Congregational Polity has lost it's original meaning.

Ready to Harvest is a YouTube Channel that makes educational videos about differences between Christian Denominations.  And overall I consider them pretty good and would recommend.  But there are a couple doctrinal issues relevant to these differences that I feel he defines incorrectly.

The relevant one today is Congregational Polity, because every time that comes up in one of his videos he defines it as simply meaning Local Autonomy with no reference to the fact that Congregational Polity is supposed to be Democracy.  He's not alone in this, sometimes even Wikipedia seems to do this.  

Ready to Harvest doesn't usually mention his own denominational affiliation in these videos, but it's not that hard to figure out he is an Independent Baptist.  I know in the past some of the Independent Baptist Pastors I've listened to who are a lot less interested in discussing Denominational Disagreements politely will often when they discus the Authority of the Local Pastor sound more Episcopal then the Episcopalians.  They seem to believe the only way to become a Pastor is to be ordained by another Pastor and that his authority over the Congregation is supposed to be absolute, the idea even of removing a pastor because the flock no longer approves of him seems anathema to them.

An emphasis on Local Autonomy was always a part of Congregationalism, but it was intended to help protect the Democracy.  Because it has always been the argument of some that true Direct Democracy can only work on a local level, the wider a scale you apply it to the more you risk situations where what's the majority opinion over all may have no support in certain areas.  There are schools of thought in both Liberalism and Socialism that come to this conclusion in opposition to Centralism,  even Rousseau saw it that way.

The proof that Congregationalism was originally about Democracy lies in simply looking at the English Civil War which happened when English Congregationalism in both it's Pedo-Baptist and Credo-Baptist forms was still young.   Because as I discussed in my Reformation and the Resurgence of Democracy post during that era positions on Clerical Polity and Civil Politics almost always mostly lined up exactly, the Episcopalians were the Monarchists, the Presbyterians were the Parliamentarians and the Congregationalist Puritans and Baptists and Quakers were the ones trying to make England more Democratic.

Sometimes I feel like having the office of Pastor at all is the gateway drug to becoming functionally Episcopalian.  

But it's important to acknowledge that there is a school of thought that suggests that there is a certain kind of Monarchy that is compatible with Democracy, that under the right circumstances a leader with true overwhelming popular support should be allowed to just do what he sees best for the people unchecked until he loses that popular support.  Even John Locke said some things supportive of that idea. In Game of Thrones that's exactly how the Wildings reconcile their rather Anarchist worldview with occasionally having a King Beyond The Wall.  

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to that since I have became a bit of an apologist for Oliver Cromwell who was a Congregationalist.  I also know some of the Founding Fathers wanted the President to be such a popular monarch, some of the lesser known Congregationalist influenced Federalists wanted the President to have even more authority but also elected by direct popular vote.    Hamilton himself however was an Episcopalian at his core so he wanted a President who was King in all but name and definitely not chosen by popular vote.

It goes back to how the word "Tyrant" didn't originally have the inherently negative connotations in Ancient Greece that it has to our ears, Tyrants were Popular rulers and the term's evolution towards being inherently derogatory began with how it was used negatively by the exact same Philosophers who openly didn't like Democracy either like Plato, Aristotle and Xenophon.  This is also partially the reasoning behind support for Dictators among Marxist-Lenninists, I've seen Tankie YouTubers argue that Stalin wanted to step down actually but the people just wouldn't let him.

But the important qualifier is that such a monarch can be removed if they lose the support of the people. Which is these Independent Baptists opposed to any accountability for the Pastor truly lose their Congregational credibility. 

In that prior post I linked to above I also discussed potential documentation that the Church was still Congregational from a certain POV even past Nicaea deep into the 4th Century.  But in that case it's no longer direct democracy or localism but entirely lies in the the popular support certain regional Bishops had like Athanasius of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, Cyril of Jerusalem and the Arab Bishop Moses who was allied with Queen Mavia.  Or maybe Regional isn't the right term, but they at least had authority over an entire City.

The real reason why American Baptists in particular lost sight of the original point of Congregational Polity is indirectly tied to another issue that greatly effected the history of Baptists in America, the issue of Slavery and Abolitionism in the 19th Century.  

Baptists first came to America in the North with other Congregationalists while the Sothern Colonies were founded by Episcopalians with a very Neofeudalist ideology.  When the Southern Baptists broke off from the greater Baptist Community to support Slavery they inevitably also adopted the so called "States Rights" ideology of the Southern Democrats that came with that.  Then once the Fugitive Slave Act came along the Anti-Slavery Northern Baptists had their own reason to emphasize local autonomy seeing that act as a violation of every Local Church's right to help runaway slaves if that's what their Conscience or The Holy Spirit demanded them to do.

