Church of Christ: Cult,sect or true

[Guest shiloh357]

1: If the old law was never against us then there was no reason for Christ to die for us.

Wrong. Jesus did not die for us because the law was against us. Jesus died for us because there is a curse, a sentence of death pronounced upon all mankind because of sin. Man is spirirtually separated from God because of sin and Jesus died to satisfy God's justice and pay the penalty of man sin on the cross.

Jesus died to free us from sin. He did not die because the law was against us. The law is God's law. Why would God's law need to be abolished. Paul says the law is holy, just and good (Rom. 7) Why would something holy, just and good need to be nailed to cross???

It was our offences in the face of God's law that Jesus died set us free from, not from the law its self. You need to read your Bible.

: Yes, a transitional period.... you didn't think that Christ would come and say *poOf* here's what you need so go do it. He had to show others the way but in order to do so He had to be clean and free of error and the old laws were well, a lot and hard to be clean of any sin according to those laws. And in order for both Jew and Gentile to receive the word there had to be a time to transition so all could be included. That happened to be before Christ died on the cross He was still under the old law, that's why the thief on the cross was saved the old law was still in effect.

I don't think you are grasping what I am saying. The Epistles like Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, I &II Peter, etc. Were all written out of Old Testament knowledge. The New Testament, especially in the Epistles were written in the terminology of the Sacrifices, the Festivals, the Sabbath, etc. The New Testament builds on what was already taught in the Old Testament. The New Testament is not anti-Old Testament. In the Old Testament people were saved by faith, not by works, just like in the New Testament.

The Jewish apostles remained Jewish. They did not eat pork. Paul personally circumcised Timothy late into his ministry. Paul in Acts. 21, even performed sacrifices.

There was no transitional period. That is just something you or some Church of Christ preacher made up out of whole cloth. The New Testament does not teach such nonsense.

3: Have you stoned someone for worshipping a false idol? For disobeying parents? For breaking the sabbath? Have you followed every single law of the old testament?

No, but that demonstrates a fundamental lack of knowledge on your part.

Stoning was part of ancient Israel's civil code and did not extend to other nations or other people. Secondly NO ONE ever kept every single law of the Old Testament. No one was required to keep every single law. Some laws only applied to men, some only applied to women. Some of the laws only applied to those who had children. Some of the laws only pertained to the priests, some only to the High Priest. Some laws only applied if you owned cattle, or if you owned crops. No one EVER kept every commandment in the law. You were only responsible for those laws that applied to your personal situation.

4: Never heard of this idea

I am not suprised. Progressive revelation is a basic theological concept. It bascially recognizes the way that the Bible builds progressively upon itself. The Bible provides more illiumination has the ages progress. Abraham had more light than Adam, the prophets had more light than Abraham, the apostles had more light than the prophets. Pretty simple.

5: Well true, those who wanted to be could become a Jew but I forgot the process BUT these laws were not given to any other nation to follow.

More accurately, there were portions of the Mosaic law that were for Israel, but there are moral and ethical commandments that are not limited to Israel.

Gen. 17:9-14 has nothing to do with the law. It is the establishement of the Abrahamic covenant. The law pertains to the Mosaic covenant. So right there you are really confused as to what parts of the Bible are even relevant to this discussion. Ex. 19:3-6 is also not really relevant to this discussion.

a gentile or a non-jew was never given the law.

The New Covenenant is with the House of Judah and with the house of Israel (neither are Gentiles). The New Covenant was not given to Gentiles either. Gentiles are grafted in, they are not the one with whom the New Covenant was made.

6: So one is to go to church every single day then?

No, you are missing the point. Biblical doctrine is never derived from what someone does. There are two types of Scripture: Descriptive and Prescriptive. Descriptive scripture simply relays what someone did, or narrates a sequence of events. It does not follow that such actions can be made out to be docrine. Prescriptive Scripture is teaching or doctrine. Just because the apostles met on the first day of the week, that does not constitute doctrine. There is no commandment to the church to meet on any given day. We are free to meet on any day we choose. Sunday is a tradition, but it nowhere commanded.

8: Got me there. But if God didn't command it why use it?

If God didn't command against it, why teach against it? It is not required of us either way, but there is no reason to teach against what God has spoken against. Furthermore, why would God have been pleased with music in the Old Testament, but not in the New Testament. The Bible says that God never changes.

9: Let me ask you something, does hearing someone play a guitar make you feel good? Does hearing someone play a guitar in worship make you feel good? Isn't worship about showing reverence to God and not what we want?

That argument cuts both ways. Does it make you feel good to hear nicely harmonized accapella voices singing in unison?? Does the fact that you enjoy that sound mean you are not reverencing God??

