• Hi Guest!

    Please share Talk Jesus community on every platform you have to give conservatives an outlet and safe community to be apart of.

    Support This Community

    Thank You

  • Welcome to Talk Jesus

    A true bible based, Jesus centered online community. Join over 11,000 members today

    Register Log In

Too Few Categories of Thought In Man Made Theology

Member
Too Few Categories of Thought In Man Made Theology

In man made theology - dispensationalism, Messianic Judaism, Hebrew Roots and Sacred Name Theology - either the Catholic Church replaced physical and national Israel, or there now exist two peoples of God, physical and national Israel, and the church. But the ekklesia, translated as church except in the Tyndale Bible, is in the NT nearly always just a congregation, or assembly of those of faith and some who have not yet come to a knowledge of the truth and are of the elect. The ekklesia is not the Body of Christ, or the elect, and so it is not Israel reborn in Christ.

Francis Schaeffer used to talk about the problem of Christians not having enough categories of thought. This problem is obvious in the two categories of thought now taught in man made theology, that either the church replaced physical and national Israel or God now has two peoples contrary to John 10: 16, which are physical Israel and the church. So, if you teach that dispensationalism is wrong in saying God has two peoples, and that scripture itself shows a third category, you are in the eyes of man made theology advocating replacement theology. Scripture points to a doctrine totally rejected by man made theology, that physical Israel was transformed as Jeremiah 18: 1-6 says in a parable. But this transformation is seen in other scriptures as well, often by implication. Galatians 6: 16, where Paul puts an article before Israel, making it THE Israel of God, to distinguish it from "they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God" in Romans 9: 8.

But man made theology ignores Romans 9: 6-8, "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel...(verse 6) "They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."

So, for man made theology, there cannot be a transformation of physical national Israel into the spiritual house of I Peter 2: 5 and the chosen generation of I Peter 2: 9. Almost no one in the churches knows and understands the prophecy in II Kings 21: 13, Isaiah 29: 16 and Jeremiah 18: 1-6. The churches apparently do not teach this. Its a "non-essential," kept off in a compartment where the preachers don't go.

Man made theology tends to keep scripture itself in separate compartments, because it is often easier to get by with teaching doctrines that contradict those separate little compartmentalized bits of scripture. Isaiah 28: 13, however, does not agree with this compartmentalization. It says "...precept must be upon precept, line upon line: here a little and there a little..." Some will claim this is not about gathering strands of doctrine and truth from many parts of scripture, which is part of the dialectic argument trying to diminish the power of scripture.

And - one of the ways of diminishing the power of scripture is to compartmentalize it and discourage putting parts of it together.

False doctrines over the years since the 19th century has been added to false doctrines and dispensationalism is not the only false doctrine. Other false doctrines have been added to it, which re-define key doctrines of Christianity. This is all why the present day church is in Babylon, that is, it is Babylon. And "And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee" is powerful. Then that same chapter, Revelation 18, in verse 4 says to God's people still in Babylon "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."
 
Member

DHC

Too Few Categories of Thought In Man Made Theology
Hello Tulsa.

I was wondering how you understand the following two verses. With the emphasis on the word 'covenant'.

Hebrews 8:13

When He said, a new covenant, He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear

Hebrews 9:1
Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary.
 
Member
Hello Tulsa.

I was wondering how you understand the following two verses. With the emphasis on the word 'covenant'.

Hebrews 8:13

When He said, a new covenant, He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear

Hebrews 9:1
Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary.
Hebrews 8: 13, "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

Hebrews 10: 9 says "He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second."

Both verses are clear, and not in metaphoric language.

Hebrews 9: 1: "Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary."

This is a first sentence of a teaching that goes on to verse 14 and even longer. The first part of this describes some practices under the Old Covenant, leading up to verses 11-14, which are about how the New Covenant is superior.

Verses 11-13 say "But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12. Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
13. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14. How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

Hebrews 10: 1 is an important verse in understanding the relationship of the Old Covenant to the New Covenant: "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect."

Colossians 2: 17 also says "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17. Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

The things of the ceremonial law of the Old Covenant were just shadows of and point to the substance which was to come, which is Christ. When the substance appeared, the shadows are done away with.
 
Last edited:
Member

DHC

Hebrews 8: 13, "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

Hebrews 10: 9 says "He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second."