But up North there was no conflict between that and Democracy, while down South supporting Slavery did conflict with Democracy because in many regions the majority of people, even the majority of professing Baptists, were the Slaves themselves.  Keeping them Enslaved was fundamentally Undemocratic.

Today the SBC is the largest Baptist Denomination in the world and largest Protestant denomination in the US, and many other Baptist groups broke off from them, including I suspect the lineages of most Independent Baptist Churches inevitably go back to Churches that left the SBC.  I live in Racine WI a city in the most Northern State where when I was growing up 50% of the Independent Baptist Churches had a Pastor with a Southern Accent.

And that's how Baptist Pastors went from being Democrats to being Tyrants that don't even pretend to care about popular support.

Update August: But let's go back to how Rousseau had argued that Direct Democracy can only work on a local level.

In Gary Kates book The Cercel Social, the Girdonins, and the French Revolution, it is documented how some followers of Rousseau during the early stages of the Revolution felt advancements made in Mass Communications had rendered Rousseau's reasoning out of date and now Direct Democracy across large swarths of land was doable. In hindsight the idea that late18th Century Newsletters were sufficient to solve this problem was absurd, but modern mass communication absolutely can solve it thanks to TV and The Internet.

Ready to Harvest has a video on the issue with Multisite Churches and how they supposedly can't qualify as Congregational. It's because of this modern understanding of Congregational Polity that sees it as about localism but still usually with an absolute Monarchial Pastor that makes it a problem. But a true Democratic Assembly of Believers that Assembles via The Internet absolutely can work.

Update September: I want to make clear I do still mostly agree with the Localism principle of Congregationalism. But Independent Baptists in particular have become a bit too extreme with it.

Churches, plural, occurs 37 times in the KJV New Testament but not a single one in a context that supports the idea of a single city having more then one Church. The only Epistle to use Churches rather then The Church at/in/of a given location in it's opening address is Galatians, which was to an entire region Paul visited multiple cities in. The ones that are to Cities are addressed singularly as are the messages to the Seven Churches in Revelation even if in some of those cases their scope might be more then one city.

If you go back to Acts17 most of Paul's success in the area of Thessalonica was actually in the near by city of Berea, I feel like there's no way they aren't included in the original audience of those Epistles. I also have been speculating about the Scope of the Churches associated with Ephesus and Laodicea in Revelation since only they Jesus addresses as being The Church of ____ rather then The Church in _____. Paul met with the Elders of Ephesus at Miletus in Acts 20.

Some have interpreted what's said of the Seven Churches as implying they account for all of the Christians in Asia. Hierapolis and Colossae near Laodicea are known to have had Christian communities before Revelation was written while Magnesia and Tralles between Ephesus and Miletus are documented as having some not to long after via Ignatius.

Update June 5th 2024: Looking into the history more, originally the groups defined by their belief in Local Church Autonomy were called Independents and disagreed with each other about how the Local Church should be organized.

Robert Browne was much more absolute in his calls for Democracy, but also to him Separations from the Church of England was a means to an end not an end in itself, he did want some degree of relationship with the Church of England maintained.  All these people are often called Brownists even when they had significant disagreements with Browne himself.  

Henry Barrowe was more absolute in his separatism but distrusted full Democracy, he wanted basically Local Presbyterianism.  

Barrowe also called Browne a "Renegade" because he felt Browne has betrayed his earlier principals when in actuality Browne was very consistent, the context around him simply changed.  So because of that I consider Robert Browne the Karl Kautsky of Puritanism.

Some American Evangelicals like to say the Pilgrims weren't Puritans, this is is a misnomer that ignores how broad the Puritan label was.  The Plymouth Pilgrims were I would argue the purest Puritans in that they were more like Barrowe on separatism but more like Browne on Democracy being initially lead by John Robinson who ultimately sided with Henry Ainsworth in his dispute with Francis Johnson who was another Local Presbyterian like Barrowe.  The Baptists, especially Particular Baptists also had their origins among followers of John Robinson who agreed with Henry Ainsworth on Democracy.

The Puritans who founded Boston and Connecticut do seem to have been the most actually Brownist.

