Chapter 7: Dead to Sin; Dead to the Law; Living under Grace

Christianity 101

Chapter 7: Dead to Sin; Dead to the Law; Living under Grace

Another area of common confusion is in regards to the relationship between God and the believer. What is the believer's “position” in relation to God? Also, what was the relationship between God and an Israelite who was under the old covenant?

Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; 2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. 3Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: 4But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. – Galatians 4:1-7

Those redeemed are now sons, whereas the previous condition was that of a servant or slave. It is also a condition of being a child; immature in nature and under bondage to these “elements of the world.” A child's life consists of living by a set of rules given to them by the parents. “Don't touch that!” “Eat your carrots.” “Don't cross the street.” “Come inside before it gets dark.”

Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, 21(Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. 1If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. 2Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. 3For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. – Colossians 2:20-3:3

Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. 35And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. 36If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. – John 8:34-36

It is Christ who makes us free from sin, and no longer the servant of sin. It is in this condition we “abide in the house for ever.”

God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? – Romans 6:2

What does it mean to be dead to sin? Likewise:

Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. – Romans 7:4

For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. – Galatians 2:19

Being dead to sin, and dead to that law, means that neither has any power over the person any longer. One is freed from the law, and freed from sin.

For he that is dead is freed from sin. – Romans 6:7

Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. 19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. 20 for when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 21What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. 22But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. 23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. – Romans 6:18-23

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. – Romans 8:2

Sin all too often becomes a tool of control, wielded by ministers or a ministry for the sake of controlling their members. They are taught that, in order to avoid sin, they must abide by the instructions of their ministries, who define what sin is for them, and define for them how they are to live in order to avoid sin.

This should not be taken lightly. Historically, societies have been closely controlled, not only through civil governments, but by religious organizations also, often in conjunction with the civil authority. A person's very existence was controlled from birth to the grave, and any behavior, or even belief that strayed from the norm, could be, and often was, dealt with severely.

For the first time in history, people in the western civilizations have been freed from the “peer pressure” of their cultures. If a culture had embraced a false gospel and a false Christianity, and you were a part of that culture, you were forced to conform to that culture and belief system. Truly, the chances of you coming to an understanding of the truth of the gospel, and pure religion would have been remote. When and if a disagreement arose between groups of people in a particular culture, blood was likely to be spilled, and a prevailing belief was rarely based on the truth of Scripture, but rather by who controlled the greater power in that culture.

With the advent of printing came the ability for more people to read the Scriptures, with the resultant differences of interpretations. Differing groups sprung up, all wanting the ability to believe what they wanted without being persecuted by other groups, hence the migration of various religious groups to the Americas, where they set up their own cultures and promptly persecuted any and all within their environs who did not agree with their brand of Christianity.

Fortunately, in time, religious freedoms prevailed in the states and the Federal Constitution of the United States, where one was now free to worship God according to the dictates of one's conscience, as well as the freedom to not worship God according to that same freedom. A person no longer had to conform to the religious “norm” that rarely matched up with Scripture.

If those who desire power and control over others cannot achieve it through one venue, they will seek it in another. Religion is a very powerful venue; a cage people can be put in that has no bars other than the person's own fears and phobias. Jesus declared that the truth sets men free. Conversely, lies, deceptions, and false religions enslave.

Do you wish to be free? If so, then you must be ready to question everything and everyone. Nothing is above examination, and no one is above scrutiny. If a man tells you that to question him is to question God, then run and don't walk away from such a man. No man and no ministry is to come between the individual and Christ. Christ is the vine, and the believer is a branch connected directly to the vine, and not connected via some other man or church.

Jesus stated that you would know true believers based on whether they had love for one another, and by extension, love for all others. Jesus did not say you would know true believers based on their beliefs and doctrines. True doctrines, by the way, do not violate love and faith.

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7For he that is dead is freed from sin. 8Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: 9Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 10For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. 11Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. 12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. – Romans 6:3-12

The old you died. The new you is a new creation. You are now a son (or daughter) of God whereas before you were a son or daughter of Adam with the inherent nature of Adam; a sinful nature.

Those who would resurrect you back to sin want power and control over you. Those who want to resurrect you back to the law also want to control you. They make a good argument that Christians are not free to sin, and even Paul makes such a declaration, but what kind of sin? Well, what did we just read above? That it is about sins related to lust; about sating carnal desires. Sabbatarians make the accusation that the carnal mind hates the sabbath, yet you can't make the case that one lusts in relation to the sabbath any more than they would circumcision.

The ultimate goal of dragging you back to sin and rules of conduct is to bring you under a false gospel, and the resultant bondage. Those who seek power and control over others cannot stand the thought of anyone being free of their control, which is what the true gospel accomplishes. You therefore must be ready to walk away from those who seek control over you, despite all the subtle and deceitful methods they may employ to have you accept them as an authority figure over you. It may even require some to abandon family.

And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, 30But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life. – Mark 10:29-30

Ministers of Christ are servants, and not masters. If they can dictate to you, and demand of you compliance of things, especially your support of them, then there is something fundamentally wrong. If they can adversely affect your life, there is something dreadfully wrong. If they generate fear in people should they go against what they teach and demand, it is time to seek the nearest exit.

A Christian is not under the law. A Christian is under grace. A legalist will insist that, because we are under grace, we should be keeping that law; that grace is not a license to sin. Part of the problem is in the legalist's interpretation of sin being so much more than following the lusts of the flesh. Conversely, the legalist's interpretation is sin falls short of covering everything found in that same law they espouse as defining sin.

In order to cover the aspect of grace, I will incorporate the methodology of truth in this example.

First, we gather together the examples of Scripture that deals with the type of grace being examined, for the English word “grace” can mean a couple different, although related things. We are looking for examples of grace as the Christian condition in relation to God, where grace is unmerited favor and acceptance. In this context, we need to remember that a Christian's life is hid in Christ; that the Christian takes on Christ's righteousness, and not one's own righteousness. (Colossians 3:3; Matthew 6:33; Philippians 3:9)

John 1:16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

[ If grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, then grace and truth did not come by Moses or the law]

Acts 13:43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.

Acts 14:3 Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands.

Acts 14:26And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled.

Acts 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Acts 15:40 And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.

Acts 18:27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:

Acts 20:24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.

[ The gospel is about grace]

Acts 20:32 And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.

Romans 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:

Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Romans 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

Romans 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

Romans 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Romans 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

Romans 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Romans 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

Romans 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

[For sin to have dominion, one must be under the law]

Romans 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Romans 12:3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

Romans 12:6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;

Romans 15:15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God,

1 Corinthians 1:4 I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;

1 Corinthians 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

1 Corinthians 10:30 For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?

1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

2 Corinthians 1:12 For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.

2 Corinthians 4:15 For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God.

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

2 Corinthians 8:1 Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia;

2 Corinthians 8:6 Insomuch that we desired Titus, that as he had begun, so he would also finish in you the same grace also.

2 Corinthians 8:7 Therefore, as ye abound in every thing, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace also.

2 Corinthians 8:9 For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

2 Corinthians 8:19 And not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace, which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready mind:

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

2 Corinthians 9:14 And by their prayer for you, which long after you for the exceeding grace of God in you.

2 Corinthians 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

[Another gospel removes you from grace?]

Galatians 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

[Grace is related to righteousness and Christ's sacrifice]

Galatians 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

[Scripture shows we cannot be justified by the law, therefore is this a case of trying to be justified by the law? How do we define justified / justification? ]

Ephesians 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

[Our acceptance is related to God's grace ]

Ephesians 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Ephesians 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

Ephesians 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Ephesians 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

Ephesians 3:7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

Ephesians 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

Ephesians 4:7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

Philippians 1:7 Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace.

Colossians 1:6 Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:

2 Thessalonians 1:12 That the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Thessalonians 2:16 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace,

1 Timothy 1:14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

[Grace is associated with faith and love]

2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

2 Timothy 2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

Titus 3:7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Hebrews 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Hebrews 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

[Could this be those who reject the new covenant that was instituted by the spilled blood of Christ; rejecting God's grace for another, earlier covenant?]

Hebrews 12:15 Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;

Hebrews 12:28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:

Hebrews 13:9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.

James 4:6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.

1 Peter 1:10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:

1 Peter 1:13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

1 Peter 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

1 Peter 4:10 As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.

1 Peter 5:5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

1 Peter 5:10 But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.

1 Peter 5:12 By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand.

2 Peter 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

In those Scriptures where grace is the topic of discussion, we need to examine the context so as to avoid treating the text eisegetically.

Romans chapter 4

What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 6Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. 9Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 12And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 13For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: 15Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. 16Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, 17(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. 18Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. 19And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb: 20He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. 22And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. 23Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. – Romans 4:1-25

What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

What is Paul saying here? That if Abraham's justification (being upright before God) were based on his own efforts, he would have something to glory in, but even so, God would be unimpressed? Is Paul stating that what God wants isn't someone who is perfect when it comes to following orders? Is there something else that God is interested in?

3For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Why was Abraham's righteousness before God a result of Abraham's belief / faith? Why did Abraham believe God? What was Abraham's motivation?

