there are some very good reminders here regarding just Biblical cause to separate from a congregation or church organization. thank you for sharing this! 8-)
yet, the church of believers just over ~2000 years has regularly divided over doctrines to the point where there are supposedly nearly 50,000 different denominations. i can’t even imagine that, but it’s the data we currently have.
so the reality is that the body of Christ has become divided over various doctrines, not merely specific acts of certain sins which are clearly identified within the Bible. and of course, thee days various congregations have embraced various sexual sins, inadvertently teaching their brethren that welcoming sin into God’s presence is a form of showing love.
to many, gender confusion is also a “disputable matter”. in my experience, many doctrines have been made into “disputable matters” which aren’t Biblically exemplified at all as being “disputable” to God at all.
for example, when someone claims “observing Jewish feasts are disputable”, a couple things come to mind — primarily, that the Sabbaths and appointed times given to Israel are NOT of the “Jews”. in fact, Judaism wasn’t even in existence when God gave His holy laws. in fact, neither was the tribe of Judah. so there should be no confusion over the fact that they are God’s feasts, not of any human origin.
while humankind may dispute over these clear instructions given by God, they are certainly not disputable to God. the scriptures are clear about them being God’s (Leviticus 23:2). the same thing goes for the dietary laws.
one of the largest mistakes churches have made is ignoring the fact that all laws given to ancient Israel are of God, not of man, and that God’s laws are for both Israel and Gentiles (Exodus 12:49).
it can be relatively easy to maintain church participation for those who observe the dietary laws in a congregation that doesn’t. however, it’s kind of impossible to maintain church participation for those who observe God’s Sabbaths and appointed times with a church congregation who doesn’t observe them… is it not? after all, they are holy convocations which occur on entirely different days.
i suppose one could elect to observe both God’s appointed times and man’s appointed times as well in resistance of separating from said congregation, but that would seem to be overly taxing on most individuals.
another point of consideration regarding any of God’s laws being “disputable”, is to consider what sin actually is: the transgression of God’s laws (1John 3:4). therefore, as we break a law of God, we sin. repentance of sin is required in order to cease the transgression of God’s laws.
i’ve always found it contradictory how a mainstream Christian church can elevate the RCC doctrine of trinity to the point of being salvation dependent while there is not one Biblical verse which explicitly exemplifies God as such nor any specific believe about the Godhead, yet simultaneously rejects God’s Sabbaths and appointed times which are explicitly given as God’s law. that makes no sense to me whatsoever, but hey… i suppose the modern church can believe and do whatever it desires.
and then the common mistake among many Sabbatarian Christians is to criticize and/or condemn their mainstream brothers & sisters in Christ, which also runs in opposition of God’s will.
sadly, there exists ongoing division within both mainstream and Sabbatarian congregations.
i remain convinced that this side of Jesus’ return when the resurrection (& “rapture”) occurs, while i long for more unity and an end to all the division, it’s simply not going to happen.
however, we can certainly strive to better show love and kindness, along with the rest of the fruit of the Spirit, to not only our fellow brothers & sisters of different church congregations or denominations, but also to the unbeliever.
I hope to simply share my thoughts with you in a way that might open a deeper discussion into what the Scriptures do, and do not, say. I'm seldom interested in debating interpretations of the text, preferring to simply read the text and see what's there. When needed, I will (of course) dig into the Hebrew and Greek to make sure I understand the full meaning. One of the main reasons there are so many divisions among those who claim to follow Jesus is that we tend to argue about and divide over things that are actually pretty clear in God's Word. Along those lines, I hope you won't mind if I respectfully push back a bit on some of the things you've mentioned.
FEASTS
In your (correct) words, the feasts - God's feasts - were given to Israel. There were no Jews yet... there were only Israelites. Yes, those who claim that the feasts and sabbaths are "Jewish" are speaking a bit anachronistically. However: the context in which they were given really, really matters. God has not said that the Chaldeans should be condemned for not observing Passover. Why? Because - and this is very simple, coming directly from the text - the feasts and sabbaths and other appointed times were given as the terms of God's covenant with the ancient Israelites. The only non-Israelites included were any non-Israelites who chose to live with the Israelites in the Promised Land. As we see in Exodus 12, "The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who resides among you." There were natives, and there were strangers residing with the natives... nobody else was involved in that covenant. Not the Chaldeans, not the Chinese, and not the Canadians. This isn't a mystery derived from an esoteric reading of God's Word... it's right there in the text. For example, we can simply read Exodus 20 and see who He was talking to: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery." This exclusive relationship is echoed again and again throughout Scripture. Check out Exodus 31, where God specifically states that the sabbath is a sign between Himself and the Israelites, as a lasting covenant. I've never been a slave in Egypt, and I've never decided to live with Israelites in the Promised Land. That means that I was never included in God's covenant with them.
DIETARY LAWS
The dietary laws you mention were also part of God's covenant with the Israelites. There are two VERY important words echoed again and again in His instructions to the Israelites: FOR YOU. In Exodus 12 we see that observing the Passover was to be done by the Israelites and their descendants. I'm not an Israelite. I was never included in this instruction. In exactly the same way, we see "for you" again and again with regard to dietary laws. "The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "Say to the Israelites: 'Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat...'" ... and then He said "for you" eleven times with regard to those instructions. It wasn't always that way. In Genesis 1, God gave Adam and Eve every seed-bearing plant on earth for food. In Genesis 9, God told Noah, "Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything." If any of the animals that lived and moved about were ACTUALLY unclean to eat, God would not have given them to Noah for food. He would have warned Noah, wouldn't He? The dietary restrictions given to the ancient Israelites were for them, not for everyone for all time.
TORAH
One of the simplest mistakes some people make is to assume that every mention of "law" or "instruction" in the Bible is a universal law, applicable to everyone. The word TORAH simply means a law, or some instruction, or some direction, or even a custom or manner... given by God, given by priests, or even instructions from a parent to a child. The fact that God gave different instructions to different people at different times is very plain to see, especially with regard to the Sinai covenant. Sin, as you mention, is the transgression of God's instructions. However: God's instructions are not always universal. For example: in Jeremiah 25 we read this: "This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Drink, get drunk and vomit, and fall to rise no more because of the sword I will send among you." Clearly, this is TORAH... but it isn't a universal law or instruction. I'm not being sinful when I don't observe Booths. I was never instructed to observe Booths, was I? Also: some things that might be fine for me might be sin for you. For example: if God tells you to quit your job and move to London, you should do it. Not quitting and moving to London would be sin... but only for you, as God's instructions were ONLY for you. I don't have to quit my job and move to London. Gentiles don't have to observe the Law of Moses, as we read very, very clearly in Acts 15.
TRINITY
The doctrine of the trinity is not a Roman Catholic doctrine. Suggesting that it is tells me that you've listened to the wrong people, and haven't checked that part out for yourself. I hope you don't take this as an insult, as it's not. It's a statement of fact. The idea that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all one God comes from Scripture, and was formulated centuries before there was a Roman Catholic church.
As we see in Scripture, there ARE important matters over which we should divide. You've already pointed out one of the most difficult parts: when one group considers an issue of primary importance, but another group considers the same issue of secondary importance, or even as a disputable matter. For example: some believe that those who are not yet baptized are not yet born again. For them - understandably - this is a primary issue, as it relates to salvation. Those who disagree (including myself) see baptism as important, but not as a requirement for salvation... a secondary matter (more than a disputable matter). Ideally we should agree on what Scripture says. If we can't agree on this issue, the first group SHOULD divide from the second group. The second group would not typically divide from the first because they consider the disagreement to not prevent one from being saved.
As you've eloquently said, we should be able to treat one another well - perfectly well - in spite of those kind of disagreements... if for no other reason than that God calls us to love everyone. In Romans 14, Paul wrote about both special days and food laws and called them disputable. For at least that reason, I consider them disputable as well. If someone wants to observe sabbaths, I'm not going to condemn them. If someone wants to avoid meat because it might have been sacrificed to an idol, I'm not going to condemn them. I want to live at peace with everyone, inasmuch as it depends on me. I very much appreciate that you seem to be of the same mind. Let me know what you think, my friend!
Thanks for digging deeper into my question. It reinforces some things I already do, but also highlights some things I need to work on.
there are some very good reminders here regarding just Biblical cause to separate from a congregation or church organization. thank you for sharing this! 8-)
yet, the church of believers just over ~2000 years has regularly divided over doctrines to the point where there are supposedly nearly 50,000 different denominations. i can’t even imagine that, but it’s the data we currently have.
so the reality is that the body of Christ has become divided over various doctrines, not merely specific acts of certain sins which are clearly identified within the Bible. and of course, thee days various congregations have embraced various sexual sins, inadvertently teaching their brethren that welcoming sin into God’s presence is a form of showing love.
to many, gender confusion is also a “disputable matter”. in my experience, many doctrines have been made into “disputable matters” which aren’t Biblically exemplified at all as being “disputable” to God at all.
for example, when someone claims “observing Jewish feasts are disputable”, a couple things come to mind — primarily, that the Sabbaths and appointed times given to Israel are NOT of the “Jews”. in fact, Judaism wasn’t even in existence when God gave His holy laws. in fact, neither was the tribe of Judah. so there should be no confusion over the fact that they are God’s feasts, not of any human origin.
while humankind may dispute over these clear instructions given by God, they are certainly not disputable to God. the scriptures are clear about them being God’s (Leviticus 23:2). the same thing goes for the dietary laws.
one of the largest mistakes churches have made is ignoring the fact that all laws given to ancient Israel are of God, not of man, and that God’s laws are for both Israel and Gentiles (Exodus 12:49).
it can be relatively easy to maintain church participation for those who observe the dietary laws in a congregation that doesn’t. however, it’s kind of impossible to maintain church participation for those who observe God’s Sabbaths and appointed times with a church congregation who doesn’t observe them… is it not? after all, they are holy convocations which occur on entirely different days.
i suppose one could elect to observe both God’s appointed times and man’s appointed times as well in resistance of separating from said congregation, but that would seem to be overly taxing on most individuals.
another point of consideration regarding any of God’s laws being “disputable”, is to consider what sin actually is: the transgression of God’s laws (1John 3:4). therefore, as we break a law of God, we sin. repentance of sin is required in order to cease the transgression of God’s laws.
i’ve always found it contradictory how a mainstream Christian church can elevate the RCC doctrine of trinity to the point of being salvation dependent while there is not one Biblical verse which explicitly exemplifies God as such nor any specific believe about the Godhead, yet simultaneously rejects God’s Sabbaths and appointed times which are explicitly given as God’s law. that makes no sense to me whatsoever, but hey… i suppose the modern church can believe and do whatever it desires.
and then the common mistake among many Sabbatarian Christians is to criticize and/or condemn their mainstream brothers & sisters in Christ, which also runs in opposition of God’s will.
sadly, there exists ongoing division within both mainstream and Sabbatarian congregations.
i remain convinced that this side of Jesus’ return when the resurrection (& “rapture”) occurs, while i long for more unity and an end to all the division, it’s simply not going to happen.
however, we can certainly strive to better show love and kindness, along with the rest of the fruit of the Spirit, to not only our fellow brothers & sisters of different church congregations or denominations, but also to the unbeliever.
Godbless… 🙏🏼😎❤️♾️
I hope to simply share my thoughts with you in a way that might open a deeper discussion into what the Scriptures do, and do not, say. I'm seldom interested in debating interpretations of the text, preferring to simply read the text and see what's there. When needed, I will (of course) dig into the Hebrew and Greek to make sure I understand the full meaning. One of the main reasons there are so many divisions among those who claim to follow Jesus is that we tend to argue about and divide over things that are actually pretty clear in God's Word. Along those lines, I hope you won't mind if I respectfully push back a bit on some of the things you've mentioned.
FEASTS
In your (correct) words, the feasts - God's feasts - were given to Israel. There were no Jews yet... there were only Israelites. Yes, those who claim that the feasts and sabbaths are "Jewish" are speaking a bit anachronistically. However: the context in which they were given really, really matters. God has not said that the Chaldeans should be condemned for not observing Passover. Why? Because - and this is very simple, coming directly from the text - the feasts and sabbaths and other appointed times were given as the terms of God's covenant with the ancient Israelites. The only non-Israelites included were any non-Israelites who chose to live with the Israelites in the Promised Land. As we see in Exodus 12, "The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who resides among you." There were natives, and there were strangers residing with the natives... nobody else was involved in that covenant. Not the Chaldeans, not the Chinese, and not the Canadians. This isn't a mystery derived from an esoteric reading of God's Word... it's right there in the text. For example, we can simply read Exodus 20 and see who He was talking to: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery." This exclusive relationship is echoed again and again throughout Scripture. Check out Exodus 31, where God specifically states that the sabbath is a sign between Himself and the Israelites, as a lasting covenant. I've never been a slave in Egypt, and I've never decided to live with Israelites in the Promised Land. That means that I was never included in God's covenant with them.
DIETARY LAWS
The dietary laws you mention were also part of God's covenant with the Israelites. There are two VERY important words echoed again and again in His instructions to the Israelites: FOR YOU. In Exodus 12 we see that observing the Passover was to be done by the Israelites and their descendants. I'm not an Israelite. I was never included in this instruction. In exactly the same way, we see "for you" again and again with regard to dietary laws. "The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "Say to the Israelites: 'Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat...'" ... and then He said "for you" eleven times with regard to those instructions. It wasn't always that way. In Genesis 1, God gave Adam and Eve every seed-bearing plant on earth for food. In Genesis 9, God told Noah, "Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything." If any of the animals that lived and moved about were ACTUALLY unclean to eat, God would not have given them to Noah for food. He would have warned Noah, wouldn't He? The dietary restrictions given to the ancient Israelites were for them, not for everyone for all time.
TORAH
One of the simplest mistakes some people make is to assume that every mention of "law" or "instruction" in the Bible is a universal law, applicable to everyone. The word TORAH simply means a law, or some instruction, or some direction, or even a custom or manner... given by God, given by priests, or even instructions from a parent to a child. The fact that God gave different instructions to different people at different times is very plain to see, especially with regard to the Sinai covenant. Sin, as you mention, is the transgression of God's instructions. However: God's instructions are not always universal. For example: in Jeremiah 25 we read this: "This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Drink, get drunk and vomit, and fall to rise no more because of the sword I will send among you." Clearly, this is TORAH... but it isn't a universal law or instruction. I'm not being sinful when I don't observe Booths. I was never instructed to observe Booths, was I? Also: some things that might be fine for me might be sin for you. For example: if God tells you to quit your job and move to London, you should do it. Not quitting and moving to London would be sin... but only for you, as God's instructions were ONLY for you. I don't have to quit my job and move to London. Gentiles don't have to observe the Law of Moses, as we read very, very clearly in Acts 15.
TRINITY
The doctrine of the trinity is not a Roman Catholic doctrine. Suggesting that it is tells me that you've listened to the wrong people, and haven't checked that part out for yourself. I hope you don't take this as an insult, as it's not. It's a statement of fact. The idea that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all one God comes from Scripture, and was formulated centuries before there was a Roman Catholic church.
As we see in Scripture, there ARE important matters over which we should divide. You've already pointed out one of the most difficult parts: when one group considers an issue of primary importance, but another group considers the same issue of secondary importance, or even as a disputable matter. For example: some believe that those who are not yet baptized are not yet born again. For them - understandably - this is a primary issue, as it relates to salvation. Those who disagree (including myself) see baptism as important, but not as a requirement for salvation... a secondary matter (more than a disputable matter). Ideally we should agree on what Scripture says. If we can't agree on this issue, the first group SHOULD divide from the second group. The second group would not typically divide from the first because they consider the disagreement to not prevent one from being saved.
As you've eloquently said, we should be able to treat one another well - perfectly well - in spite of those kind of disagreements... if for no other reason than that God calls us to love everyone. In Romans 14, Paul wrote about both special days and food laws and called them disputable. For at least that reason, I consider them disputable as well. If someone wants to observe sabbaths, I'm not going to condemn them. If someone wants to avoid meat because it might have been sacrificed to an idol, I'm not going to condemn them. I want to live at peace with everyone, inasmuch as it depends on me. I very much appreciate that you seem to be of the same mind. Let me know what you think, my friend!