Congregational as a term for a Polity Position seems to have been coined originally in reference to Browne and Ainsworth's position on Church Governance regardless of how local it was, in contrast to Barrowe.

All Christians are Christians (for the most part).

Ready to Harvest is a YouTube channel that seeks to as objectively as possible discus the differences between different Christian Denominations.  But they also did a video on the question of defining what it means to be a Christian.

He doesn't seek to definitely answer the question in the video, but there is a general sense that he feels "Anyone who follows Jesus" is too lose a definition, that at least within the Church there needs to be allowance for denying the status of Christian to Christians who are sufficiently heterodox.  The Problem is Scripture is more interested in what absolutely proves someone is a True Believer then insisting anything can prove someone is not.

First verse I want to bring up is 1 Corinthians 12:3.

"Wherefore I give you to understand, that no human speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no human can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Spirit."

The last part of that verse is a pretty bold statement, Paul doesn't even consider it hypothetically possible for a person to say Jesus is The Lord if they don't have The Holy Spirit.

Now I am inclined to believe that every time The New Testament says "The Lord" it's meant to be understood as a reference to YHWH, in The Hebrew Bible Adonai is a title only for YHWH, and by NT times the Jewish habit of refusing to actually say the Name but say Adonai/The Lord instead was already being established.  So that can make what it means to say Jesus is The Lord a bit more specific then a plain English reading of this verse at first implies and would prevent this verse from applying to Marcionites or JWs.

But regardless the implication is any person saying that must have The Holy Spirit no matter what else they are wrong on and no matter how bad their behavior is.

A Second verse to bring up is 1 John 4:15.

"Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God."

Again, anyone confessing that Jesus is The Son of God is a true regenerated Believer, no matter what other doctrines they are wrong on or what they actually do. Later 1st John 5:4-5 says that anyone who believes Jesus is The Son of God overcomes The World because they are Born of God.

The importance of that being the defining Confession is backed up by a number of passages, it's the first verse of Mark's Gospel and then what the Centurion proclaims in 15:39, it's what Peter confesses before he's given the Keys to the Kingdom in Matthew 16:19 (and again in John 6:69), it's Martha's confession in John 11:27, and what John 20:31 says we are given Life by believing, and it's the only thing the Ethiopian Eunuch has to confess before being Baptized in Acts 8:37.

Okay most of those verses also include believing Jesus is The Christ, Christ being the Greek equivalent of Messiah.  In the modern world what it means to believe Jesus is The Messiah has become a bit watered down as now any kind of prophesied Hero figure can be called a "Messianic Archetype" even if not from an Abrahamic culture, but back then that Language for a promised Savior was uniquely Jewish.  Believing Jesus is The Christ meant believing He was the instrument of the fulfilment of YHWH's promises to Israel, so again Marcionites and Gnostics putting Jesus in conflict with YHWH don't actually believe Jesus is The Christ no matter how much they appropriate that Language.

But let's get back to the Son of God issue. 

I do believe this requires believing in Jesus as The Son of God in a very unique distinct sense separate from how all Believers and ultimately all people are God's children.  In Brigahmite Mormonism Jesus is the Son of God only in being the Firstborn of humanity.  

I believe the statement that Jesus is God is Biblically supported, Colossians 2:9 says Jesus was the fulness of The Godhead made Bodily giving support even specifically to Homousianism, and in the opening verses of the Fourth Gospel The Word fits the modern definition of capital G God, the Uncreated Creator of the Universe.  I am also a Trinitarian having a post on this Blog about how even The Hebrew Bible is Trinitarian.

But Confessionally and Creedily speaking Jesus as The Son of God is the Biblical emphasis.  Romans was an Epistle Paul wrote to a community he hadn't known in person yet so it features his personal statement of Faith at the beginning and it never directly calls Jesus God but stressed Jesus as The Son of God. 

The Rule of Faith documented by Irenaeus and Tertullian and the Old Roman Symbol each emphasize Jesus as The Son of God not Jesus as God.

So I kind of am uncomfortable with how often modern Statements of Faith put all the emphasis on Jesus being God with His Sonship relegated to "The Son" as a title.

In 1 John and 2 John three things are defined as being Antichrist, denying that Jesus is The Christ, denying the relationship of the Father and the Son and denying Jesus came "in the Flesh".  The Qur'an is hostile to God having a Son in any sense, it utterly rejects the idea of God as a Father, so that's why Muslims can't count as Christians.  But they do believe Jesus was the Messiah and came in the Flesh so those who say Islam fits the Antichrist Heresy perfectly are wrong.