4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

What is this reward? In this context, it is about salvation. If salvation were achievable through “work” then grace would have nothing to do with it. One would receive salvation as payment for the work done according to the terms of the agreement. What agreement? Keeping the commandments perfectly, and this idea has its evidence in what is written in Matthew chapter 19 in regards to the wealthy young man who asked Jesus what he, personally, could do in order to have eternal life. What was established there was the fact that neither this man, or any man, will ever be so justified. It is impossible for a man, given the nature he is born with, to fulfill the requirements of that law that reflects the perfection found in, and required of, God.

When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? 26But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. – Matthew 19:25-26

In this context then, grace is related to justification, not through work or the efforts of the individual, but through faith/belief in God who, as a result of faith, justifies even the “ungodly.” A righteousness is imputed to the believer, which elsewhere is shown to be Christ's righteousness imputed to the believer, whose life becomes hid in Christ.

6Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

This then is the condition of one under grace; a condition where God imputes righteousness to us, and forgives our iniquities; covers our sins. There is one more aspect here that we tend to overlook: God will not impute sin to us. How often do you hear preachers/ministers make that declaration? If our lives are hidden in Christ, then wouldn't God have to impute sin to Christ in order to impute sin to us?

31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. – Jeremiah 31:31-34

9Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 12And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 13For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: 15Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

These promises that were given to Abraham are not exclusive to those of the circumcision who later received the law. These promises, and righteousness through faith, predate that law. That law had nothing to do with righteousness through faith and these promises of inheritance. Indeed, if we attempt to claim those who are “of the law” are the sole heirs, faith is voided; vacated, and the promise becomes nothing, seeing as it can no longer be related to a promise. Why? Because the law produces wrath, and not righteousness. If the law were relevant, then these things; the promises; the righteousness by faith, cease to exist, having been supplanted by law where one has to keep the law perfectly in order to attain or acquire righteousness and salvation. Even Christ's sacrifice becomes an empty event. But if there is no law, there can be no sin. If there is no sin, there is no condemnation. If there is no condemnation. . .

O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? 56The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. 57But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. – 1 Corinthians 15:55-57

Victory over what? Death, sin, and the law.

16Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, 17(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Note how Paul switches between those of the circumcision and those of the law, showing that he is talking about the same people in this context. In contrast to these are those who are not of the circumcision, and also not of the law. Both categories have Abraham as their father in regards to faith and grace. The promise initially given to Abraham, is secure in this context outside the legalities of the law.

18Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. 19And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb: 20He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. 22And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. 23Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. – Romans 4:1-25

Our faith and belief, results in our righteousness and justification – thereby coming under grace, is in regards to Jesus' sacrifice and His resurrection.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. – Romans 5:12-13

If there was sin in the world prior to that law (“the” law), and sin is not imputed without law, then there was another law extant from creation that Adam and Eve violated. We can identify the law of faith, seeing as Adam and Eve's sin was about faithlessness, and we also see a “law” of conscience, as brought out by Paul:

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) 16In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. – Romans 2:14-16

14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. -- Romans 5:14

This is a time span where the law, given through Moses, did not exist. Yet sin was extant, and death reigned. Sin was not a case of everyone eating of that forbidden fruit. All sin eventually comes back to faithlessness and unbelief. Something happened to the human psyche upon their sin, and it became a part of the human condition. We are the offspring of Adam and Eve with this Adamic nature.

15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Paul contrasts Adam and Christ as being opposites in relation to humanity. Adam began the pattern whereby all came under condemnation. Jesus set the pattern for humanity to come under the gift of grace, resulting in justification. Each one's actions led to a totally opposite result.

20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. – Romans 5:12-21

All the law did was cause the offenses to abound; to be greater in degree and severity. The law made sin “utterly sinful.” The law did not produce anything other than offenses. The law did not, and could not, produce righteousness. The law is on the opposite side of the justification/offense equation.

Romans 6:1-23

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Here and elsewhere, Paul addresses the claim made by his adversaries that he was espousing an antinomian position; a claim that Christians would sin with abandonment. It is a case of claiming the only thing preventing Christians from wholesale sin is a written code! What then of the Holy Spirit a Christian possesses? Is the Holy Spirit seen by those who claim Paul was antinomian as being of no effect?

5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7For he that is dead is freed from sin. 8Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: 9Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 10For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. 11Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. 12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. 13Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. 14For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Our “old man” is crucified with Christ. The Adamic nature is dead and buried; that nature that was subject to sin and law. The believer now lives a new life in Christ. The believer exists in a new state of being; a son of God whose life is tied to Christ's. In regards then to sin and Paul's observation, is sin seen as being a case of breaking a law that was added later, whose purpose was to make offenses abound? No, for there were requirements in that law that had nothing to do with lusts of one's mortal body. The Gentiles did not, through conscience, relate to things like the sabbath.

Also, the believer, having been rendered dead to sin and the law, is not left in some ethereal limbo state. The believer is in a state of grace. As a result of being in this state of grace, sin no longer has dominion. Grace has dominion. Death no longer has dominion; Grace has dominion. The law no longer has dominion; Grace has dominion.

15What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 16Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? 17But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 18Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

The rationalization a legalist resorts to is that, in order to not sin, one must keep the law. Never mind the believer is no longer under sin or the law. But the believer here obeys from the heart. If however one insists on keeping the law in order to not sin, there are two things that negate that thinking: 1. If you are obeying the law, then you become the servant of the law. You are no longer the servant of Christ. 2. You cannot obey the law anyway, perfectly, as required. Being the servant of righteousness is about living by faith, and not law.

19I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. 20For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 21What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. 22But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. 23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. – Romans 6:1-23

Legalists attempt to marry grace and law. We have examined all the relevant Scriptures and find no support for that concept. What we have found is the exact opposite. One is either under law, or under grace. One is either under the consequences of a failure to keep law, which is in sin, or one is under grace. One is either under a death penalty as a result of sin, as defined by law, or one is under grace.

One last issue to address: Legalists redefine what it means to be “under the law” in an attempt to claim Christians should be keeping the law. I would remind the reader that redefining words and terms is common method employed in deceptions.

This redefinition of what it means to be under the law is to claim it is in relation to the condemnation that normally results from the law. It is a claim we can and should keep the law, but that we do not, as a result of transgressing that law, come under the condemnation of that law. This is like saying if you are in an automobile wreck, you will walk away from it unscathed.

Do we have any Scriptural support of this claim? No. Is there any evidence to the contrary? Yes:

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. – Galatians 4:4-5

Jesus was made (born) of a woman, and made (born) under the law. If we define “under the law” to mean under the condemnation of the law, then we have a case of Jesus being born condemned from birth. Sounds more like a doctrine of demons.

When we apply critical thinking to this definition that we are not under the law's condemnation, but still obligated to keep that law, what happens then, according to those proponents of this concept, should be abandon law keeping? What happens to the one who quits keeping the sabbath, for example?

What is their answer? They revert back to the claim that to sin “willfully” is to commit the unpardonable and forfeit salvation. So there is condemnation with breaking that law after all. It is but another example of the double-speak; the cognitive dissonance inherent in false belief systems. What is of importance to us is the effect on our being under grace.

Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. – Galatians 5:2-4

Circumcision brought one under the law and obligated to live by that law. It was a “covenant” law, therefore every requirement of that law had to be complied with and met. Failure to keep one point resulted in the entirety being violated. Even James attests to this:

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. – James 2:10

Being under the law means exactly what it says; being under, and therefore subject to that law.

I would attempt to impress on the legalist that the true “test” of your Christian character comes when you are confronted with a situation not covered in your never ending lists of “do this” and “don't do that” structured life. Awhile back it was popular for people to wear an arm bracelet with the initials, “WWJD” which stood for “What would Jesus do?” It was a way of trying to get people to think along the lines of the Spirit of faith and love. The legalist should wear a bracelet that says (WDTLS) instead as their guiding principle: “What does the law say?” Jesus worked on sabbaths, contrary to the letter of the law. You, the legalist, are in denial in this regard. You have been taught, and believed, that Jesus could not possibly have broken that law, for to do so is to sin, and He could not be the Savior of mankind as a result. It has been instilled into you as one of those immovable and immutable beliefs that blinds you to the reality of the True Christ and living by faith, under grace, apart from that law.

Jesus came as the Son of God and He lived a sinless life. How? By keeping that law? No. He lived a sinless life because He is God. It is His Nature to be righteous. It is our nature to be sinful.

I have an interesting analogy in this regard. When I was at Ambassador as a freshman, one of the many rules we had was that the male students were not permitted in the women's dorms without proper supervision. Yet I had a job on campus that required me to go into the women's dorms on a fairly regular basis and work unsupervised. When I mentioned this to my supervisor, he informed me, “we are not worried about you being in a women's dorm. We are concerned about these church kids going into the women's dorms.” After a bit more discussion over the matter, I understood the reasoning behind the rule and why I was “exempt” from it. They considered the church kids to be carnally minded when they show up as freshmen. I however did not come from a church family; I came from the outside and had a different perspective to begin with that was serious in nature. My motivation to be there was to learn what I believed to be God's way of life. These church kids were not necessarily there as a result of such a motivation. They knew from past experience who they could trust and not trust, and the average freshman coming from a church family was seen to have a more “carnal” nature. What is unfortunate in this regard is that they could not take this concept and apply it to their understanding of the law.