Both verses are clear, and not in metaphoric language.

Hebrews 9: 1: "Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary."

This is a first sentence of a teaching that goes on to verse 14 and even longer. The first part of this describes some practices under the Old Covenant, leading up to verses 11-14, which are about how the New Covenant is superior.

Verses 11-13 say "But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12. Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
13. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14. How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

Hebrews 10: 1 is an important verse in understanding the relationship of the Old Covenant to the New Covenant: "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect."

Colossians 2: 17 also says "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17. Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

The things of the ceremonial law of the Old Covenant were just shadows of and point to the substance which was to come, which is Christ. When the substance appeared, the shadows are done away with.

Hello Tulsa, appreciate the reply.


So many interesting subjects to discuss on Talk Jesus.

I asked you how you understand the word 'covenant' and I provided two verses.

It appears that you did not explain the word 'covenant' and it's usage but chose instead
to discuss a theological term, i.e., 'ceremonial law'. I assume this to be a term you are
familiar with, I have no idea what that term means. May I demonstrate the usage of the
word 'covenant' and provide a definition for you Tulsa.

Here Tulsa read the extract below which describes a 'covenant'.

Exodus 24
3 Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances;
and all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words which the Lord has spoken
we will do!”...
8 So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant,
which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”

As above, the 'covenant' includes 'all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances'.

So we have the Biblical definition of 'covenant', an agreement between two parties
sealed with blood. The people agreed to the 'covenant' which was 'all the words which
the Lord has spoken'.

The word 'covenant' covers all the words of the Lord, not just 'ceremonial' laws.

Covenant does not equal ceremonial law!

If you disagree Tulsa feel free to reply.
 
Member
This is a little off the topic. But the value of the term ceremonial law can be seen in Acts 15: 1-5 and Acts 21: 17-20.

Acts 15: 5 says "But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."

Acts 21: 17-18 and 20 say "And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present..........And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:" This last sentence is the statement by James to Paul and his crew.

In Acts 15: 5 the Pharisees who joined the Jerusalem Christians said Christians should keep the law of Moses, not separating the moral law from that other law which Hebrews 10: 1 and Colossians 2: 17 calls shadows of good things to come. In Colossians 2: 17 the Greek word translated as body is soma, which means something that has substance. Its is a kind of metaphor here and does not have a literal meaning, of being a physical body..

The term ceremonial law distinguishes between the moral law, which was largely kept from the Old Covenant, and the other law about practices which the NT refers to as shadows.

The moral law in the Old Testament, and Old Covenant, was not done away with as a whole. But the shadows were done away with, and this is important in understanding the differences between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Messianic Judaism, Hebrew Roots and the Scared Name Theology have tried to mix parts of this old shadow law with the New Covenant. Dispensationalism places a lot of emphasis upon physical Israel, or national Israel, as remaining the chosen people of God, and in doing so places more value upon the Old Covenant than do many of those claiming to be Christians who are not dispensationalists. I know dispensationalists say all Israel will be saved in the future - sometime. And this strongly implies they remain a chosen people based upon their genetics. Some dispensationalists will say its not their genetics but the promises of God to them. But that becomes a huge prolonged argument because there is a strand of prophecy in the Old Testament saying God was to turn physical Israel upside down, or transform them, such that there is an Israel Paul calls the Israel of God, or the Israel which is of God, different from physical Israel which in Romans 9: 8 are not the children of God.. Physical Israel was not replaced by the church, nor does it stand with the church as two peoples of God, contrary to John 10: 16, "there shall be one fold..." That remnant of Romans 11: 5 which accepted Christ was the part of physical Israel which accepted the transformation. "Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for: but the election hath obtained it and the rest were blinded." Romans 11: 7. Dispensationalists will come back with Romans 11: 25-26, and again its an endless argument because Romans 11: 25-26 can be interpreted differently by use of some of Paul's other texts, for example, in Romans 2 and 9 and in Galatians 4.. So, dispensationalists are interested in the shadows of the Old Covenant more than others.

Debates about all this are futile when those arguing for dispensationalism use dispensationalism as their authority and not scripture.
 
Last edited:
Member

DHC

This is a little off the topic. But the value of the term ceremonial law can be seen in Acts 15: 1-5 and Acts 21: 17-20.