I have decided not to make a Physical Bodily General Resurrection or Universal Salvation requirements for truly qualifying as a Christian because of these Biblical observations, even though it is my opinion that those two doctrines are the definition of The Gospel based on 1 Corinthians 15 and thus definitely more important then any of the nuanced Greek semantical issues debated at the seven Ecumenical Councils or for that matter what the Protestant Reformation was originally about.

Now one might make an objection that a given group "doesn't mean the same thing we mean by Son of God", and that could be a valid argument if the Arians or Unitarians were the ones blatantly twisting the very definitions of those words.  But the truth is we Trinitarians are the ones departing from what it normally mean to call someone the Son of someone else by believing The Son and The Father are Co-Eternal.

Now my way of addressing that criticism of Trinitarianism involves my belief that Jesus became The Son during the Incarnation.  But most mainline Christians don't like that argument because they're bought into the Platonist Heresy of Divine Immutability, everything Jesus is He must have always been somehow, but that idea isn't Scriptural.

So yes any form of Nicene Christianity is real Christianity but also plenty of Non Nicenes could be as well.

Update January 6th 2025: So I've gotten pushback on this in a Facebook Group by someone citing Titus 1:16 to prove there are Professors who aren't "Saved".  That verse is about people Professing to Know God not that Jesus is The Son of God.   But also nothing there says they aren't Believers, it is because Believers are Temples that being "Pure" is a concern.

Also Galatians 1 with the "another Gospel" reference.  doesn't even deny these people are Christians, just calls them Accursed meaning they will suffer some Punishment for their bad doctrine.  

What Jesus taught matters, but The Gospel is The Resurrection

Saying The Gospel is even partly Jesus moral and ethical teachings is to fundamentally miss the point of New Testament theology.  The context of the Sermon on the Mount in it's introduction in Matthew chapter 5 is the futility of trying to earn Salvation.

Now people like MaggieMayFish in her video about Kirk Cameorn's Christmas movie don't like when Christians feel that way, saying all this over emphasis on The Resurrection is because people don't want to actually follow her interpretation of what Jesus taught.

I find it amusing how in a prior video of this series she pretends she's on the protestant side of the original Reformation when in fact her attitude on "good works" is exactly what Luther found anathema and pretty consistent with how reactionary Tridentine Catholics feel to this day.  Also Luther was not a populist reformer who's message was later co-opted by the rich and powerful, he personally aligned himself with the Feudal Nobility of northern Germany and Denmark and the proto-Capitalists of the Netherlands and in turn persecuted the Anarcho-Communist Anabaptists and Jews.

There are other forms of basically this same thing, from both the right and left, people acting like the message of unconditional Grace somehow detracts from seeing what Jesus taught as the key to true good ethics.

And I as a Communist, Universal Salvation preaching Queer affirming YEC Pre-Millennial Futurist am looking at this Teachings vs Gospel dichotomy going.

Neither Kirk Cameron or any of these other Right Wing Conservative Christians she's opposing react to our Leftist interpretation of what Jesus said with "that doesn't matter because Resurrection, Faith Alone, yadda yadda yadda".  They all believe they are being consistent with what Jesus taught however absurd that looks to us.  And Trust me you can find economic and social conservatives among those who allegorize away The Resurrection to support a Platonic or Sadducean view on life after death.  So no they aren't going to change their minds on morality, ethics or economic policy if they changed them on The Resurrection.

Everyone interprets Jesus as saying what we want Him to have said to some degree.  I have little confidence that my own approach is completely without bias.  And people observing Jesus from the outside don't entirely agree on what his message was either, some of course are instead biased towards making Him the enemy of their beliefs.  That I am at least trying I hope is demonstrated by the fact that I have changed my mind on some issues over the years.

Also according to Josephus in Antiquities 18 the Zelots agreed with the Pharisees on theology and metaphysical matters, they were the Anarchist Revolutionaries of first century Judea.  So even before Christianity it was the Resurrectionists who believed in taking action to change the world.  The Essenes who were the Platonic "Spiritual is what really matters" viewpoint practiced a form of Communism but in a purely voluntary sense, they were not revolutionaries interested in changing the world.

Even the Maccabees seem to have been Pharisees originally, Aristobolus turned against them when a group of them called his mother a whore and implied he was actually a bastard son of Antiochus Epiphanes.  The only Jewish Ruling Queen of antiquity, Salome Alexandra, was a devout Pharisee unlike her husband.