Who do you have to tell not to commit murder? Someone whose nature it is to hate another to the point they would murder. Who do you have to tell not to commit adultery? Someone who has a carnal nature that is prone to do so. Who do you have to tell not to worship idols and false gods? Someone who is likely to do so.

Works of the Law

There are those whose religion is all based on show. Jesus addressed this in regards to some Jews who would put on quite a show of their “devotion” through their actions.

Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 3But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: 4That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. 5And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 6But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. – Matthew 6:2-6

All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 6And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. – Matthew 23:3-10

The sabbath is a point of bragging. It is an attempt to look righteous on the outside by observing the day. To sabbatarians, it is the true Christian distinctive. To them, those who do not keep the sabbath are the deceived and are false Christians (a negative judgment). Some of them go so far as to claim that if a “Christian” observes Sundays as a day of worship, they are worshiping the beast, and receive the mark of the beast as a result.

They point out with self-righteous indignation the practice of some churches that to call their religious leaders “father” violates the command of Christ, yet they too have “masters” over them in their churches who tell them what to do, and how to do it, while exempting themselves from even the sabbath commandment. Their members are put under the burden of tithing, contrary to the same law they claim cannot be altered even down to the strokes of the letters of the law. Such is the power of a deceptive system.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Chapter 6: Methods of Deception

Christianity 101

Chapter 6: Methods of Deception

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. — Matthew 24:24

From my own experience, and in the observation of many others, we all tend to make the same fundamental errors when it comes to the discernment of deceptions. Basic to this is the tendency to believe that God thinks like we do, which He does not. Seeing as we are born with that “stony heart” that has to be replaced, we filter everything through that perspective and interpret everything from that perspective, making the assumption that God’s thought processes are similar. This is a case of making God over into our own image.

Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. — Isaiah 55:7-9

Another commonality regarding deceptions is that people believe that they cannot be deceived. Why? Because they believe they are too smart to be deceived. Is there a touch of pride and arrogance in that belief? What, again, did Jesus declare in Matthew chapter 24 as quoted above? That, if it were possible, even the very elect would be deceived. That is how good and how convincing the deceptions really are. Unfortunately, everyone believes they are of this elect, and as such, beyond deception.

I would point out that one needs to only look at the world scene, and see how religion has played a part of some of the most heinous atrocities committed by men, and continues to be so. Try to show those same people the insanity of their actions and beliefs in relation to God whom they claim to serve, and you will find you are wasting your breath and time.

In seeing how others of another religion act and react in regards to their beliefs, one can catch a glimmer of the underlying problem.

Hatred. A heart of stone. These are those who will kill you and believe they do God a service.

When one is possessed by a heart of stone, how can they be expected to perceive things from God’s perspective, and perceive truth from deception? It is not possible, and even given this understanding, it can lead to further deceptions. Some teachings found in Calvinism are a good example.

A person with a heart of stone is motivated by that heart. Because of this, the psyche, to use more modern terminology, is a psyche that is, in the eyes of God, corrupted. A person solely motivated by hatred and/or self interest is unable to think logically, rationally, clearly, lovingly.

Satan and those angelic beings who were swayed by him and who followed him, had their minds corrupted as a result. Their focus came off of God and faith in Him. Satan’s focus was redirected to himself. There is a clue to the human condition in all of this, where people look to themselves or to other men for validation as to how they live their lives.

When it comes to deceptions within the realm of Christianity, the deceptions that are the most dangerous are those that result in a redirection of one’s faith away from God and onto something or someone else. Quite commonly, this something else is given equal status with God. Those who are legalistic in their theology see the law in the light of it being of God and possessing the same characteristics of God, such as being eternal and never changing. To obey God to them is to obey the law. It is a subtle shift in faith, so subtle that it agrees quite readily with the warning of Jesus there again in Matthew chapter 24. Deceptions can be so convincing as to tempt even the very elect. And just what do you suppose those who have bought into deceptions believe in this regard? That they are indeed the elect, therefore beyond being deceived! It is circular reasoning, that a rational person can spot, but it goes undetected as such by those who have bought into deceptions. Why? Deceptions tend to short circuit one’s critical thinking skills, which brings up a topic that will be discussed and covered elsewhere. For now, critical thinking is a skill where one subjects their beliefs to a series of logical and rational evaluations or questions that tend to unmask deceptions and make it easier to more closely approach the truth of a matter when solid evidence is lacking to back up a particular belief.

In order for a man or a group to proffer deceptions though, they must cause those they are trying to influence to abandon their critical thinking skills in order to get them to accept the deceptions, and there are quite a variety of methods employed to accomplish this. The most commonplace methods employ what are commonly referred to as logical fallacies.

A logical fallacy generally is an argument that employs false logic, false premises, and evidence that is not truly relevant to the topic at hand. Some are easy to spot, and some are extremely difficult to unmask for what they are. The one thing they have in common, when it comes to Scripture, is that they attempt to support a belief where there is no “Thus saith the Lord.”

Another common factor when it comes to deceptions is that deceptions are used to support other deceptions, so that an entire belief system can be built on these deceptions so that, in order to dismantle the theological structure created by them, each false belief must be taken apart and exposed for what it is; a tedious and time consuming task, made all the harder when trying to “deprogram” someone whose life has been commandeered by a false belief system. For example, it took me over three years of study and work to expose all the facets of the false system I had been exposed to in the proceeding 30 years.

If possible, I would suggest that if you find yourself in the company of a person who is a member of a religious group you believe to be a cult, ask that person if they perceive their theology to be of such a nature that they cannot believe any other system of theology as workable. You will soon see that they are convinced that their way is the only way that works. What need, then, to try or examine anything else? I have long ago lost count as to how many times I have heard people say they have proved their way to be true, and that there was no purpose served to examine everything all over again. This, my dear reader, is a classic example of being dull of seeing and dull of hearing.

In order to expose false teachings and deceptions, there must be some hard fast rules that people can agree on. In other words, there must be some common ground to work from. I have concluded that the basis for determining truth from error is the following statement:

Scripture is the Inspired Word of God. As such, no man, and no church, has the right to alter Scripture or its application in any way.

All too often, ministers resort to a rationale of “principle.” Tithing is a good example. Tithing on one's wages is unbiblical, yet they will justify the practice through the rationale of the principle of the thing. However, once you compromise with one concept of Scripture, where does it stop or end? No, we need to understand that using some excuse to circumvent the Inspired Word of God is to treat that Word of God with contempt. If you desire to know and learn the truth, there can be no compromise with the Word of God.


Here then are a number of the methods of deception.

* Logical fallacies

There are a number of resources on the internet where one can study into logical fallacies. There are quite a number of types extant, and many variations on those themes. They are not only employed to proffer a false belief, but also they are employed as a means of rejecting proper evidence and those who would provide that evidence. If you can disparage a person through an Ad Hominem you can justify in your own mind the rejection of what they have to say. You can see examples of this in scripture where many of the religious leaders of Jesus’ day said things designed to discredit Jesus as a person so as to make the unwarranted claim that anything said by Him was seen as not being credible. If you don’t have a credible witness, you do not have credible evidence. You can reject the man and what he has to say with the wave of a hand.

There was a little city, and few men within it; and there came a great king against it, and besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it: Now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered that same poor man. Then said I, Wisdom is better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom is despised, and his words are not heard. — Ecclesiastes 9:14-16

In the group that I was in, it was a common practice to refer to those who left as “disgruntled ex members” and as such, anything they had to say critical of the group was summarily dismissed. A poor man even within the organization was seen as being unworthy of attention, and that his lack of success and wealth a sign of disfavor with God. In false religious groups, the opposite of love for one another is extant, but not recognized as such.

A logical fallacy attempts to circumvent the proper methods of determining the truth of a matter through a flawed rationale or logic. Often, the fallacy follows the use of a premise followed by a conclusion, where the premise is flawed, or the conclusion is not even related to the premise (a “Non Sequitur”).

When it comes to false religious beliefs, the use of logical fallacies is commonplace, and they are used as an indoctrination tool in order to produce a conditioned response when confronted with an attack upon a belief.

It is commonplace for those who have been so conditioned to respond to any claim contrary to their belief with these conditioned responses so that they are predictable as a result. These conditioned responses serve to throw up a mental barrier to contrary evidence. They also serve to block out any critical thinking in regards to those beliefs. If, for example, you confront a member of a legalistic group that Christians are not under the law; not subject to the old covenant law, two common conditioned responses result:

1. “If the law were done away, people would be free to sin; commit murder, adultery, robbery, etc. without fear of God’s punishment or retribution.”

2. That law defines sin, and a Christian is not free to sin. Sinners will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

In this case, the premise can be shown to be false for Christians. The law defined sin for one under the law, and Christians are not under that law. But again, the OC legalist cannot conceive of any other system being workable, so plain Scriptures that state we are not under the law can't be taken at face value.

There are many more examples of conditioned responses in this regard, but these two will suffice for our purpose now.

These conditioned responses are claims. For claim # 1, no real evidence is given in support of the claim, and when the claim is exposed to the methods of proper examination, it falls apart fairly easily.

