Is the ACCA/ACCN like a cult?

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Unregistered(d)	Adding To His Word	#181	[-]
Posts: 0 (12/17/07 15:47:49) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	GS (and Everyone), "We are warned in many scriptures not to add to His Word. We need to be careful that we are not letting our own traditions stand in the way of a soul coming to Christ." While it is correct that we are warned not to add to His Word, I would like you to review an account in the book of Jeremiah, Ch. 35. It tells of an interesting group, called Rechabites. The Rechabites were descendants of a man named Rechab. Rechab's son Jonadab apparently came into authority, and "commanded" (35:6) them to not drink any wine, build any houses (they were to house themselves in tents), or plant any crops or vineyards. Apparently, Jonadab did not want his family to become attached to the land they were in at the time -- to consider it "home". He wanted them to consider themselves strangers (35:7). The Rechabites, to the day of this account, were very faithful in keeping their ancestor's decree, and their diligence in keeping these commands is spoken of in a laudatory manner. The Lord uses their obedience to their father as a positive example of obedience and faithfulness, contrasting their diligence with the stubbornness of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. By verse 19, the Lord actually blesses the Rechabites for their obedience to their father: " . . . Because ye have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab your father, and kept all his precepts, and done according unto all that he hath commanded you: Therefore thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever." The commandments that Jonadab gave his children were not in the Torah. The Lord refers to these extra decrees as "their father's commandment" (35:14). What Jonadab did, by current popular definition, was "add" to God's law. Did the Lord consider these "man's traditions", "man's laws" to be some kind of abominable poison to be avoided? It is clear that He did not. On the contrary, He praises those who submitted to their earthly father. This account poses quite a complication for those who assert that Jesus condemned all traditions, or adding anything to Torah that was not originally there, no? I only ask people to consider the possibility that the current angst against traditions may be an exagerrated reading, not grounded in the whole of the Word. This point does not translate into an automatic validation of any or all AC practices/traditions. But, to me, it shows that the anti-tradition trend has gone too far.
Tsu Doh Nimh	One hand on the baby while I drain the bathwater	#182	[-]
Posts: 297 (12/19/07 12:03:19) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Quote:* This account poses quite a complication for those who assert that Jesus condemned all traditions... Of which I am not one. In general I oppose traditions that are in conflict with the Bible, such as not considering those who are saved, but not in the AC denomination, as our brothers and sisters. That tradition flys in the face of God's Word and should be discarded. Traditions should not override or replace sound scripture, they should help enshrine it in our lives. I can find no scripture that says we must not reexamine, modify, or reject human traditions. God Bless, --Tsu Doh Nimh
Unregistered(d)	More Specifics, Please	#183	[-]
Posts: 0 (12/21/07 22:31:59) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	" . . . such as not considering those who are saved, but not in the AC denomination, as our brothers and sisters. That tradition flys in the face of God's Word . . . " Which particular part of God's Word does that fly in the face of? Are you including people who believe in false doctrine in your "those who are saved, but not in the AC denomination" category? Thanks, IS
giant slayer	Re: Adding To His Word	#184	[-]
Posts: 821 (12/27/07 16:15:13) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hello Interested Sister: Sorry I am so long responding. I have been away. In the Rechabite story, they were commended for obedience to their Father which happens to be one of the ten commandments. They were not commended for the substance of the obedience, only the obedience. That said, I want it to be clear that I am not one who says that all tradition is adding to the Word. Jesus Himself often spoke things that can also be found in the Talmud. Then it was Oral tradition but now it is written down. Traditions are good if they are not in opposition to any scripture or not enhancing scripture. If I say to you, "pray that no ill comes to the people of God" I cannot point to a scripture that says that in those exact words, however, we know that the Word teaches that. I just believe that a six month waiting period for baptism cannot be supported by any stretch of any scripture, including all those which have already been offered as support, so there is no reason to revisit them. To warn others to be very careful not to add to the Word of God should not be viewed as a negative response. If the watchman fails to blow the shofar and warn the people of impending danger, their blood will be on his head, so, I am sounding the shofar. Be careful that our traditions are not such as would hinder the spiritual growth of any soul. Although they may be very conservative and appear as very righteous, they could be found to be more strengent than the Word of God allows, causing some to stumble and fall. Just a warning, not a judgment of the specific practice. Personally, I think it is extrabiblical and dangerous but that is my opinion. Obviously, I am not speaking for the Lord.