For me it's because Jesus defeated Death and Unconditionally Loves every single one of us without exception that I consider what He had to say about Ethics and Morality more valuable and trustworthy then anyone else.  A "Savior" who intends to leave us in the dirt or save only those who "Merit" saving is little better then the God of Calvinism and therefore not someone who's opinions matter to me even slightly.  The only context in which I'll care what a person from 2000 years ago has to say on anything is if He Rose from The Dead.

As a companion of sorts to this here is my latest post on my Prophecy Blog.

P.S. This isn't the first BlogPost I made partly inspired by this YT Video Essay.

When did it become Liberal to Hate people?

[Update: I wrote this when I was still confused about the distinction between Socialism and Liberalism.  My basic feelings are the same but I would certainly express them differently today.]

Dietary Laws and Pork

So there are people out there seeking to deny even that the Dietary Laws don't apply to Christians.  Especially in regards to Pork.

They say Acts 10/11 isn't about food at all.  That is indeed not the main point, the main point is about not excluding Gentiles.  But the fact remains Jesus told Peter to Eat.

Even under the Old Testament it was not something required of Gentiles.  If you were not circumscribed dietary laws didn't apply to you.  Pork is included in no scholar's version of the hypothetical Noahide Laws.  The only dietary law to predate Moses is the law against eating live animals and drinking blood from Genesis 9.

I'm fully aware that it actually is healthy to follow the dietary laws.  Pork isn't healthy.  The issue is beneficial vs unlawful.  In 1 Corinthians 6 Paul says "all things are lawful unto me but not all things are beneficial".  People want to take the last part as undermining the first, but it's only in regards to Biblical Laws people play that game.  The fact that it's legal to smoke tobacco but not healthy doesn't mean cops are gonna arrest you anyway.  (They might actually under our horribly corrupt government but that's not how a just legal system works).  The ramifications for doing something unhealthy is that your health will be hurt.  Nothing more and nothing less.

They point to lots of references to Pigs being a favorite animal to use in pagan sacrifices. (I didn't see any sources but I'll take their word on it for now).  Then point to the commands not to eat foods sacrificed to animals and say, that means Pork.

No, it means don't eat the meat of an animal sacrificed to an idol.  Sacrificial meat does get eaten, including in Biblical sacrifices.  Pig, lamb, beef, or even vegetables doesn't matter eating food offered to idols we are told we shouldn't do.

It doesn't mean any animals considered eligible for a pagan sacrifice.  Lots of the same animals that are Biblically clean were eligible also.  Especially Bulls, I've read a lot in the past about Bulls in pagan sacrifices.  In Egypt bulls were offered to Apis their bull god.  Apis was probably what inspired the Golden Calf, which in turn inspired Jeroboam's calf Idols he built at Bethel and Dan.

But even on the subject of meats sacrificed onto Idols, Paul clarifies.

1 Corinthians 8:4 "As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one."

 1 Corinthians 10:25-26 "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.  If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.  But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:  Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?

We're to refuse to eat it only if we're specifically told it was offered to an Idol  And the issue is setting an example, not the meat itself.   These same teachers of Paul are discussed in this article.

Now I've seen people say that "The Jews didn't even think of Pork as food" to try and render verses like the above irrelevant.  If it wasn't thought of as something eligible to be food God would never have commented it in any dispensation.  Just as he never goes out of his way to condemn eating dirt or feces.

Rob Skiba, who is actually the main person I've had in mind this entire post (and some guests he's had on his show), actually refers to when Antiochus Epiphanes offered a Pig on the Altar as if that event is recorded in the Book of Maccabees.  It's not, I've read first and second Maccabees, there is no reference to a pig being offered there.  There is no verification Anitochus was personally in Jerusalem at all when the Idol was consecrated.  It refers to sacrifices to the Idol on the Altar but not what kind of animal was sacrificed.  Since second Maccabees implies it was Dionysus festivals celebrated in the Temple, it seems more plausible the sacrifices made were animals sacred to Bacchus.

Nor is the whole Menorah burring for 7 days on 1 days worth of oil story in them. Nor is either incident mentioned in the Biblical authentications of Hanukkah, not in Daniel not in Haggai not in John 10.  Both events would be included in the Epic miniseries I want to make about the Maccabean Revolt, because they're things the audience will want to see.  But their historical foundation is non existent, they're more pharisaic fables.

Now I don't want to accuse Rob of lying, but it's difficult when he specifically says the Book of Maccabees defines the Abomination of Desolation as being when the Pig was killed on the Altar. Maccabees doesn't mention a Pig but it mentions the Idol, Dios Olympos placed in The Temple.  The Hebrew word for Abomination used in Daniel isn't the one from Leviticus 18 that can mean any unclean act, it's the one used when it's a derogatory term for the Idol itself, like in 1 Kings 11.

That was the first Abomination of Desolation.  The future one will be a Man deifying Himself in the Holy Place.  Proclaiming himself to be God. In the Holy of Holies.

If the Pig being offered did happen.  That it was a Levitically unclean animal only added insult to injury.  The point was it was an offering made to an Idol.

I did find a reference to Swine's Flesh being sacrificed in I Maccabees.  But it's not directly connected to the Abomination, to the Temple or said to be something Antiochus did personally.  However I did find in Josephus Antiquities of The Jews Book 12 Chapter 5 a reference to Antiochus sacrificing Swine's Flesh on the Altar, and a similar claim exists from a Pagan POV in Diodorus Siculus.  None of that changes that the Abomination of Desolation is defined as being the Idol, not the Swine's Flesh.

Now they go on to insist that eating Pork isn't even discussed in Acts 15 as something those Gentile believers were doing.  That's irrelevant.  In the end there are only three restrictions we are held to.  No idolatry, no prostitution (that is what fornication meant in 1611 and what Proneia means in Greek) and no eating Blood.

Eating Blood was distinct from the other dietary laws.  Being the only one with a basis that goes back to Genesis 9.  And likewise it is in Acts 15 treated as distinct from the food offered to Idols.

These people trying to undermine how we aren't under the Law of Moses like to say things like "does God change" as if saying yes to that would be a horrible heresy.  Actually The Hebrew Scriptures record God repenting (repent means a change of mind) many times.  I point this out elsewhere to refute those who think repent always means repenting of Sin.  He repented in Numbers and He repented of what he was going to do to Nineveh in Jonah.

It's actually a Gnostic heresy to see God as completely unchangeable.  Augustine of Hippo was a Gnostic and the main thing keeping him from converting to Christianity was that he was uncomfortable with the Old Testament depicting an emotional God who sometimes changes his mind.  It was when Ambrose convinced him those emotions could be allegorized away that he became a Christian but brought much of his Platonism and Gnosticism with him.  And thus both Catholicism and Calvinism were born.

When God makes a Promise or a Covenant or swears an Oath then He won't change on that.  Which is why you can be assured you are saved by faith and salvation can't be lost.  So yes in certain senses God doesn't change as Malachi said, but Calvinists take that verse out of the grander context of Scripture.

Specifically on the idea of God changing what people are or are not allowed to do.  That He does change those can be proven form The Torah alone.

Before The Flood we weren't allowed to eat meat at all, not just certain meats, read Genesis 1 and 2 carefully.  After The Flood God gave Noah permission to eat animals.  We have this movement of people acting like it's insulting to The Torah to suggest a restriction on Pork could be lifted, but an even bigger restriction was lifted in Genesis.

God ordained Capital Punishment in Genesis 9, when in Genesis 4 he goes out of his way to protect Cain form being killed for his murder.  Now I believe it's disallowed again.

Abraham was married to his Sister and it wasn't a problem.  Adam and Eve's first children only had that option.  But brother-sister incest was condemned in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.  1 Corinthians 5 I feel shows that Incest restrictions still apply.  But that was not a purely ceremonial or cleanliness issue.

So yes Malachi says God doesn't change.  But the greater testimony of Scripture shows what is and isn't legal clearly is not what is meant by that.

The dietary laws are exactly the issue in Romans 14.  Where Paul goes on to explain not to judge someone either way on keeping or not keeping the dietary laws.

That is important. There is in response to people like Skiba, others, (like the pastor I do not name) who want to act like it's a Sin to keep any Jewish laws.  That is absurd, to suggest you can Sin by following Jesus example in observing Passover, Tabernacles and Hanukkah.  These people are the other side of the same coin.  So I've coined the phrase Reverse-Legalism.

As long as you're not under any delusion that it matters one way or the others to your Salvation keeping the Jewish laws is fine, imposing them on others is not.  Colossians 2:16 makes clear not to let any man judge us either way in regards to "meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days."  Now the Reverse-Legalists will point to the next verse calling them mere shadows of things to come.  That does mean we don't have to keep them, but we can observe them as long as we remember that are fulfilled in Jesus.

Back to regular legalists, they engage in the Lexical fallacy by wanting to read 1 John 3:4 into every verse that uses the word Sin.

They also objects to the word legalist, saying it should only be used of Judaizers.  The word Judaizer I would only use of Judaizers, but I tend not to use it at all because I don't want to sound anti-semitic.
Legalism is an illness with three levels, each level can manifest differently.

The top level is believing the Law particularly circumcision is required for Salvation.  The Judaizers were top level.

Middle is thinking it's needed to keep salvation or to prove salvation, hence denying Eternal Security.  And I include "perseverance of the saints" as a denial of Eternal Security.

The low level is I think where Rob Skiba is, he's certainly not top level. Saying that the Law is needed for qualifying as a good faithful Christian.  That too is wrong, at the Bema Judgment we'll be judged based on our obedience to The Holy Spirit, not keeping a written law code, yes I mean even specific New Testament commands when I say that.

Low level can be harmless.  But I know people who started there and were in time lured into the higher more dangerous levels.

The Law of Moses was always imperfect.  Now it is done away with.  Jesus fulfilled the Law by living a perfectly sinful life.  Now the Law is written on our Hearts not in Stone.

As commander William Riker once said "When has Justice ever as simple as a rule book".

If The Holy Spirit is personally convicting you to do or not do something then you should listen.  But the Holy Spirit has different plans for each individual.  The Spirit convicts me often, but my enjoyment of Pork it doesn't convict.

Judaizers are not the only Legalists

So I watched a sermon from the pastor I don't like to name, where he was defending Christmas.  I agree essentially with what he was saying.  But he then went on to condemn celebrating Jewish Holy Days.

This reminded me of stuff I already covered slightly.

I know there is a Hebrew Roots movement out there calling for trying to put Christians back under the Law, and that is wrong.

But we also have counter to that a new kind of Legalisim, that says no matter what the reason it's a sin period for a Christian to get Circumscribed, or follow the dietary laws, or keep the Sabbath, or observe Jewish Holy Days.  All the passages they are drawing on for this are about Judiazers.

It's wrong to teach you need to follow The Law to obtain Salvation, or to keep Salvation, or to prove Salvation.  Or in my view even that it's needed to lead a good obedient rewarding Christina Life.  The Law is written on our Hearts now, it's between each individual and The Holy Spirit how he lives.

He started his Christmas sermon with Romans 14, I love Romans 14.  But he pretty much makes it sound like the specific context of Romans 14 is about Vegetarianism.  It's not, Romans 14 like most of what Paul was dealing with in Romans came down to disputes between the Jewish and Gentile Christians living in Rome.  It's about the dietary laws, he is saying it's ok to eat non kosher foods, and also ok not to.  But if EITHER side tries to judge the other that is wrong.

Colossians 2:16 is often misused.  "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:"  It's saying let no one Judge you concerning them, but it gets taken as saying it's bad to observe them.

Zachariah 14 and Ezekiel 45 both show that the Holy Days and the Sabbath will be apart of the future when Jesus Reigns on Earth.  And I believe Ezekiel 40-48 is the New Creation not the Millennium.

Jesus we know during His life kept the Passover and Tabernacles, and Hanukkah.  No matter what your excuse, no matter what your view on The Law or dispensations is.  To say it's a Sin to do something Jesus did is absurd.

Now I also think it's wrong to require people to do anything Jesus did, especially for Salvation.  He lived a perfectly Sinless life FOR US so we don't have to.  But he did nothing that can be considered a Sin.

Acts references numerous times the Early Church observed Old Covenant customs.  I've spoken elsewhere against the Sunday replacing The Sabbath myth.

Also right after the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 Paul goes and gets one of his new gentile converts circumcised.  Now that gets abused by Rob Skiba to say you don't need circumcision for Salvation but you still need to do it to obey God.  That is wrong, but it does show if someone wanted to purely for like it's health benefits to be circumscribed Paul was not gonna throw everything he said in Galatians at them.

This Pastor says that any holiday he celebrates is going to be about Jesus (though elsewhere in the Sermon he offhandedly mocks those calling Thanksgiving bad).

Messianic Jews and other Christians who keep the Jewish Holy Days make them about how they point to Jesus and The New Testament.  Because all Scripture points to Jesus.