Is the only thing preventing you, or the one making the claim for that matter, from going about committing wholesale murder the fact there is a law prohibiting it? I find it is useful to turn the claim back on the one making the claim. In this case, the claim is couched in an accusation, so I turn the accusation back on the accuser. I try to personalize the claim with them. When you do this though, you see another aspect of conditioning kick in, and they invariably try to change the subject at that point, where they make another conditioned response in order to avoid having to deal with a claim critically, thus avoiding being proven wrong.

Claim #2 is accompanied with the scriptural evidence found in I John 3:4 and the translation found in the KJV:

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. — 1 John 3:4

No other modern English translation contains this interpretive translation of this passage, but no matter. They simply make the claim, that this translation is the correct one, and all others are misleading, made by men who refuse to see the “truth” about the law. As mentioned earlier, one or more falsehoods are used to prop up other falsehoods.

An examination of the Greek here, along with an understanding of the linguistics of the time reveals that this interpretive translation is not correct. The Greek does not support the word, “anomia” being used in this fashion, referring to the old covenant law. In context, and in keeping with the usage of the Greek word anomia in that world and at that time, the passage is more precisely rendered as sin being “iniquity.” All iniquity is sin, but not all transgressions of that law were sin. David ate the show-bread that was unlawful for him to eat, yet he was blameless. The translation as it stands in the King James not only neglects to take this into consideration, the spirit of the law is also swept aside.


Mis-quoting, mis-application of Scripture.

Eisegesis (a.k.a. proof texting)

This is the practice of taking a passage of Scripture out of context, and focusing on it in such a way as to conclude something beyond the scope of the context. For example, sabbatarian legalists are fond of quoting Mark 2:27:

And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

The context was about Jesus explaining to the Pharisees that the “man” was not made or created for the sabbath, but rather the sabbath was made for the man, seeing as the mindset of the Jews and especially the Pharisees was one of a strict and burdensome interpretation and application of the sabbath commandment. To conclude though that the “man” in this instance is to be interpreted to mean all of mankind is to take this way beyond the scope of what was being discussed. What “man” was given the sabbath and required to keep it? The Israelites via a covenant between them and God. To interpret “anthropos” as being all of humanity in this example is to be sloppy in one’s scholarship. But when you are trying to “prove” a false belief, anything goes, and careful scholarship is the first thing to suffer. In response, I point this out:

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. — Matthew 10:22

All men would rightly include other Christian believers, would it not? But the sabbatarian attempts to ignore the obvious by insisting “men” is not in the passage; that “men” is implied. Fair enough then. If men is implied, then who are these “all;” all animals? Who or what has the ability to hate? Other people; all of them. So is “all” all inclusive here, or not? Or, is the sabbatarian legalist going to resort to Clintonian semantics now?

If “anthropos” is going to be understood in Mark 2:27 as meaning all mankind, then shouldn’t we apply the same standard to the word “all” here?

What we also need to do is examine how the writer, in this case Mark, uses the same word “man” (anthropos) in the gospel of Mark in order to establish whether Mark always uses the word to mean “all mankind.”

In that same passage, Mark relates that Jesus used the term: “Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.”

The word “man” here is the same anthropos. Is the “Son of man” literally the son of all mankind? No. The word “man” here is used in a more figurative sense. Already we can see that anthropos as used by Mark, does not always mean, all mankind as the sabbatarian insists.

Mark 3:1 And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand.

The word “man” here is anthropos. Again, does the word mean, all mankind? No, for not all mankind was standing there with withered hands. Mark is referring to just one man.

The word anthropos is not a rigid word. It can mean anything from a single man, to a man or men in general. To assign to it arbitrarily the meaning of all mankind simply because it is in line with one’s theological beliefs is scholastically dishonest. It is poor and lazy scholarship.

The context of Mark chapter two in regards to this example shows the duplicitous way the entire passage is used by those who are deceived. The Pharisees claim Jesus’ disciples were doing that which was illegal to do on the sabbath; picking grain to eat. The sabbatarian insists this was not unlawful, thereby ignoring the context even moreso. They claim that picking and eating grain on a sabbath was one of the many added restrictions to the law the Pharisees were renowned for, yet Jesus does not dispute their claim regarding the legality of the claim. It was indeed against the law to pick the grain, even as it was unlawful for David to eat the show-bread. To cover up this flaw in logic and reason, the sabbatarian often resorts to the excuse of the rights of kings, yet David was not at that time king, and the law did not provide a king with special privileges. All were treated equally under the law. This in itself is an example of using one falsehood to prop up another falsehood.

It was illegal for the Israelites to go out and attempt to gather manna on a sabbath, even though there was no manna available on a sabbath. It was illegal to go out and gather sticks. The flawed logic of the sabbatarian would have us believe that to go out into a field to gather grain to eat was not a violation of the sabbath commandment, yet trying to go out to gather manna to eat, that wasn’t even there, was a violation!

Let us recap. The sabbatarian quotes Mark 2:27 and makes the claim that “man” means all of mankind, and further concludes all mankind is therefore required to keep the sabbath.

By using just some of the methods of proper scholarship, we have determined the claims to be false, for the premise that anthropos means all mankind is shown to be false based upon the further writings by the same author. We also recognize the passage as being used eisegetically by the sabbatarian, and eisegesis is not a proper method of scholarship. It is one of the many methods employed in deceptions and falsehoods.

The context of Scripture shows that only the Israelites were required to “keep the sabbath” and that the sabbath was the sign between God and Israel in relation to their covenant. We can find no example of anyone prior to Sinai keeping the sabbath, nor do we find any example of anyone else being commanded to keep the sabbath, let alone all mankind. The claim by sabbatarians that the sabbath was instituted at creation is but another example of attempting to prop up one false belief with another false belief. The seventh day may well have been established as the last day in a seven day weekly cycle, but there is no evidence of Adam and Eve being commanded to rest on that day, or anyone else until Sinai. It was God who rested on that seventh day of creation, and not Adam and Eve. Adam and eve did not work the previous six days; God did. Adam and Eve were created the day before that seventh day. Strange, don’t you think, that sabbatarians would insist the sabbath day rest was instituted at creation for all mankind when neither Adam and Eve had been working! But fear not, the sabbatarians have even more false props in their sabbath arsenal.

* Redefining of Words and Terms

The most common example of this I can think of is the word and concept of tithing. Ask anyone what the tithe is, and you will likely get an answer that differs from that of Scripture.

The biblical tithe that is found in the old covenant law, was a tenth of the increase of produce and/or livestock. What the biblical tithe never was, was a tenth of one’s increase based on wages. Wage earners under the law never tithed on their wages.

One of the last people I pointed this fact out to in turn asked me to show them where tithing was not assessed of one’s wages! In other words, where does it say we do not tithe on our wages? Does the reader see the problem with that question? One of the rules of proper logic states that you cannot prove a negative, and yet those who are caught up in false belief systems require proof of a negative all the time. Example:

Where does it say in the Bible we are no longer required to keep the sabbath?

It not only requires us to prove a negative; it is also a loaded question, which is yet another of the many methods employed in deceptions.

The biblical definition then of a tithe as required under the old covenant was a tenth of the increase of produce and/or livestock, or something made from produce, such as wine. When confronted with this factual definition of tithe, rationalizations result. Rationalizations are also a method of deception. In this case, it is rationalized that we are to make allowances for changes that occur over time, or that it is the principle that matters. These responses are typical, and those who hold to tithing are invariably the same ones who claim, reading Matthew 5:17-18, that the law of the old covenant remains intact and inviolate even down to jots and tittles. So, if the law of tithing, like all else, cannot be altered even down to the strokes of the letters of the tithing law, how is it they now claim the law of tithing does indeed change way beyond jots and tittles?

Can we truly alter the meaning of Scripture, as well as alter the application of Scripture? We are dealing with the “Word” of God here. Jesus confronted the religious of Israel in this regard by telling them that they made the word of God of no effect through their traditions. In other words, they were trying to keep the law, not as God had commanded, but rather through their traditions. If God commanded something be done, or observed, He also commanded the manner in which it was to be done. Teaching people therefore to tithe of their wages constitutes a perversion of Scripture and its application.

It is the false teachers and false ministers who teach deceptions. Jesus warned that these people were wolves in sheep’s clothing, preying on flocks. Altering the tithing law, and applying it to Christians, both contrary to that law, serves the wolf perfectly. You can justify anything through principle and rationalization. Rationalizations, inferences, and assumptions can be, and usually are, common methods of deception.

I had hoped to cover the proper methods of biblical scholarship in a separate chapter, but it is most difficult to cover the methods of deception without touching on the proper methods for determining truth. Sometimes, in order to expose a deception, you need to demonstrate what the truth of the matter is. Can we then discern whether tithing is valid for Christians? The best way to start is to look for evidence in the new covenant writings that apply to Christians. Often, you see deceivers look for evidence in the “new testament” but what they end up doing is citing “evidence” from the gospels where and when the old covenant was still in force with those people. The new testament/covenant (this is the same Greek word) began upon the death of Christ, and not before. The old covenant came to an end upon that same death. Covenants and testaments have also undergone redefinition within the false belief systems.

Do we find a “thus saith the Lord” for Christians to practice tithing? No. Do we find any of the new testament writers claiming Christians are to tithe? No. Do we find an example of Christians tithing in the new covenant? No. Do we find any evidence to the contrary (which is a proper method of scholarship)? Yes we do. Paul makes mention that those who preach the gospel are entitled to support as a result of preaching the gospel. He does not however use tithing as a justification, but rather cites the example of not muzzling the ox that treads out the grain. Critical thinking would have us see that, if tithing were required of Christians, Paul would have said so, and used tithing as an example. If tithing were indeed required, then another puzzling thing happens in Paul’s writing about giving and supporting ministers of the gospel; he refused support from some churches. If tithing were indeed required, how then could Paul refuse tithes?

This whole topic regarding the use of deceptions cannot be over emphasized. Historically, church leaders used their positions as a means of dictating beliefs and enforcing them upon their members. Those who did not conform to the beliefs and dictates of their religious leaders could find themselves condemned to death.

We now have an opportunity rarely open down through history; the ability to study the Scriptures and decide for ourselves what they mean and what they teach without the undue influence of religious leaders who all to often are motivated by other forces besides the gospel.


Rationalization, Inference, Assumption, Drawn out conclusions

It can take awhile to catch on when these are being used. It is an appeal to intellect when there is no Scriptural support for an idea or belief. If a belief is important, there will be proper Scriptural evidence to support it.


Claims that cannot be verified

These are usually in association with the deceiver, and not necessarily a false belief. The deceiver attempts to set himself up as a prophet of sorts, and so makes claims of personal revelation from God, or perhaps a spirit being. There is no way to validate their claims.


Transference or substitution theology

This is taking that which was commanded or required of one group or individual and applying it to another group or individual. God commanded the Israelites to keep a covenant law. The only provision in that covenant law for one not of Israel to come under that law was to undergo circumcision. Were Gentiles required to be circumcised in Acts 15?

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Independence Day

ABD, in honor of the anniversary of the USA's Day of Independence, will be featuring a temporary background change!

We, here at ABD, wish all a very wonderful celebration with friends and family!

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Chapter 5: Methodology of Truth

Christianity 101

Chapter 5: Methodology of Truth

How does a person perceive truth? How does a person recognize deception or falsehood? There have been philosophical debates regarding truth that span quite a contrast, but what I hold to be of importance in regards to Scripture is that we do, indeed, need to attempt to discern the original intent of the author of any particular passage or book/letter. We also need to go one step further, and derive the intent of the One who worked through the authors of Scripture, for Scripture itself claims to be God inspired; God “breathed.”

We can begin to discern God's intent by examining what Scripture reveals as God's will. What does God want of mankind, and from mankind? Does He want a bunch of brain-numbed robots who, when God commands them to jump, reply, “how high”? Does He desire mankind to exist in a condition like serfs in some feudal state with God as king, following and adhering to a long list of laws that regulate even the most minor behaviours, sometimes in what appears to be an arbitrary fashion?

All too often, man makes God over into his own image, and imagines God to be like a human king, demanding allegiance and demanding the people jump through hoops to satisfy His need to see whether we will obey His commands. It is a tenuous relationship, where a person would constantly be concerned over whether his lord and master was pleased or displeased with him and his performance. God ends up more tyrant than loving God in the minds and hearts of many.

Scripture paints a picture of the Israelites being in a relationship with God, where God is not only Lord and King, but also husband. In this scenario, we need to take into consideration what sort of wife Israel was to God.

She was a treacherous, cheating wife, and God knew it before He entered into that relationship, which was, in a sense, an “arranged” marriage due to the promises God made to Abraham and the patriarchs. So God made some “prenups” for Israel in the form of a covenant that was likened to a marriage covenant, but with conditions that were designed to expose the Israelites for what they were, while appearing to give Israel what she wanted. While Israel tried to prove herself worthy of God's “affection” all Israel managed to do was prove herself to be what she was by nature; stiff-necked and rebellious; a treacherous and cheating woman. Israel rarely admitted her true nature. When she found herself in big trouble, she would admit her faults and transgressions; God would forgive and intervene, only to watch Israel repeat this process over again. Israel was, for the most part, in denial regarding her nature and true relationship with God. Psalms 44 is a good example of Israel's denial.

Is it therefore God's will that people be kept in a condition where they will continually prove their sinful nature through acts of transgressing a law whose sole purpose is to expose the sinful nature?

Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee. For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and how much more after my death? – Deuteronomy 31:26-27

Is it God's will to be bound to rebellious people who have no real love for the husband? What then is God's desire, and what is God's will?

God desires a wife who loves Him, unconditionally, even as He loves the wife. God's relationship with Israel was conditional; one of having to command Israel to obey in order to receive blessings from her Husband, and even on this level, Israel proved herself to be untrustworthy. What lesson then is to be learned from Israel and the law she was given? That man, with his “human” (Adamic) nature, is incapable of pleasing God. It is a nature devoid of any real faith in God, unless God imparts faith to men, and this is the example of God's relationship with the patriarchs.

That law proves man to be faithless and sinful. That law imparts a knowledge of good and evil, and exposes the knowledge and understanding that man is evil. That law cannot prove a man to be good or righteous. Those who put their trust in the law, claiming we must keep the law, are like the Pharisees and religious of Jesus' time who saw the law as the standard of righteousness for them, blinding themselves to the fact they did not keep the law perfectly, as required by that law.

And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. – Romans 7:10

God desires we have faith in Him. God wants us to understand we cannot make ourselves acceptable to God based on our own efforts. God desires we love Him, for He loves us. God is willing to give of His nature; impart His nature to us so that we can love Him in return. But there was a danger involved, should one in possession of God's Holy Spirit not have faith in God, or reject the love of God. We have the example of king Saul in this regard.

Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life. – John 6:28-48

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. – John 3:16

Christ is seen as having been slain from the foundation of the world. Everything was planned out from the beginning, as well as this ultimate expression of love on the part of God.

This should not be lost on mankind. God, who is infinitely greater than man, needed to convey to man certain facts; that man in his fallen state cannot please God. A thousand lifetimes of trying to keep that law that was a reflection of God's standard would still result in a man standing condemned before God. That law pointed to the need for an atonement of man's collective and personal sins, which was accomplished through God's ultimate expression of love for His creation, by undergoing the ultimate sacrifice for God; a brutal and painful death as a man, but so much more than just a man.

God doesn't need us. God wants us. God made man in His image; a unique creation to dwell with God and exist as children of God in a loving relationship with God. This relationship was made possible by what God did and does, and not as a result of anything we did based on our own might, such as keeping a law. That law did not prove men good by keeping it; that law proved men sinners and depraved because man transgressed it, and that as a result of man's Adamic rebellious and faithless heart. It is God who gives the believer a heart of flesh to replace the stony heart we are born with. It is God who gives His Holy Spirit to those who place their faith and trust in Christ. The man needed to learn and understand that, based on his own efforts, he can do no real good, given the heart the man is born with.

God reaches down and pulls us up. We do not, and cannot, climb up to God through our own efforts, whether it be keeping that old covenant law, or through means associated with religions based on human effort. “Just jump through the proper theological hoops” and achieve nirvana, salvation, or whatever.

You might ask what this all has to do with understanding and using the proper methods of scholarship when it comes to discovering the truths of Scripture. Even ministers and theologians of Churches that have a false theology know what the proper methods of scholarship are, for the most part, and they will still ignore the proper methods of scholarship at times, and fall for using the methods of deceptions, such as eisegesis, without realizing they are doing so. One can only wonder why, and the answers lie deep within the psyches of the deceived, and how a deceived mind operates “in the dark” as it were.

False doctrines and beliefs have a common denominator, in that they are based on a belief in a false gospel. Invariably, a false gospel is the true gospel falsified through addition. For example, the gospel is a declaration of salvation through faith alone in Christ. He came and paid the ultimate price so that we could be reconciled to God. He offered Himself in sacrifice for our sins, and the sins of the world.

What then is the undeclared statement when one falsifies the gospel, by adding to the gospel something they believe must be done besides faith in Christ in order to be saved? Sabbatarian legalists believe the ten commandments must be kept in order to be saved, citing Matthew 19:17. They publicly declare salvation through faith in Christ, but hold to this belief also, and claim that you can lose your salvation should you quit keeping the ten commandments, especially the sabbath command.

The undeclared statement is this:

Christ's sacrifice was not enough

Faith in Christ is not enough

What is God's response to those who do not believe the gospel, but are so brazen as to falsify it with their additions to the gospel? Well, let's see, God gives the ultimate sacrifice He can give by shedding His glory, taking on the life of a servant, and dies a most horrible, painful, drawn out death that man has ever devised, thus not only paying the penalty of death for sin, but also demonstrates his boundless love for His creation, and some people don't believe it was enough, and feel they have the right to add to that gospel conditions for salvation God never intended. It is a reflection of pride and arrogance on a whole new level. It is the ultimate insult to God. It is so close to the ultimate sin as to be terrifying, once you realize you were guilty of this special sin.

Recall, if you will, what John the Baptist had to say to those religious leaders who came out to his baptism:

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: – Matthew 3:7-8

They were not interested in repentance. After all, they had the law, and their righteousness was tied to that law. As long as they thought they were compliant with the law, they thought they were right with God, and as a result, no need to truly repent. And by repent, I mean the act of turning to God. They thought they were already in tight with God, having been deceived by that law into thinking they were already righteous.

From my own personal experience of having believed a false gospel for over 25 years, I had to bring forth the evidence to God that I was truly trying to turn to Him and seeking him over the course of over three years of intense personal study. It took that whole three years and then some to finally get to where I was ready to understand the gospel, and I was shocked at the simplicity of the gospel, and how easily I had bought into a false gospel that clouded and darkened my understanding all those years. It is only through the boundless mercy of God I was “granted” repentance.

With all this prefaced then, we are ready to cover the proper methods of scholarship, necessary for searching out the truths of Scripture.

Some of what I cover is commonly taught in churches and religious schools, and some of it is based upon my own personal discoveries that I believe to be Scripturally sound, which I will identify as my own so that the reader can evaluate my claims in this regard.

1. Scripture is stated to be God-breathed and God inspired. As such, I conclude that no man or organization of men has the right to alter Scripture or its application in any way.

God was never careless in what He inspired to be written, therefore it is arrogant of us to alter Scripture through any rationalization, including the claim that a belief is based on the principle of Scripture when there is no actual Scripture to support a view or belief. I conclude that the Bible leaves nothing to chance; leaves nothing hanging where we have to conclude things that are not clearly stated in Scripture. Once you justify the alteration of Scripture and its application, you can justify just about anything you want.

Things in Scripture are not always what they seem to be also. God spoke to Adam and stated that he was not to partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; that on the day he did, he would surely die.

The serpent came along and said he and Eve would not die should they eat of that fruit, and gave a justification; a rationalization for going ahead and partaking of it. God said one thing, and the serpent said something else, but with a subtle twist in that what God meant by “die” and what the serpent meant by “die” were two different things. What then did Adam and Eve believe was meant by dying on that day they partook of that tree?

What it means though is that we should be relying on God and His Word to define things for us, and not rely on human understanding, assuming we know what things mean that have to do with Scripture.

An example of men altering the Scriptures that is commonly practiced is the Scriptural teaching and law concerning tithing. Without going into a lot of detail, the tithe was a tenth of the increase of produce and/or livestock. No one was ever commanded to tithe of their wages. Yet look at how many people just assume this is Scriptural; that this is a biblical definition of tithe. Again, can we afford to assume? The serpent (the devil) deceived Adam and Eve (or at least, Eve) and the devil is described as one who deceives the whole world. His deception was extremely subtle, revolving around the word “die.” His was a half-truth. Satan knew what God meant, even if Adam and Eve didn't. Adam and Eve didn't bother to ask God for further information as to what exactly He meant. But we have the ability to go to the Scriptures; the inspired “God-breathed” Word of God for our understanding. Or, we can rely on the definitions, or redefinitions given to us by those who claim to represent God.

Old covenant points of law were not to be introduced into Christianity or taught to (Gentile) Christians as per the instructions found in Acts chapter 15. They were inspired to write that to teach old covenant points of law resulted in a subversion of a Christian's soul.

The most common rationale for this change of Scripture and its application is to claim we no longer live in an agrarian society, and that this “principle” of tithing then changes with the times.

However, the economy of ancient Israel had plenty of Israelites who did not make their living through agricultural pursuits or animal husbandry. There were craftsmen and others who earned their living through wages. It should also be noted that when Paul wrote about the rights of those who preach the gospel being entitled to support from the churches, he did not use tithing as a justification, but rather the analogy of not muzzling the ox that treads out the grain.

Paul resorts to a rationalization in this regard. Rationalizations are very weak arguments, and often are flawed, resulting in false beliefs, but this is Paul, and Paul also stated that they had this as a command from the Lord in regards to their support being from the gospel. What needs to be emphasized is that Paul knew better than to use the old covenant tithing law as a justification, where people would then end up believing it to be mandatory, thus undermining the very nature and message of the gospel, which leads to my second point that cannot be violated:

2. The message of the gospel cannot be compromised or altered by any other belief, no matter how convincing. The message of the gospel trumps all other beliefs; salvation through faith only.

This is another of my own rules. Sabbatarians believe that it is the law of the old covenant, or specifically the ten commandments that trumps all, including the gospel. This claim of mine then is also a refutation of their claim that is derived from their teachings, which is rarely so explicitly declared by them.

What was commonly believed by many in the early church is believed today; that Christians are supposed to keep the old covenant law. To these people, the law is what trumps all else, and all things are judged from the perspective of that law, with an emphasis on the ten commandments, which is seen by many to be the immutable law of God.

That law, or more accurately, the perception of that law, and the gospel are in conflict. The gospel declares salvation through faith only, and as such, salvation is a gift. Those who hold to the law or even just the ten commandments declare that to fail to keep or comply with the ten commandments is to sin, and, as it is written, no sinner shall inherit eternal life, loosely citing I Corinthians 6:9-10 as evidence.

Those who see the law as the trump card sacrifice the gospel as a result. I have heard many a Sabbatarian legalist state that it is unthinkable for the law to be of no further consequence and that the removal of the law would, in their minds, justify people's wholesale abandonment, committing all sorts of atrocities without fear of any Godly consequences. Seeing then that in their minds, “that law” cannot terminate, all evidence to the contrary is summarily dismissed without examination of any sort. “My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts.”

Where this has the potential to be entertaining is to ask such a person what they would do then if indeed that law were no longer relevant; if they would go about doing the very things they claim others would do. Their claim is actually a veiled accusation. I would remind the reader that those religious people and leaders that rejected Jesus and His message did so in favor of that law also; that law they extolled yet did not keep.

Paul calls that law the ministration of death and condemnation in II Corinthians chapter three. What the legalist continually overlooks and ignores is that there is no righteousness to be found in the law. It only condemns. It only exposes the sinful nature. It provides definitions from God as to what is good and evil, and when held up before us like a mirror, it shows us to be what we are; evil.

For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. – Romans 7:18

The claim that, should the law be done away with, people would sin with abandon, is almost ludicrous. The people who had that law managed to sin just fine with the law.

There are also general rules that are useful in one's search for truth:

a. Who is speaking, and who is being spoken to?

It is a common practice among aberrant groups to take that which was required of one person or group and assign it to another person or group. The most common abuse is assigning the law, or the ten commandments, to Christians. An examination of these passages misappropriated by legalistic groups shows that it was God speaking to, and addressing Israelites, and even then, through the medium of a covenant law to which Christians are not a legal party.

God commanded the Israelites that He led out of Egypt to keep and observe a law, the basis of which is the ten commandments, or more accurately, the “ten words.” This law was codified into a covenant; a legally binding agreement between those two parties, God and Israel. As such, no others can be required to keep the conditions of this covenant unless they complied with the only provision in that covenant that allowed those not of Israel to enter into that covenant relationship with God by undergoing circumcision. Then, and only then, was a person as one born of Israel and subject to that covenant law.

All manner of explanations and rationalizations have been put forth by those who insist on Christians keeping the conditions of this covenant law who are not party to it. Their claims, when examined properly according to the rules of evidence, fail. Yet look at the numbers of people and churches that claim Christians are required to keep the ten commandments, while telling their followers that anyone who would dare say they do not have to keep them are those who are twisting the Scriptures. I am sure that many who are reading this at this point may well be making the same accusation against the author. But let us allow the evidence to speak for itself.

Using this debate over the ten commandments, we can examine the proper methods of evidence as well as see the methods of deception employed and recognize them as such.

If someone claims we are required to keep the ten commandments, then they should be able to produce evidence to support the claim, and in so doing, not resort to the methods of deception such as inference, assumption, rationalization, substitution theology, or claims that cannot be falsified, to name a few.

Claim: Christians are required to keep the ten commandments.

Evidence to the contrary: The ten commandments are a covenant between the two parties, God and Israelites. Those not a party to a covenant cannot be held to the conditions of said covenant.

This evidence to the contrary is in itself a claim that either has Scriptural support, or has no support, or evidence to the contrary to this claim. It is the duty of the one making the original claim to refute any supposed evidence to the contrary.

In the case of this counter-claim, it should be obvious enough from a legal standpoint alone that a person cannot be held to the conditions of a covenant they are not party to. In any event, we have the following to take into consideration:

Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. — Galatians 3:15-18

Here we have Paul explaining a characteristic of covenants. Once they are put in force, no one can legally reject it or alter it. Would this not include an attempt to add participants to it? Of course.

This claim then regarding covenants is pretty air tight. Those who reject Paul’s witness to this and many other things will, as a result, resort to the methods of deception and disinformation in an attempt to discredit Paul. Some go so far as to reject Paul as a true minister of Christ, thereby justifying their rejection of what Paul wrote and taught all together.

The unspoken claim of those who believe we have to keep the ten commandments in this regard is that, if enough “evidence” can be produced indicating we should be keeping the ten commandments, this evidence can therefore outweigh evidence to the contrary! Given the established facts revolving around covenants, we could safely conclude that, in order for Christians to be required to keep the ten commandments, there would either have to be another covenant made to which Christians are a party to it requiring their observance, or some other declaration by either Christ or the apostles stating Christians should be keeping the ten commandments. I will state right here that no such evidence exists. If someone alleges to have evidence to this effect, then that evidence should also be subjected to the rules of evidence.

What then are some of the common claims used by those who claim we should be keeping the ten commandments? One is that the ten commandments are the “law of God” and as such, we should be keeping them as a result.

If you examine the premise, you will see that a claim is made that results from drawing a conclusion. Using this “rationalization” we are led to discard the evidence we have established as fact regarding covenants.

We also need to understand this indeed is a rationalization being employed, and rationalizations are one of the many methods of deception. Not all rationalizations are deceptions, but due to their nature, they cannot be given the same weight of evidence as evidence that does not depend upon rationalizations, assumptions, and inferences.

When we subject the claim then to the rules of evidence, what do we learn?

Is the claim falsifiable? The wording makes it nearly so. That law was a law “from” God, and that law was written in the “book of the law of God.” So in that regard, it is “God's law” but not exclusively. Those who hold to this law deny any other law of God. But that book was also called the “book of the law of Moses.” Also, the witness of Christ has Him referring to the law as the law of Moses, and credits Moses as having given the law to Israel. Legalists get around this obstacle of that law being also the Law of Moses by insisting there are really two laws as a result; one being “God's law” engraven in stone, and the rest, or the “other” law being the law of Moses. What we end up with are new claims that need to be examined properly also.

This construct creates its own set of issues: If the ten commandments are “God's law” and the rest is the Law of Moses, then why is that book of the law referred to as both the book of the law of God as well as the book of the law of Moses? Also, the law of Moses sans the ten commandments infers that Moses came up with that law without God's input or influence. Scripture refutes this.

However, the real issue is not whose law it is, but rather to whom the law was given, and who then was required to observe and keep that law.

We can further demonstrate the problem with these claims through an analogy.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was God’s tree. Can we conclude, using the same logic the previous claims make, that we should therefore be partaking of that tree? What was the fruit or end result of partaking of its fruit? Death. What was the fruit or end result of living by that law of God? According to the apostle Paul, that covenant law also resulted in death.

And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. — Romans 7:10

He called it the ministration of death and condemnation in II Corinthians chapter 3, and the law of sin and death in Romans chapter 7.

Can the reader see now that the premise that the ten commandments are the “law of God” does not necessarily mean we should conclude we are to be keeping it? Yet many will choose this rationalization that relies on an assumed conclusion over the hard facts surrounding covenants.

Assumptions lead to deceptions. One must always be aware of whether they are relying on an assumption, and be aware that assumptions can sound very convincing. You wouldn’t want to be convicted of a crime based upon assumptions, therefore why would you risk eternity on them? If there are facts in regards to a questioned belief, stick with the facts.

There is one other factor that needs to be taken into consideration here, and that is evidence to the contrary regarding the ten commandments being “the” law of God. That law was mediated by Moses. A mediator is one who works in between two parties in order to produce an equitable agreement between the two parties. Hence, that law became known and called, the law of Moses. It is a law that originated with God and came from God, but it was tailored for the Israelites; a stiff-necked and rebellious people, devoid, for the most part, of faith. Could it be that law served a purpose in relation to Israel that would not be served with Christians? I will leave it here as a question instead of a claim, for I do not wish to stray too far from the topic at hand.

Another claim in regards to the ten commandments is that the ten demonstrate love; love for God and love for fellow man, therefore the conclusion, once more, that we should be keeping those commandments.

The premise here is a claim that is either true or false. Do we have any evidence from Scripture that the ten commandments demonstrate love? The Two Great Commandments are often cited as supporting evidence:

Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. — Matthew 22:36-40

Everything in the law and prophets hang on these two pivotal commandments. The claim that the ten commandments show how to love God and fellow man is actually an attempt to make everything hang on the ten commandments!

We can however apply some critical thinking to this premise/claim. The commandment to “honor” one’s parents for example: Why doesn’t the command just come out and say, “love” your parents? Why doesn’t the command that addresses killing/murder state, “love” your enemies?

We need to take into consideration the nature of the old covenant law, and to whom it applied; stiff-necked and rebellious Israelites that Jesus referred to in this context:

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. — Matthew 15:8

The call of the prophets follows a major theme. The prophets addressed the Israelites over time, and called to Israel to turn back to God whenever they strayed. If they indeed had a love for God and fellow man, the law and prophets would be fulfilled. But their hearts were far from God, and far from loving their fellow man, right down to their parents. The true nature of the ten commandments revolve around the rights of God and neighbor (fellow man) in relation to the individual who was devoid of love for God and fellow man. If an Israelite despised his parents, there was this command to give them their due “honor” and respect, regardless, for it was owed them, at the least. Likewise, the first four commandments relate what the individual owed God; including the individual's time one day a week.

Paul further defines the purpose of the law in relation to Israel:

Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; . . . — 1 Timothy 1:9-10

The law, according to Paul, is not there for the sake of demonstrating love for God and fellow man; the law was there because the people were devoid of love.

Then there is circumstantial evidence. Ask yourself, If you have love for God, do you need to be told not to have other gods besides God? No. If you love your fellow man, do you need to be told not to murder him? No, for people do not murder those they love. If anything, this circumstantial evidence tends to support the exact opposite of the premise/claim! Seeing as the Israelites were stiff-necked and hard-hearted, they were put under that law for that reason.

Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee. For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and how much more after my death? Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them. For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands. — Deuteronomy 31:26-29

That law witnessed to the fact they were faithless and loveless. The law didn’t teach them love; the law exposed their lack of love and how they were devoid of faith.

b. Situation in life; Time and Place

Words change in meaning over time. What is important in word studies is to determine how any particular word was used at the time and place the text was written that contains the words or terms we seek to understand in order to better understand what message the writer was trying to convey.

This then is the practice of taking words and phrases, and examining them in the light of the times and places in which they were written. Over the course of time, words change in their meaning, sometimes coming to mean the exact opposite of what their original definitions were. As mentioned earlier, the temptation sometimes to ignore this form of context is too great. An example of abuse in this regard is the translation found in the King James Version found at I John 3:4:

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

??? ? ????? ??? ???????? ??? ??? ??????? ?????, ??? ?
Every the one-doing the missing (sin) and(also) the against law is-doing and the

??????? ????? ? ??????.
sin is the against-law/lawlessness

[Sorry, the Greek text did not copy through]

The word of interest here is “anomia” transliterated “a” - against “nomia” - law. How was the word used at that time and place by those who spoke and wrote in Greek? The word was used to convey the meaning and understanding of iniquity.

The translators of the King James Version were members of the Church of England who were following the earlier Geneva Bible translation. The scholarship of the time did not always take into account the linguistics of the time of the writing of the New Testament, hence they opted for a more literal translation that, in turn, strayed into interpretation. No other English translation (of note) renders this passage as sin being the transgression of the (old covenant) law.

Was all transgression of the old covenant law sin? No, for Jesus declared that David ate the show-bread that was not lawful for him to eat, yet he was blameless; without sin in this regard. Jesus worked on sabbaths by healing people, and even admitted it was work, making a distinction between breaking the law in the letter while fulfilling the law in the spirit; a spirit of love and compassion. Those who are legalistic in their theological outlook reject Jesus actually working on sabbaths, despite Jesus' own claim that He and the Father worked on sabbaths, by making the assumptive claim that, had Jesus broken the letter of the law, it would indeed be sin, which would disqualify Jesus as Savior. They even cite the passage of Scripture above as a proof text!

What is really happening is the negation of the spirit of the law in favor of the letter of the law. The avoidance of sin and condemnation through the old covenant law takes on greater importance than the spirit of the law the apostle Paul points out as being the law that leads to life as contrasted to the old covenant law that was described as being the ministration of death and condemnation, which results with those who live(d) by that law!

Did David break the law, or not? Yes, he most certainly did. Was he convicted of sin as a result? No, he was not. Is sin therefore always the transgression of that law? No, it is not. Is sin always iniquity? Yes, it is.

Was there sin in the world before there was the old covenant law? Yes there was. In fact, Paul states that the law was added because of sin in order to make sin utterly sinful. So to translate I John 3:4 to say sin is the transgression of the law is to not only misapply the meaning of the word “anomia” it also ignores that which is established in the rest of Scripture regarding sin.

c. Proper Exegesis.

This is the practice of taking a statement of Scripture that has the potential to be misunderstood, and examine the immediate context as well as the general context. If the conclusion drawn is unrelated to the immediate context, there is probably something amiss with the understanding/interpretation of the passage in question.

One of the Sabbatarian Legalist's favorite passages is Matthew 5:17-19 where it is concluded that the legalities of the law remain inviolate even down to the strokes of the letters of the law. Even a cursory examination of the passage shows this interpretation to be flawed. The context of what Jesus was referring to was the law and prophets. In this context it should be understood that this refers to the first 5 books, commonly called “the law” and the writings of the prophets being “the prophets” as well as the context of Scripture overall. Sometimes the term, “the law” could indeed refer to the entirety of the old testament writings.

What then is found in both the law and prophets that has the potential to be fulfilled or destroyed? Prophesies. Did Jesus state He had come to fulfill the prophesies that were written about Him in the law and prophets, i.e. the old testament writings? Yes, He most emphatically did.