Unregistered(d)	The Apostles' Creed is Not in the Bible	#185	[-]
Posts: 0 (12/31/07 17:31:12) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	" . . . such as not considering those who are saved, but not in the AC denomination, as our brothers and sisters. That tradition flys in the face of God's Word . . . " This sentiment is both often-stated and untrue. The apostle John was very concerned about a popular false doctrine in his time, one of which was the claim that Jesus had not come in the flesh. In response, he exhorted believers, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God . . . " I Jn. 4:1-2 But this was not the only false teaching apostle John was concerned with. (See also II Pe. Ch. 2.) In the same letter, he describes another way to diagnose false Christianity: "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." I Jn. 2:4 John was so concerned about the church accepting false Christians that he told them to not even let them in their homes, or even bid such people a farewell: "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." II Jn. 9-11 This "partaker" warning -- one that chastises Christians for being too free in accepting strangers as brethren when those strangers' fruit indicates they should not be trusted -- reveals that the culture of the first century church was not overly concerned with Christians "dividing the Lord's body". On the contrary, it was more concerned about the church polluting itself with confusion through the man-pleasing seduction of ecumenism. The "doctrine of Christ", for traditional ACs, is made up of the entire NT and OT in light of the New. For traditional ACs, the issue of reinstatement for sins unto death alone eliminates the vast majority of self-described Christians from the group that we feel comfortable "bidding God speed" (or, calling "brother").* Even something like disobeying the head-covering tradition is grounds for withholding such recognition because, to us, that is part of the doctrine of Christ -- it is a tradition the Holy Spirit commands us to keep. One more thing: The believers John was writing to were not perfect. They were imperfect people, as are believers today. Perfection is not a prerequisite for practicing the apostle's directive, here. If it was, the Lord never would have given it to imperfect people. Please do not think that those of us who withhold "God speed" from outsiders do so because we think we abide in the doctrine of Christ perfectly. We are just trying to function as an actual, effective church, rather than a theoretical one. *I mentioned this before: John specifically makes the distinction between brethren (who "[went forth] for his name's sake") and strangers (who "[went forth] for his name's sake") in his third letter (vs. 5-8).
Unregistered(d)	The Incredible Shifting Definition	#186	[-]
Posts: 0 (01/02/08 00:48:29) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hi, GS. "In the Rechabite story, they were commended for obedience to their Father which happens to be one of the ten commandments." . . . much in the same way that God commands Christians to obey their elders. Shifting the command the Rechabites obeyed from "drink no wine" to "honor thy father and mother" does not change the fact that the father in question added to Torah. If you do a search on this website of the term "traditions", and peruse all of your own past comments on the subject, you will see why I took your warning about adding to the Word of God the way I did. Much of the difficulty I have in understanding your theology, GS, is that your definitions and positions seem to shift throughout our discussions. I do not understand, for instance, how you go from, "So, what ordinances were against us and contrary to us? Was it not the ordinances of man and the customs of man that made the Word of God of no effect? YES! Why should we again entangle ourselves in the yoke of bondage of ordinances of man that are contrary to us?" to "I want it to be clear that I am not one who says that all tradition is adding to the Word. . . . Traditions are good if they are not in opposition to any scripture or not enhancing scripture."? People around me have been lamenting over legalistic tendencies for nearly 20 years now (when it comes to traditions they don't like), but I have yet to see any of them show me they understand why Christ (supposedly) flew off the handle at the mention of hand-washing in Mk. 7, but had no problem with John's disciples' practice of fasting in Mk. 2. Fasting is no more commanded in the Mosaic Law than pre-meal handwashing, but Jesus does not complain about the "traditions of John's disciples". I will appreciate any explanation you have to offer. Ultimately, the Rechabites even seem to invalidate your concern about enhancing scripture, because living in tents enhances scripture just as much as pre-meal hand-washing.