The Bible says, "You shall love the Lord your God with all of your heart, all your soul and all of your strength." You are to love God with your entire being. Why should worship be any different. Why in the world would worshipping God be something we don't enjoy??? Worship involves our emotions (soul/mind) and there is no biblical basis for claiming that you have turn off your feelings during worship.

It is also hypocritical for anyone like yourself to enjoy one kind of worship but then claim that those enjoy a different style are somehow not reverencing God because they enjoy it.

10: The bible says nothing about those who are transgendered and yet lots of people believe one that tries to change their sex is sinning. So....

That is not beside the point. I am not talking about transgendered. I am talking about an Old Testament commandment that is not carried over into the New Testament. By the logic YOU are applying, a man sleeping with his daughter-in-law is no longer sinning since OT laws no longer apply. Like I said, you have not really thought this through very well.

11: So no prayer or baptism or anything? So atheists are gonna go to heaven too? Christ did all the work so we don't have to do anything but just sit back and smile?

I think you know what I mean. I am saying that outside of receiving Christ as Savior, there are no works nothing that a person has to "DO" in order to be saved.

[Bold Believer]

When Jesus said He came to FULFILL the Law, He was referring to the penalty. The soul that sins, it shall die, Ezekiel said. All have sinned, therefore, all must die. Christ took the penalty of sin on Himself for His elect, both natural (Jews) and grafted in (Gentiles), whom He chose from before the foundation of the world. His blood is the propitiation (the thing that satisfies God) for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD. The two statements are not contradictory. Many are called (everyone is called to come to Christ and believe on His sacrifice as the satisfaction for their sins) but few are chosen (elected of God before the foundation of the world). The vessels of wrath do not respond to the call when it comes and are therefore condemned for remaining in their sins. In the OT, the priest would lay his hands on the sinner, then the sacrifice, ceremonially transferring the penitent's sins to the sacrifice. This is a shadow of Christ taking our sins unto himself. If you came in disbelief, of obligation rather than true repentance, the sacrifice had no real value. If you rejected the sacrifice's efficacy, it had no value TO YOU.

As the writer of Hebrews states in the 10th Chapter, one who violated the Law of Moses dies at the testimony of two or three witnessess, how much more punishment is one worthy of who considers the blood of the covenant by which He was sanctified an holy thing. Rejecting the sacrifice of Christ for anything else trods the Son of God under foot and insults the Holy Spirit, an ETERNAL death penalty offense (blasphemy of the Holy Spirit).

So then Christ died for the whole world, but only the elect believe the efficacy of the sacrifice and are saved, the rejectors are vessels of wrath and die outside the covenant in their sins.

The handwriting of ordinances which Paul refers to, is the types and shadows (ceremonial law/sacrifices of bulls and goats, etc) The moral law is still binding obviously, or we fall into the heresy of antinomianism (basically 'do as you like because the law is not binding'). The law is there on the fleshy table of our heart to show us the standard, sin is the breaking of the law. If the moral law is invalid, then we can go sacrifice a dog to some heathen god, have sex with our neighbor's wife, steal his goods with impunity and so forth and so on.

[Guest shiloh357]

The handwriting of ordinances which Paul refers to, is the types and shadows (ceremonial law/sacrifices of bulls and goats, etc)

No, it is not. The law was not the problem, nor were the "types and shadows." They did not need to be nailed to the cross. It was our offences that were nailed to the cross.

[Bold Believer]

The word 'ordinances' is what is giving me that impression Shiloh. The ordinances of the law which no matter how hard man tries to observe them in the flesh could not be kept and stood as reminders that we were never good enough (hence, being against us) The Law is good and just and holy, but because of our flesh, its impeccable holiness is a barrier to us in the flesh. With Jesus having fulfilled the penalty we rightfully deserve, the ordinances are removed, having been nailed to the cross (figuratively speaking). (It was customary for the Romans to nail the offenses a criminal committed to the upright of the cross, which is apparently where the analogy is drawn from.)

So, yes, it IS our sins, and the ordinances were against us BECAUSE of our sins. Score one for each of us I think.

[Guest shiloh357]

The word 'ordinances' is what is giving me that impression Shiloh. The ordinances of the law which no matter how hard man tries to observe them in the flesh could not be kept and stood as reminders that we were never good enough (hence, being against us) The Law is good and just and holy, but because of our flesh, its impeccable holiness is a barrier to us in the flesh. With Jesus having fulfilled the penalty we rightfully deserve, the ordinances are removed, having been nailed to the cross (figuratively speaking). (It was customary for the Romans to nail the offenses a criminal committed to the upright of the cross, which is apparently where the analogy is drawn from.)

So, yes, it IS our sins, and the ordinances were against us BECAUSE of our sins. Score one for each of us I think.

That does not explain why it is the Law that had to be nailed to the cross. The fact that we were unable to meet the righteous demands of the law is an insuffcient reason to claim it had to be nailed to the cross.

Moreover, it certainly does not explain why you limit what is nailed to the cross to the ceremonial and/or ritualistic parts of the law. We were no more able to meet the righteousness of the moral/ethical commandments than the ceremonial aspect.

Paul's analogy is limited to our offences. The Romans did not nail Roman law to the cross; they nailed the offences of the condemned. By nailing our offences to the cross, it is a picture of our sins being imputed to Christ. He died for the offences we committed. Our sin was placed with/upon Him on His cross.

[other one]

The word 'ordinances' is what is giving me that impression Shiloh. The ordinances of the law which no matter how hard man tries to observe them in the flesh could not be kept and stood as reminders that we were never good enough (hence, being against us) The Law is good and just and holy, but because of our flesh, its impeccable holiness is a barrier to us in the flesh. With Jesus having fulfilled the penalty we rightfully deserve, the ordinances are removed, having been nailed to the cross (figuratively speaking). (It was customary for the Romans to nail the offenses a criminal committed to the upright of the cross, which is apparently where the analogy is drawn from.)

So, yes, it IS our sins, and the ordinances were against us BECAUSE of our sins. Score one for each of us I think.

That does not explain why it is the Law that had to be nailed to the cross. The fact that we were unable to meet the righteous demands of the law is an insuffcient reason to claim it had to be nailed to the cross.

Moreover, it certainly does not explain why you limit what is nailed to the cross to the ceremonial and/or ritualistic parts of the law. We were no more able to meet the righteousness of the moral/ethical commandments than the ceremonial aspect.

Paul's analogy is limited to our offences. The Romans did not nail Roman law to the cross; they nailed the offences of the condemned. By nailing our offences to the cross, it is a picture of our sins being imputed to Christ. He died for the offences we committed. Our sin was placed with/upon Him on His cross.

Might I add to that Shiloh, that should be a veeerry sobering thought.

[Scare Bear]

1: Wrong. Jesus did not die for us because the law was against us. Jesus died for us because there is a curse, a sentence of death pronounced upon all mankind because of sin. Man is spirirtually separated from God because of sin and Jesus died to satisfy God's justice and pay the penalty of man sin on the cross.

Jesus died to free us from sin. He did not die because the law was against us. The law is God's law. Why would God's law need to be abolished. Paul says the law is holy, just and good (Rom. 7) Why would something holy, just and good need to be nailed to cross???

It was our offences in the face of God's law that Jesus died set us free from, not from the law its self. You need to read your Bible.

2:I don't think you are grasping what I am saying. The Epistles like Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, I &II Peter, etc. Were all written out of Old Testament knowledge. The New Testament, especially in the Epistles were written in the terminology of the Sacrifices, the Festivals, the Sabbath, etc. The New Testament builds on what was already taught in the Old Testament. The New Testament is not anti-Old Testament. In the Old Testament people were saved by faith, not by works, just like in the New Testament.

The Jewish apostles remained Jewish. They did not eat pork. Paul personally circumcised Timothy late into his ministry. Paul in Acts. 21, even performed sacrifices.

There was no transitional period. That is just something you or some Church of Christ preacher made up out of whole cloth. The New Testament does not teach such nonsense.

3:No, but that demonstrates a fundamental lack of knowledge on your part.

Stoning was part of ancient Israel's civil code and did not extend to other nations or other people. Secondly NO ONE ever kept every single law of the Old Testament. No one was required to keep every single law. Some laws only applied to men, some only applied to women. Some of the laws only applied to those who had children. Some of the laws only pertained to the priests, some only to the High Priest. Some laws only applied if you owned cattle, or if you owned crops. No one EVER kept every commandment in the law. You were only responsible for those laws that applied to your personal situation.

4: More accurately, there were portions of the Mosaic law that were for Israel, but there are moral and ethical commandments that are not limited to Israel.

Gen. 17:9-14 has nothing to do with the law. It is the establishement of the Abrahamic covenant. The law pertains to the Mosaic covenant. So right there you are really confused as to what parts of the Bible are even relevant to this discussion. Ex. 19:3-6 is also not really relevant to this discussion.

5:No, you are missing the point. Biblical doctrine is never derived from what someone does. There are two types of Scripture: Descriptive and Prescriptive. Descriptive scripture simply relays what someone did, or narrates a sequence of events. It does not follow that such actions can be made out to be docrine. Prescriptive Scripture is teaching or doctrine. Just because the apostles met on the first day of the week, that does not constitute doctrine. There is no commandment to the church to meet on any given day. We are free to meet on any day we choose. Sunday is a tradition, but it nowhere commanded.

6: If God didn't command against it, why teach against it? It is not required of us either way, but there is no reason to teach against what God has spoken against. Furthermore, why would God have been pleased with music in the Old Testament, but not in the New Testament. The Bible says that God never changes.

7: That argument cuts both ways. Does it make you feel good to hear nicely harmonized accapella voices singing in unison?? Does the fact that you enjoy that sound mean you are not reverencing God??

The Bible says, "You shall love the Lord your God with all of your heart, all your soul and all of your strength." You are to love God with your entire being. Why should worship be any different. Why in the world would worshipping God be something we don't enjoy??? Worship involves our emotions (soul/mind) and there is no biblical basis for claiming that you have turn off your feelings during worship.

It is also hypocritical for anyone like yourself to enjoy one kind of worship but then claim that those enjoy a different style are somehow not reverencing God because they enjoy it.

8: That is not beside the point. I am not talking about transgendered. I am talking about an Old Testament commandment that is not carried over into the New Testament. By the logic YOU are applying, a man sleeping with his daughter-in-law is no longer sinning since OT laws no longer apply. Like I said, you have not really thought this through very well.

9: I think you know what I mean. I am saying that outside of receiving Christ as Savior, there are no works nothing that a person has to "DO" in order to be saved.

1: You said: "Paul says the law is holy, just and good (Rom. 7) Why would something holy, just and good need to be nailed to cross???" If the law were that good and holy and just then Jesus did not need to die, animal sacrifices would have been enough if the old law were indeed just and holy. I believe you need to read Romans 7 again. Especially verses 1-6: 1 Do you not know, brothers

[Fez]

Sorry a bit long for my concentration span

[Guest shiloh357]

1: You said: "Paul says the law is holy, just and good (Rom. 7) Why would something holy, just and good need to be nailed to cross???" If the law were that good and holy and just then Jesus did not need to die, animal sacrifices would have been enough if the old law were indeed just and holy. I believe you need to read Romans 7 again. Especially verses 1-6:

The first part of Romans 7 is marriage metaphor. Paul's point is not that the law had to be done away with, but that we had to die to the law in order to be joined to Christ. In that metaphor we are the wife who is joined to Christ AND we are the husband who dies to the law. The husband represents our flesh, and the wife represents our spirit (the part of us that is born again) which is joined to Christ.

In Roman chapter 7, Paul illustrates that the problem is with us as sinful people in face of God's law. Paul, in the very last verse of Romans 7 does not cry out for deliverance fom the law, but diliverance from "the body of this death." Paul is not criticizing the law, but rather, he points out are inability to meet its demands. The demands are not the problem. The problem is that we are helpless to live up to the righteousness the law demands.

Even if a person kept every commandment of God perfectly, he would still not meet the righteous demands of the law because man cannot fulfill the righteousness of it. Only Jesus could do that and that was because Jesus did not carry the stain of sin that infects the rest of humanity. Jesus was perfect in a way only He could be.

Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. (Rom 7:12)

The demands the law made were never the problem, but they could not provide salvation. Salvation never came through the sacrifices. There is a common misperception in the church that the sacrifices were the "Old Testament means of salvation." It is believed that people in the Old Testament were saved by performing sacrifices, but that Jesus provided something better. No one in the Old Testament were saved by sacrificing. They were saved the same way we are today.

The point is, the law IS holy just and good AND the sacrifices were not enough.

2: I understand that they wrote about what they understood... because those practices were still going on. The word had not spread everywhere at that time. I'm not saying the New Testament is anti-Old testament. I'm saying the laws set forth to Israel only do not apply to us as Christians today.

Okay, so we don't need to love the Lord our God with all of our heart, soul and strength? We don't need to love our neighbor??? We can just scratch that out of our Bibles as no longer applicable??? Is it okay to just walk in someone's house and steal their stuff because Old Testament laws against stealing are no longer applicable??? Do you not see how absurd and ridiculous that claim is???

Now as far as "being saved by faith, not by works..." Let's look at that. Abraham didn't just solely have faith in God. He had to show he had faith in God. He took his son Isaac and was ready to prepare him for sacrifice. Now you are right, the old testament does spill into the new.

Let's look at James 2:14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them,

[Guest shiloh357]

3: But still, if you are still to follow the old law are you not commanded to follow those laws set forth? Do you not eat pork? Do you have a high priest sacrifice an animal for your sins? Do you rest on the sabbath as per instructions in the old testament?

You are still missin the point. You are confusing applicability with relevance. The law is not 100% applicable, but it is still relevant. Of course I do not keep the ceremonial laws that were given only to Israel, but the moral/ethical laws are still applicable all people. Keeping the ethical commandments does not mean I have to eat pork. You really do have a fundamentallly flawed way of approaching the Bible.

4: Well let's look at verses 7 and 8: 7 And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. 8 Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.