the remnant.
The question is, has the partial hardening been removed.
If not, then there is still a remnant.I do not believe that it has
Even if the majority of the remnant exists in the jews still dispersed, all jews of the diaspora are citizens of the nation of Israel according to the OT no matter where they live, and of course there is still the portion of the remnant that resides in Israel. They are waiting, though unknowingly, to become part of true Israel, the church.
Therefore there is still unfinished business in eretz Israel.

iggy said...

workman,

Then you believe (I am asking for clarity here) that a Jew cannot be saved until the hardening is removed?

I think you miss that the "remnant" is of Grace not of the Nation or of natural birth.

Blessings,
iggy

approvedworkman said...

No, I believe that many jews have come to Christ. Let's start with the 12 apostles, the 3000 on Penetecost, Saul/Paul himself. Paul already knew that many jews were believers so the partial hardening is referring to a remnant beyond that.


I am also aware that remnant Israel is elect of God by grace. since Paul is writing about Jacob and Esau.The remnant of grace exists in the natural.
There is currently an eretz Israel, and even from 70 AD on there has been a nation of Israel which existed and exists in the diaspora. The jews are scattered throughout the earth even now. In the exile, and other such events, the nation of Israel existed as a remnant. They are what Paul is speaking of, Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah, Zerubbabel, Jeshua, etc
So I say again God is not done with the people of the "nation" of Israel.The remnant is waiting, though for the time being, in ignorance amongst the scattered jews and the ones who currently live in the land of Israel..

iggy said...

workman,

Then we seem to be in agreement on this... for the most part. LOL!

Though much of my view is far from pretrib rapture, (I do believe in the resurrection of the dead, but I do not see the rapture in scripture... I used to them I started to study it out and began to see it less and less) I am not just writing it off as I hope it happens, but I just do not honestly see it as I study the bible and look at history...

Yet, I still see that Jesus will come and reign... on earth.

Now saying that I do not see that Paul is teaching that the "Nation" of Israel will be saved, but "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." so I see that those that have the Spiritual birth are the true Son of the Adoption...


Blessings,
iggy

approvedworkman said...

iggy
I don't believe in a "pre-trib" rapture either and I don't believe that you even understand my comments.

iggy said...

workman,

"I don't believe in a "pre-trib" rapture either and I don't believe that you even understand my comments."

At this point I am not sure I want to! LOL!

It seems that whatever I state you say I do not understand of agree with...

Please let me know... I guess i am confused as again I thought we agreed yet now I don't even understand your comments...

I see that the Jew and Gentile are both saved by Grace through faith in Jesus Christ... do you disagree with that?

Do you disagree that these Jews born of the Spirit are the "remnant" Paul speaks of in Romans?

These were MY questions as from what you stated it seemed we agreed.

blessings,
iggy

iggy said...

workman,

" will not play word games with you. You know what you are inferring.
Repeating the same thing over and over does not make it true, although that concept is commonly taught in today's institutes of "higher learning""

btw I have no "higher learning" so I cannot honestly state I know what you mean by that... I do have "Higher Learning" as I have studied the bible for many years... and still admit i know less now than when I started! LOL!


I went back and re-read your comments to me and now i am even more confused..... i have no idea what this is referring to though you claim I do... Let me fill you in... I am engaged in about 6 or 7 different "conversations" I may miss someones post yet i am not out to purposely misrepresent someones' view.

I often ask for clarification... and have with you...

On the "remnant" I have read at least in two different places what seems to be the same as i believe, yet again, if I am missing something let me know...

I do not appreciate the tone you are taking with me... I know we had a rocky start and still do most probably disagree on some things, yet I am not unreasonable nor am I one to only think I am always correct as you have asserted about me... I may be certain of things... and confident in my beliefs, but don't confuse that with a lack of humility or arrogance on my part. I have gone through a lot and have lost a lot by what God has taught me... so I know what it means to sacrifice and stand on what i believe.

Blessings,
iggy

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin