A
Arial
Guest
There are many who make this discernment entirely according to their own beliefs. Anything other than what they believe is a commandment of men.
Others will say that any saying or teaching that is used to dispute their theology that is sourced from men, or put forth by man as theological exposition of the Bible, is to be discounted as the commandments of men. In doing this, they impugn and disparage entire groups of Christians, the ECF and the reformers, countless theologians, preachers and teachers.
But is this what Jesus means when He speaks of the Pharisees and their commandments of men? Mark 7:1-5. Jesus replied to their question with a blasting quote from Isaiah "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written "This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. In vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'" He then went on in Mark 7:8-23 to further expand on what He meant. The Pharisees were adding burdens where God had given liberty.
We see Paul in a very public and very forceful controversy with Peter in Galatians 2:11-21. In this exchange of discipline of Peter there were no ifs, ands, or buts. Yet in Romans 14 we see Paul addressing controversies among believers, distinguishing the weak brother from the strong brother, and saying that Christian liberty should never become a stumbling block to the weaker brother. That it is better to give up in their presence what they feel is forbidden, rather than condemn them or flaunt our liberty.
What was the difference? In Jesus' exchange with the Pharisees what was at at stake was the commandments of men, things which God had not commanded, and saying these were of equal importance to keep as were the commands of God. They were teaching as truth what was a lie.
In Paul's exchange with Peter the very core of the gospel was at stake. Justification and forgiveness of sin through faith in Christ----only. Peter was agreeing with the Judaizers that the Gentiles had to be circumcised in addition to having faith in Christ. That would be a commandment of men---an untruth. In Romans Paul was dealing with things that did not affect the gospel in any way. Such things as what we can eat, feasts and festivals. eating meats sacrificed to idols. Those who abstained from certain things, or practised them, did so out of conscience, not for salvation. The stronger brother who understands the liberty in areas where God does not explicitly forbid or require something is to treat them with gentleness, as is the weaker to not judge the stronger.
Beware, however the tyranny of the weaker brother, who imposes his truly man made rules, those things that are not explicitly forbidden, as law for Christians, and measures salvation according to that man made commandment. Or any who say salvation is through faith in Jesus plus anything. It is quite easy and often happens, that those still counting on the old covenant portions of the Law that were a shadow of the coming Messiah, to turn what was a commandment of God for Israel, pre-Christ's fulfillment, into a commandment of men.
Others will say that any saying or teaching that is used to dispute their theology that is sourced from men, or put forth by man as theological exposition of the Bible, is to be discounted as the commandments of men. In doing this, they impugn and disparage entire groups of Christians, the ECF and the reformers, countless theologians, preachers and teachers.
But is this what Jesus means when He speaks of the Pharisees and their commandments of men? Mark 7:1-5. Jesus replied to their question with a blasting quote from Isaiah "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written "This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. In vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'" He then went on in Mark 7:8-23 to further expand on what He meant. The Pharisees were adding burdens where God had given liberty.
We see Paul in a very public and very forceful controversy with Peter in Galatians 2:11-21. In this exchange of discipline of Peter there were no ifs, ands, or buts. Yet in Romans 14 we see Paul addressing controversies among believers, distinguishing the weak brother from the strong brother, and saying that Christian liberty should never become a stumbling block to the weaker brother. That it is better to give up in their presence what they feel is forbidden, rather than condemn them or flaunt our liberty.
What was the difference? In Jesus' exchange with the Pharisees what was at at stake was the commandments of men, things which God had not commanded, and saying these were of equal importance to keep as were the commands of God. They were teaching as truth what was a lie.
In Paul's exchange with Peter the very core of the gospel was at stake. Justification and forgiveness of sin through faith in Christ----only. Peter was agreeing with the Judaizers that the Gentiles had to be circumcised in addition to having faith in Christ. That would be a commandment of men---an untruth. In Romans Paul was dealing with things that did not affect the gospel in any way. Such things as what we can eat, feasts and festivals. eating meats sacrificed to idols. Those who abstained from certain things, or practised them, did so out of conscience, not for salvation. The stronger brother who understands the liberty in areas where God does not explicitly forbid or require something is to treat them with gentleness, as is the weaker to not judge the stronger.
Beware, however the tyranny of the weaker brother, who imposes his truly man made rules, those things that are not explicitly forbidden, as law for Christians, and measures salvation according to that man made commandment. Or any who say salvation is through faith in Jesus plus anything. It is quite easy and often happens, that those still counting on the old covenant portions of the Law that were a shadow of the coming Messiah, to turn what was a commandment of God for Israel, pre-Christ's fulfillment, into a commandment of men.