Tsu Doh Nimh	All the Saved are in the Lamb's Book of Life	#187	[-]
Posts: 297 (01/09/08 05:32:57) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Interested Sister, you quoted John, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God . . . " I Jn. 4:1-2 This supports my post. I said "those who are saved" are our brethern, whether or not they are members of an ACC church. You ignored that. Almost your entire post quoted scripture talking about "false prophets", "liars", those who "keepeth not his commandments", and those who commit "evil deeds." You ignored the meaning of my post and tried to imply I meant something else. By not considering those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life as your brethern it's as if you are saying to the Lord, "Jesus, I usually respect your judgement, but that guy whose name you just wrote next to mine in the Lamb's Book of Life isn't following Your commandments like we are. He joined a different church. They believe Your children can be restored to fellowship in the church even after sins like adultery and not wearing a cloth headcover. (I know You said a woman's hair is sufficient, but c'mon now). By my standards I can't be sure that he's really saved, so I respectfully decline to call him my brother. Sorry, but that's just the way it has to be." God Bless, Tsu Doh Nimh
giant slayer	Re: The Incredible Shifting Definition	#188	[-]
Posts: 821 (01/09/08 14:41:46) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hello Interested Sister: Once again I apologize for my tardiness. You said" ...does not change the fact that the father in question added to Torah. Go to the passage found in Jeremiah 35 and find where it places salvation, Torah commandments, or any instruction from the Lord on these requirements placed on them by their father. If my father tells me, son, you are not to drink wine and you must live in a tent, am I to take that as Torah commandments or instruction from my father for what ever wise reason he may personally have? I still maintain that it was for their obedience that they were commended. Obedience to their earthly father. Not for the substance or content of the obedience but for the obedience alone. When putting restrictions on what is clearly a salvation issues such as baptism, since it was commanded by the Lord, is without a doubt, changing His commandment at worst, or adding requirements not given by the Lord at best. To answer your next objection regarding my two quotes, I really don't see how they contridict. Perhaps you can point it out to me. Tradition and ordinances are two different things. Traditions are things which carry no authority. Ordinances do carry authority. Just as to the Jews, Talmud is ordinances. Eating Latkies on Chanakuah is tradition. Regarding why Christ "(supposedly) flew off the handle at the mention of hand washing" (your words) but not at fasting, it is very simple. Fasting is often mentioned in Tanach (Old Testament). It is even commanded in Torah regarding Yom Kippur and is referred to by Paul in Acts 27:9. The mention of John's disciples and of the pharisees disciples fasting but the disciples of Jesus not fasting no where mentions the practice to be a commandment. It only says, we do it but you don't, why? The handwashing passage in Mark 7 is speaking of an Oral Torah Commandment (Talmud) which has no written authority but considered by Judaism to be just as much Torah as the written Torah. Jesus did not sanction the authority of the Talmud. It is clear from the words, "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." The Mark 2 fasting passage was only speaking of what they considered a righteous act. Not a Talmud commandment called Oral Torah. The belief in the Oral Torah is a belief among the Jews that Moses recieved much more than the two tablets while he was on the mountain. Some was written down in Torah but much was just passed down orally but held the same authority as the written. Hand washing was one of those things. Blessings to you IS. David
Unregistered(d)	Only The Lord Knows All That Are In The Lamb's Book	#189	[-]
Posts: 0 (01/09/08 18:35:00) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hi, Tsu Doh. First off, "Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" does not mean that every person who testifies of this is "of God". If that were the case, Mormons and even Muslims --if the statement is read in the strictest sense -- are all "of God". If you read on to verse 3, however, it is obvious that these statements were intended to contrast two major groups at the time: the actual Church, and another group (popularly assumed to be the Gnostics). He was contrasting the Spirit working in the former with the spirit working in the latter. But there were many spirits of error (I Jn. 2:18): "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have head that antichrist shall come, even now there are many antichrists . . . " The point is that Christians who cite I Jn. 4:1-3 as the standard that they need to use in determining "those who are saved" are ripping these verses out of context. I was not ignoring the meaning of your post. Nor was I trying to associate you personally with the things you listed. I was making a case for our closed fellowship, reviewing the scriptures that generally prescribe our specific practice, to show you that this tradition does not, as you asserted, go against the Word of God. All of those scriptures about false prophets and liars are relevant evidence. I didn't write them. I'm merely trying to heed them, and encourage others to do the same. The quote in which you cast me gainsaying the Lord, by the way, only shows that your issue is not with our fraternization practice. Your issue is with our basic doctrine. That is why you and I do not agree on who we should recognize as brethren. Goodnight, IS P.S. Are you aware that your reading of the head-covering ordinance is essentially, "Sisters must cover their heads with something while praying if they are shorn, but not if they grow their hair long"? If so, then why do so many Christian women have short hair and still wear nothing on their heads? Do you admonish women you know who do this for hypocrisy?