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. – Luke 24:44

What then is the excuse of the legalist for rejecting this explanation in light of Matthew 5:17? They point out that Jesus did not fulfill everything while He walked the earth in human form. Well then, what do they think the very next verse addresses? Things that were not fulfilled prophetically that are escatalogical in nature will be at that time, before heaven and earth pass away.

Let's humor the legalist a bit here, seeing as they insist this is about the legalities of the law. When then is the conclusion in regards to verse 18? When heaven and earth passes, so to passes this law after it is “filled to the full.” So the law passes away; the same law they claim is eternal. Also, if this is all about the legalities of the law being inviolate down to jots and tittles, what about the context of the same chapter where Jesus proceeds to alter points of that law way beyond jots and tittles, and even negating points of law?

Ironically, the Sabbatarian legalist understands the concept of exegesis, but the temptation to ignore the context is oft times too great when it comes to cherished beliefs.

Is the evidence of Scripture being used exegetically, taking into consideration the surrounding context, or is the evidence eisegetical in nature, lifting the passage out of context; thereby ignoring the context?

Legalistic churches will cite Romans 3:31 as evidence we are to keep that old covenant law:

Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. — Romans 3:31

Taken out of context and taken at face value, it certainly appears that Christians are supposed to be keeping that law. What then of the context?

Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. 29Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: 30Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. 31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. – Romans 3:19-31

1) The law served the purpose of making men guilty before God, and not righteous (v.20).

2) No one is, or shall be justified before God through the law, or specifically the deeds of the law; those points of law that required performance by one under the law. Why? Because the function of the law was to make known sin; provide a knowledge of sin, and bring the one under the law under sin.

3) Justification and righteousness is now revealed; a righteousness of God that is through faith in Jesus Christ, and not through the law, that is also witnessed or attested to in the law and prophets.

4) Why righteousness through faith in Christ? Because all have sinned and come short of God's “Glory” (perfect standard); those under the law (those of the circumcision) and those not under the law (the uncircumcision).

5) We are justified; made righteous freely (nothing we did to deserve or earn it). How? Through the redemption found in Jesus Christ. How were we redeemed by or through Christ?

6) Verse 25: Through the propitiation of faith in His blood. It was by and through His sacrifice and spilled blood we are washed of our sins. Without Christ's payment of that which the law required, all would otherwise remain in sin, under condemnation, and separated from God.

7) By this God's justice is satisfied, and that God now can justify us through faith in Christ, all according to the law.

8) All boasting then in the law by those of the circumcision is negated and canceled by this “law of faith” whereby we have our righteousness and salvation, seeing as the law; the works of the law, could only result in sin, condemnation, and death otherwise. So salvation comes to those under the law as well as those not under the law, for God is the God of both Jew and Gentile, and both are justified and made righteous outside the works of the law. This justification comes about through faith for both Jew and Gentile. Both were under sin, whether they were under the law or not, but it was the law that prescribed what was necessary for the remission of sin; that perfect sacrifice of Christ's spoken of before as found in the law and prophets.

9) Is then the law voided through faith? No, for it was the law that required a sacrifice for sin, and the law was satisfied through the sacrifice of Christ. In this way, the law is forever established as that standard by which God's justice was satisfied, and men are now able to be forgiven through Christ's substitutionary sacrifice, according to that law.

Those who want to make the case the law is established as a requirement to be observed and kept ignore the context. The law was not established as a standard for mankind to keep, seeing as its purpose was not for man's justification or righteousness. Its purpose was to bring all under sin so that God could have mercy on that same all, including those not under that law, yet who were nonetheless still under sin, but whose sins needed to be blotted out also, and this was all done in accordance with that law for both Jew and Gentile. To conclude we must all therefore abide by that law; that it is established forevermore, is to establish condemnation and sin for us and on us forevermore.

Those who live by that law today (or more accurately, those who think they live by that law, when in fact they do not) boast in that law. They define Christianity as related to keeping that law, and conclude all others as false Christians who do not live by that law. A person's faith is accounted for little, if anything, whereas this passage of Scripture, and many more, attest to the over-arching importance of faith apart from, and without that law.

d. Proper Critical Thinking Skills

This is the discipline of properly evaluating a belief that is derived at, hopefully through the proper use of the tools of interpretation, with logic and a sense of Scripture overall. It is borrowed in part from the sciences as a means of examining conclusions derived from observation and experimentation. In cultic groups, people are conditioned to not think critically about their beliefs and their leadership. For the sake of simplifying the process, beliefs are referred to as claims, and Scriptures that support or refute the claims are evidence.

1) A claim cannot be so vague, or worded in such a manner so that any possible evidence to the contrary is rendered impossible. (aka falsifiability)

There are claims made by religious leaders that are designed to circumvent critical thinking. One of the most common found in cults is a leader who claims personal revelation from God, where the conclusion of the matter is that, to question the leader is to question God. It is impossible to produce evidence to the contrary, unless God is in a habit of talking directly to you!

We need to ask ourselves a few critical thinking questions as a result of such a claim:

Is this the way God works? Would He set us up in a condition where we have to resort to a “blind faith” and where we have no real way to “prove all things”? It is illogical to conclude God would use such a method which would circumvent our ability to seek out the truth. When God called men like Moses and the prophets, they were also given the means of showing evidence that supported the belief they were called of God. An exception might be John the Baptist, whose calling was to prepare the way for Another, and be witness to Christ, and not his own calling as a prophet.

Another example I would like to cite in regards to a claim that resists evaluation through critical thinking is a religious leader who claims to be infallible. How do you produce evidence that might refute the claim? You might show him (or her) to be wrong about a certain belief or teaching, but his followers would only conclude you wrong and he to be right, regardless. This claim often goes hand in hand with the first example regarding personal revelation from God. If what he says he claims came from God, then what God would say would indeed be infallible. The false prophet might even claim to be fallible, but what are you going to do about what he claims he heard from God? So in this context, a claim of being merely a fallible man, used by God, will still end up being a case of what he says as infallible. This too is common among cultic groups; a form of double talk that makes it difficult to pin him down should something he said turns up irrefutably false.

2) Is the claim logical

This does not preclude the possibility a claim can sound logical, yet be wrong. But a claim that is illogical can hardly be considered believable.

What is useful to understand in this context are claims that fall into the category of “logical fallacies” and there are a number of resources on the internet to learn of them and how they work. Normally, a claim can consist of a premise followed by a conclusion. An illogical claim would be one where the premise is flawed or even has no real bearing on the conclusion. The claim can sound reasonable, but still be flawed in logic. An example is the oft stated claim made by legalists that, because the ten commandments are written in stone (the premise) this demonstrates their permanence and the fact that we should be keeping them.

A simple critical thinking question would be, where in Scripture are we informed of this; that God wrote the ten “commandments” in stone so as to emphasize their permanence? Could we not also conclude that the law that was written with ink upon parchment would indicate their transitory nature? What do we have today? Where are the tablets of stone? If the the law engraven in stone was for the sake of showing their permanence, would we not have those stones with us today? What do we have today? That which was written in ink upon parchment, including the ten commandments. The stones are gone. The “logic” here is flawed on several levels. We also have the evidence of Scripture, where we find:

3) Evidence to the Contrary

Are there Scriptures that appear to refute the claim? If so, did the one making the claim in question address the apparent Scriptures that appear to refute the claim in order to demonstrate how those Scriptures do not refute or contradict the claim? Do the refutations themselves use the proper methods of evidence, or did he resort to the methods of deception in order to discredit the opposing Scriptures?

In the above example regarding that which was engraven in stone, the evidence of Scripture found in II Corinthians chapter 3 refutes the conclusion/belief.

4) Does there exist comprehensive, credible evidence?

One of the ploys, or methods of pushing through a false belief is to produce a flood of assumptions, rationalizations, and drawn out conclusions in order to appear as comprehensive evidence. If a belief is supported by such means; inference, assumption, rationalization, or drawn conclusions, these methods or arguments are weak at best, and methods of deception at worse. If a belief is held to be of great importance, then there should be ample, comprehensive evidence to support it that does not rely on inferences, assumptions, rationalizations, or drawn conclusions. As I like to point out, assumptions lead to deceptions.

A good example of this among Sabbatarian groups are the “proofs” they offer up to support their claim Christians are supposed to keep the sabbath. These lists often exceed 30 claims that, upon careful examination, are indeed rife with inference, assumption, rationalizations, and drawn out conclusions. What is lacking is a “thus saith the Lord” on the part of Scripture. The sabbath was such an important tenet of old covenant/testament theology that it would be impossible to miss it. Yet such evidence is painfully missing for the Sabbatarian who claims we should be keeping the sabbath in the new covenant/testament, given the importance they place upon the sabbath.

There is one more criteria useful for determining truth; A very good familiarity and understanding of the Scriptures.

All too often, it is people who have a basic belief in God who do not have a good grasp of the Scriptures that end up recruited into cults, where from then onward, their understanding and beliefs are perceived through the colored glasses of the cult. Those raised in a cult suffer the same fate. They do not know the Scriptures well, and they are unfamiliar with the proper methods of determining truths from errors. Once completely indoctrinated, it is unlikely they will find their way out of the cult in their lifetime.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************