Acts 15: 5 says "But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."

Acts 21: 17-18 and 20 say "And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present..........And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:" This last sentence is the statement by James to Paul and his crew.

In Acts 15: 5 the Pharisees who joined the Jerusalem Christians said Christians should keep the law of Moses, not separating the moral law from that other law which Hebrews 10: 1 and Colossians 2: 17 calls shadows of good things to come. In Colossians 2: 17 the Greek word translated as body is soma, which means something that has substance. Its is a kind of metaphor here and does not have a literal meaning, of being a physical body..

The term ceremonial law distinguishes between the moral law, which was largely kept from the Old Covenant, and the other law about practices which the NT refers to as shadows.

The moral law in the Old Testament, and Old Covenant, was not done away with as a whole.
Hello Tulsa.

I read your last post and have noticed that you separate the 'first covenant' into two parts.

The ten commandments comprise the first part of the covenant, and the other laws given
at Mt Sinai into a second part. After dividing the first covenant into two separate divisions,
you then define these two divisions. The first division you call the 'moral law' and the second
division you refer to as the 'ceremonial law'. According to you the 'moral law' is not obsolete
even though it is included in the 'first covenant' (Hebrews 9:4).

Well Tulsa, all I see in your posts is a theological interpretation. To refer to the law of Moses
as 'ceremonial law' is pure theology at work. Nowhere in the Bible is the term 'ceremonial law'
used. I do believe that I can completely refute your theology Tulsa. But you will need to think
through the following information carefully. Please read on Tulsa!

Acts 15
19 Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God
from among the Gentiles,
20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and
from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

There were only actually three rules given to the Gentiles by the apostles at Jerusalem.
These three rules were seen as the solution to the vexing problem. Do Gentile Christians
need to join the old covenant of Mt Sinai (Acts 15:5), do Gentile Christians ultimately
need to be circumcised? In other words, are Gentile Christians automatically included
in the old covenant after conversion. That is what the demand for circumcision is announcing,
there is no other possibility available. Circumcision is the rite of passage into both the Abrahamic
and Mosaic covenants. Circumcision is a primary covenant commandment.

Now you will have to put your thinking cap on Tulsa.

I will list the instructions given by the apostles to the Gentiles. I cannot emphasize these
instructions more. Because these instructions demonstrate exactly what the relationship
was between the Gentiles and the old covenant as far as the apostles were concerned.

The text states the following;

'that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what
is strangled and from blood.'

The apostles have given the Gentiles a minute part of the 'law of Moses' and not the
ten commandments. Three of the rules relate to the eating practises of the Gentiles
which deeply offended the Jewish Christians! I ask you Tulsa would it have been
more sensible of the apostles to have given the Gentiles the tables of the covenant?

This primitive dietary instruction set was sent to the churches at Antioch and Syria
and Cilicia. I am deeply perplexed at this instruction set Tulsa. It seems to be direct
attempt by the apostles to maintain peace between the Jews and Gentiles. Whether
you eat meat with the blood in it or not is irrevelant to Gentiles as all foods are clean
for us.

Well Tulsa we have one rule left do we not?

'Abstain from fornication', and this is not one of the ten commandments I might add.
The word usage 'abstain' does not convey the gravity of a commandment. Besides
fornication (pornea) is not adultery by any measure but rather an amalgamation
of numerous sexual laws within the law of Moses.

Finally Tulsa, we do know that Paul did not visit the apostles until three years
after his conversion (Galatians 1:18). Paul was converted to Christianity some
time after the church at Jerusalem was established, how long we are not told.
Then on this first visit Paul only saw Peter and James, and this was in private.

It was not until fourteen years later that Paul returned to Jerusalem (Galatians 2),
which is probably the event described in (Acts 15). So it is highly probable that
the Gentile churches had been in operation for a time approaching 15 years or more.
The Gentile churches were certainly not novice Christians.

These Gentiles that received the letter (Acts 15) had been Christians for many years.
More than ready for the simple tablets of the covenant if need be.

What is abundantly clear is that the Gentile believers were never included in the
old covenant. Gentile believers never were placed under the law system of
Mt Sinai, nor part thereof. The omission of circumcision is the absolute proof
of this. We know that Jesus did not come to abolish the law, Jesus came to
abolish the entire covenant itself.
 
Top