giant slayer	Re: The Incredible Shifting Definition	#190	[-]
Posts: 821 (01/10/08 08:55:39) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hello Interested Sister: After re-reading my last post, I thought it may be helpful to try and make it a little more clear. Context: Jesus (A Jew) was speaking to Jews, about Jewish things which are practices not commanded by God which the Rabbinic Jews had put in the place of God's law. Read the whole passage in both of the references in Mark. In Judaism there is a thing called, "Minhag" which is defined as a custom which people begin to observe but has no binding Scriptural source. There is also in Judaism a thing called Mitzva which is defined as a comuplsory law which was incorporated into the body of Halacha (Jewish law) in an authoritative halachic text (scripture commandment.) Fasting on Yom Kippur is a Mitzva, clearly defined in written Torah. Fasting on other occasions are Minhag. Washing of hands is a minhag which Rabbinic Judaism considers to be mitzva. They consider it so because it is found in Talmud which is the Oral Torah according to Rabbinic Judaism. It is not found in written Torah so it is not a true Mitzva according to Jesus. Jesus was clearly teaching that Rabbinic Judaism was taking Minhag and teaching it as Mitzvot. (Teaching as commandments the traditions of men). In the Mark passage there was no teaching of fasting as Mitzva. It was only being observed as Minhag. (mitzva is singular, mitzvot is plural) I hope this clears up your incredible shifting definition problem. Blessings David
Unregistered(d)	Handwriting of Ordinances	#191	[-]
Posts: 0 (01/10/08 22:57:27) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	GS, THANK YOU for the additional explanation regarding the Talmud. It sheds quite a bit of light on your perspective, here. I am looking into your reading, but while I do, I have one question. Regarding, "Tradition and ordinances are two different things. Traditions are things which carry no authority. Ordinances do carry authority. Just as to the Jews, Talmud is ordinances. . . ." Are you saying that "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross" refers to the Talmud? The ordinances this passage is referring to were written. But all of the sources I checked say that the Talmud was not written down until much later. Doesn't that prove that Paul cannot possibly be referring to Talmud?
giant slayer	Re: Handwriting of Ordinances	#192	[-]
Posts: 821 (01/13/08 08:58:36) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hi Interested Sister" No, I am not saying that the ordinances referred to in the Colossians passage is Talmud. I am saying that Pharisaic Judaism considers Talmud to be authoritative. It is not. Jesus made that clear when He said, "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Obviously Torah commandments carry authority so they would be considered ordinances. Jesus was clear that Torah is to be obeyed. The (so called by the Jews) Oral Torah, is no Torah at all. They are commentary and they are tradition. You are correct that there was no "handwritten Talmud' for many years after Jesus had ascended to the Father. It was all oral tradition with no written scriptural authority, but "Judaism" not to be confused with Jews, proclaimed it to be the Word of God given to Moses orally and that it carries the same authority as the Written Torah. Jesus said that that is untrue. In my opinion, the Colossians passasge is referring to the "record" of our Torah violations (sin) that is against us that the adversary uses to accuse us, and because we are in fact guilty and condemned to death because of these violations of Torah ordinances (sin), our only escape is through the merciful sacrifice of our Savior, who took that "record of our sins" with Him to the cross, thus nailing them to His cross with Him. His death on the cross becomes our death so we are free. Praise His wonderful Name! Many today in the Church world teach that it was the Torah itself that was nailed to His Cross. That is untrue. Have a blessed day Interested Sister. David
Covenanted Sister	etranger	#193	[-]
Posts: 156 (01/13/08 11:36:53) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Tsu, Pardon me for interrupting, but there is a world of difference between the following: (1) denying that someone's name is written in the book of life when one has evidence that it is, in fact, written in the book; and (2) not knowing whether someone's name is in the book of life to begin with. On what basis are you going to prove to any of us that Billy Graham's name is written in the book of life, for instance? I would really enjoy reading your criteria and seeing how you apply that criteria to his individual soul, which I suspect none of us knows anything about. By the way, it's not on the basis of one's name being objectively inscribed in the book of life that serves as my guideline by which I call someone my brother or sister in faith: for this is information I'm not really privy to, and I suspect neither are you.
Covenanted Sister	minhag	#194	[-]
Posts: 156 (01/14/08 19:12:59) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	David, I find your explanations of "minhag" and "mitzva" to be thoughtful and interesting. Should we consider anything that is in the oral tradition (and later codified in the Talmud) but not finding its origin in the Torah (1st five books) to be "minhag"? Also, if a person does abide by the "minhag," is this considered a dangerous practice since the minhag is by its very terms a tradition of man not found in the written Torah (first 5 books of the O.T.)? Thanks
giant slayer	Re: minhag	#195	[-]
Posts: 821 (01/15/08 11:44:55) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hi Covenanted Sister: With the understanding that I am no authority on the subject, not being Jew as in Judaism, I will do my best to answer your question. The Talmud can be understood to be commentary. We consider it so, but Judaism attaches authority to it. The authority of Moses. We have our Matthew Henry's, Luthers, Calvins etc. etc. They have their sages, such as Abarbanel, Rambam, Radak, etc. The difference is we realize that our commentators are capable of error and do not carry the authority of inspired scripture. They believe that the Rabbi's set in Moses' seat and can override all other authority, including God! Example, (Talmud, Sotah 10a) "Because Samson allowed his eyes to entice him, (Judges 14:3), he suffered the loss of his eyes." We know that this in not spelled out in Judges so we would consider this to be commentary and carry no authority. Judaism would consider it just as authorative as any other part of scripture. So, to your questions, "Should we consider anything that is in the oral tradition but not finding its origin in the Torah to be "minhag?" There is a lot in the oral tradition which is rooted in Torah. That we should consider Torah and give it the authority that Torah gives it. There are comments on the content which are only the opinion of the sage in question which to you and I should be treated as commentary, however, Judaism considers it to have the same authority as the written Torah. Example, I will use one you have brought up in the past., Deuteronomy 12:23 says, "Only be strong not to eat the blood, for the blood, it is the life and you shall not eat the life with the meat." The Jewish sage Rashi says in regard to "The life with the meat", you may not eat meat that was torn from a living animal." There is Torah contained in his comment because he references the words from Torah, "The life with the meat." however, his comments about being torn from a living animal is not in written Torah. That is his opinion. So, I would see the Torah part as Mitzva, and his comment, as Minhag. One has authority, the other is tradition. Your second question is, "If a person does abide by the "minhag," is this considered a dangerous practice since the minhag is by its very terms a tradition of man not found in the written Torah?" Minhag, or tradition in itself is not bad. There are many wonderful traditions, or minhag in both Judaism and Christanity. We are told by Paul that there are traditions we should follow. Where the danger comes in is when the tradition altars, voids or confuses the Word of God. That is what Jesus was referring to with the hand washing. Obviously washing ones hands before eating is a good thing to do but when we make the tradition into commandment and replace or altar the Word of the Lord with our traditions is when it becomes bad. That is the root of my concern with the baptism waiting period. And, it is only my opinion. Others are free to disagree with me and many do but I believe that baptism is a very important commandment of our Lord Jesus before His ascension and we should allow the Holy Spirit to work in the heart of the convert and trust Him to lead the convert to baptism at the proper time. It is my opinion that to have required waiting periods and extensive examinations of the convert that is not grounded in scripture is a dangerous practice. We have traditions in our Christian Churches, such as, taking up a love offering to give a visiting Minister which is not a commandment but is a very loving thing to do. This is a good minhag. Some might argue with me about whether there are scriptures that make this an obligation, I don't know. I am only choosing this as an example to make a point and don't wish to argue the merits of love offerings. Blessings to you Covenanted Sister and may we grow together in Him! David
Covenanted Sister	roots	#196	[-]
Posts: 156 (01/15/08 14:54:46) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	David, Thanks for your attempt at providing an answer. I am wondering if you could be more precise about something, though. You said, So, to your questions, "Should we consider anything that is in the oral tradition but not finding its origin in the Torah to be "minhag?" There is a lot in the oral tradition which is rooted in Torah. That we should consider Torah and give it the authority that Torah gives it. There are comments on the content which are only the opinion of the sage in question which to you and I should be treated as commentary, however, Judaism considers it to have the same authority as the written Torah. What do you mean when you say that if something is "rooted in the torah" we should consider it to be Torah and give it due authority. Specifically, what do you mean by "rooted in" exactly? First, is that concept found in the Torah to begin with? Could you please refer me to an actual scripture passage? If it is not, then why would you ever establish it as an interpretive principle for yourself without seeing it as a tradition of man that potentially sets aside the will of God on its own? I mean, unless the boundaries of "rooted in" are clearly delineated by the Torah, one can seriously endanger his soul, no? Example: With regard to eating meat with blood in it, let me clarify that I was not referencing Deut. 12.23; I was referencing Genesis 9.4. Regardless, the ultimate conclusion is that Torah gives a command, i.e., not eating flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, without clarifying how we are supposed to follow the command. You see, according to your system of thought, whatever answer the Talmud or any other Jewish Sage gives, we must receive it as an answer that lacks divine authority. Hence, the ambiguity in the Torah remains ambiguous, but in spite of the ambiguity, it is a command whose violation may seriously endanger the status of one's right relationship with God. Under your system, it is possible that even following the dictate of the Talmud or the Sage on this point does not insure against violating the Torah. Hence, there is absolutely no way to understand what God means when he prohibits eating flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof. This seems to be a tremendously significant problem, David. Even if you could substantiate that (1) the principle you put forth about minhag being "rooted in" Torah was actually found in the Torah; and (2) even if you could clarify how some of these ambiguous Torah commands are supposed to be observed, you still have a second hurdle: establishing which of the Torah commands are given for obedience but at the same time ought not be followed per Ezek. 20.25 (a rather bizarre contradiction). I don't know, David..... Again, it should come as absolutely no surprise to you that I find the theology you put forth in your posts dangerous and troubling, and I know you see yourself as some sort of bearer to truth, here, but your system just isn't convincing to me on an intellectual level or a faith level. Undoubtedly you can understand my impatience when I see you saying the same things in nearly every thread you post regardless of the actual topic of the thread. I don't mean this as an attack against you, I'm just allowing you to see my frustration. Anyway, if you could please clarify the point about "rooted in", I would appreciate it. Where is this concept found in the Torah? Thanks
Curious Onlooker	Waiting Period	#197	[-]
Posts: 121 (01/15/08 15:54:26) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Please allow a brief interruption for the purpose of clarification. Maybe this has been covered already, but just to clarify, the "waiting period" for baptism is not just an arbitrary waiting period (and it is not necessarily of a specific length), but rather a time for the person to "bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance", as specified in Matthew 3:8. CO
giant slayer	Re: roots	#198	[-]
Posts: 821 (01/15/08 19:03:59) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	OK Covenanted Sister, I will try. I think we are, or I am making this thing really complicated when all I want to do is make it simple. Let me get to the "rooted in" thing. Let's say we are reading Matthew Henry's Commentary on Genesis 1. He has several pages of commentary on Genesis 1. Suddenly he specifically quotes verse 3. He quotes it exactly as it is written in the translation he is using. The verse he specifically quotes is what I would mean by being "rooted in Torah." Perhaps that is an unclear way to put it. I should have said quoted from Torah. So all I mean is that where Torah is quoted, the quoted portion is authoratative. The rest is commentary. I consider the quoted portion Mitzva. The commentary portion, I consider opinion of the sage. Sometimes the opinion of the sage becomes tradition. When it does, it is minhog in reality, but in Judaism it is considered as much a mitzva as the quoted Torah portion. They consider the Talmud to be as authoratative as Torah itself. The passage in Mark that IS referenced dealing with fasting was not put forth in the text as being minhag. It was only stated that the disciples of the Pharisees and of John the Baptist fast often, why does the disciples of Jesus fast? Whereas, the passage referenced regarding handwashing was clearly identified as "tradition of the elders." Jesus knowing that they consider the "tradition of the elders" as authoratative corrected them and admonished them for teaching as commandment of God, the traditions of men. I used the Jewish terms minhog and mitzva only to show the difference in the opinions of the pharisees verses the teaching of Jesus. What the pharisees considered to be authoratative, Jesus taught that they were wrong. He did not do it with the fasting passage because it was not put forth as "tradition of the elders." Interested Sister was asking why didn't Jesus make an issue of the fasting when He did the handwashing. The reason is that in one it was being taught by the pharisees as carring oral torah authority and in the other it was only said, we fast and you don't. I am sincerely sorry Covenante Sister that I frustrate you and that you see my theology as dangerous. I really think if I could somehow get you to understand me, you would find that the differences between us are very insignificant. I believe it to be a communication problem more than a theological one. Regarding seeing myself as a "bearer of truth", I don't see myself that way any more than I see you or other posters to this forum as "bearers of truth." I believe I have some knowledge and insight which I have accumulated over the past 61 years, but I give you equal billing. I don't profess to be some great sage. I just love to discuss scripture and learn about the Lord. Bless you sister and shalom David
Unregistered(d)	The Scriptures Are Clear On This	#199	[-]
Posts: 0 (01/16/08 05:39:04) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hello, GS. I'm having trouble understanding you. Your position on Colossians seems to have shifted quite a bit. You now say, "No, I am not saying that the ordinances referred to in the Colossians passage is Talmud." But a year ago last October in the Liberties thread, you stated the following to me: "The Holy Spirit taught us through Paul in Colossians 2:13-14, 'And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;' "We need to ask ourselves, "WHAT WERE THE ORDINANCES THAT WAS AGAINST US? Were the ten commandments against us? Of course not, so these were not nailed to His cross. Were the wonderful celebrations, feasts, holidays etc. against us? No! If you have ever participated in them or have done an indepth study of them, you will find that they were beautiful pictures of our Savior and celebrations of our redemption in Him. "So, what ordinances were against us and contrary to us? Was it not the ordinances of man and the customs of man that made the Word of God of no effect? YES! Now you state that "handwriting of ordinances that was against us" actually speaks of "the record of our Torah violations." I ask you to consult Eph. 2:15. Paul's letter to the Ephesians strongly resembles Colossians, and follows the same vein of thought so closely that I suspect he wrote the two letters at about the same time. Regarding ordinances, he states, " . . . Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;" This confirmation that Christ abolished the law of commandments contained in ordinances is probably why many today in the Church world teach that it was the Torah itself that was nailed to His Cross.
Unregistered(d)	We Need To Examine This More Carefully	#200	[-]
Posts: 0 (01/16/08 08:05:28) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	GS, I also need to address your Rechabite answer. Please allow me to put aside the specific topic of our mode of baptism for now. Your defense of Jonadab seems to be, "Go to the passage found in Jeremiah 35 and find where it places salvation, Torah commandments, or any instruction from the Lord on these requirements placed on them by their father." You are distracted from my actual point, here. Let me review some pertinent facts of Jer. 35: 1) Jonadab commanded his descendants to keep extra-Torah ordinances. 2)These ordinances may not have been "Talmud", but they carried authority in that the people were expected to obey them. They certainly were not on the level of eating latkies on Chanakuah. You don't hold onto a tradition that requires this much sacrifice by making it optional. 3)These ordinances, per your criteria, were elder-imposed Minhag. They were just as Minhag as the traditions that I keep in obedience to my elders. One more important fact, in response to your assertion that "it was for their obedience that they were commended. Obedience to their earthly father.": 4)The Rechabites were not praised for obedience to their earthly father. They were praised for obedience to their earthly great great grandfather for some of them, great great uncle for others. The point is that this doesn't fit any literal interpretation of the fifth commandment. Saying that "it was for their obedience that they were commended" doesn't remove the fact that they were commended for obeying a man Torah never commanded them to obey. These Rechabites would never have been blessed if, when Jonadab commanded them to abstain from building houses for themselves, they had responded, "Is it not the ordinances of man and the customs of man that make the Word of God of no effect? YES! Why should we again entangle ourselves in the yoke of bondage of ordinances of man that are contrary to us?" These extra-Torah commands were handed down from generation to generation, which is the very essence of tradition. This could even be characterized as "tradition of (one's) elders". So I must keep my original conclusion: There is nothing wrong with elders requiring their flocks to keep traditions that fulfill the written Word of God. The only valid reason to discontinue a tradition is if it clearly works against the Word of God, not because it annoys or alienates Christians of other persuasions.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Is the ACCA/ACCN like a cult?

Quick Reply