During the Passover Seder they draw on how Jesus is the Passover Lamb, and tie that into Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, and I think Esther is more relevant to Passover then people realize.  And of course they quote from The Last Supper.  On First Fruits they are reminded how Paul called Jesus our First Fruits.  On Shavout they talk about Acts 2 and the end of Joel 2, to me Revelation 6 and 7 should also be thrown in.

Basically the Nisan Holy Days are when we should be observing the "Easter" Holy Week, and the Feast of Weeks (Shavout) when we should observe Pentacost, (Karaite reckoning rather then Rabbinic) as opposed to the convoluted Catholic reckoning.  Still I would not call it a Sin to observe them on the Catholic dates (or Rabbinic reckoning, or the Samaritan one for that matter), since we're not bound by the Law at all anyway, commemorating the Passion is good even if it's not actually on the right day.  But the Pagan traditions that filtered into it (including the name "Easter" itself, we should call it Resurrection Sunday and/or First Fruits) like the Bunny and the Eggs I would recommend dropping.

If one wants to adapt them to our modern Solar Calendar for convenience sake but not using the Catholic method.  First I'd say still begin each day the previous Sunset.

My recommendation would be to have April 6th (or the Thursday closest to it) function as the 14th of Nisan, with the previous Sunday (or April 2nd) as Palm Sunday/The Triumphal Entry and the following Sunday as Resurrection Sunday/First Fruits.  Then the Sunday 7 weeks from First Fruits would be Pentecost and the Thursday a week and a half before that Ascension Thursday.  And if you wanna do something for Second Passover that'd be May 6th.  March 6th would be the fast of Esther, the 7th and 8th would be Purim and the 10th Yom Adar.  And the New Year would be March 24th.  And the last day of Unleavened Bread (Nisan 21) would be April 13th.

An alternative method would be to make Nisan 14 equal March 25th and Nisan 17 equal March 25th, I actually like using those days for The Annunciation and the Visitation.  Along with June 24th or 25th for the Birth of John The Baptist and the Summer Solstice for the marriage of Mary and Joseph.

If one wants a similar adaptation to our Calendar for the Tishri Holy Days.  Simply having September equal Tishri can be convenient, since September literally means 7th month.  But if you want Hanukkah to fall on Christmas then you'd rather have October be Tishri.  People who support a September 11th 3 BC birth of Jesus have reason to make that day the first of Tishri.  I however believe between the Yom Kippur and Tabernacles following that is when John The Baptist was conceived (Sunset September 20th to Sunset September 24th).  I have an eschatological hypothesis that involves Yom Teruh being Sunset September 25th to sunset September 26th in 2033 AD.

The Fall Feast Days tend to be viewed as Eschatological in how they apply to Jesus.  I think The Rapture is very relevant to the Feast of Trumpets and maybe also Yom Kippur.  The 7th Trumpet will sound on Tishri 1st I believe, and Yom Kippur may be the Bema Judgment as well as much later the White Throne Judgment, and I see Tabernacles as when New Jerusalem will descend.

But Tabernacles could also be just a good excuse to read John 7, and I think 8, 9 and the beginning of 10 were on Tishri 22.  I also think the First of Tishi was when the Star of Bethlehem was first observed, But the Magi arrived in Jerusalem a year and three months later.  I think Yom Kippur is possibly the day Gabriel appeared to Zachariah.  But at the very least it's a great time to talk about the significance of The Veil being torn when Jesus was on The Cross.  Many of course look to the Tishri Holy Days for the Birth of Jesus, but I don't anymore.

Some also think the Transfiguration happened on Tabernacles, I do not believe that chronologically works.  But seeing a thematic connection to Tabernacles is still valid.

Purim can be used as a great time to show how the Book of Esther points to Jesus.  Mordecai was honored and Haman hanged on the 17th of Nisan, the same day as The Resurrection.  And I've talked about the significance in Haman and his sons technically dying the same way Jesus did.

Of course he doubles down on Hanukkah saying it isn't even ordained in the Old Testament.  I have refuted that notion elsewhere too.

How does one make Hanukkah about Jesus?  Those who say Jesus was born on a Fall Feast Day often place His Conception during Hanukkah (first of Tevet most likely) making that the time of the Annunciation and Visitation, I supported that in the past but not anymore.  Some who are among the minority defending the traditional date for Christmas think Jesus was born during Hanukkah.  I however have argued that the December 25th Jesus was born on was late in Tevet.  That would make it one of those years where Hanukkah fell near Thanksgiving.  There is evidence the early origin of Thanksgiving (which was not originally in November) was The Pilgrims observing a form of Tabernacles.  And Hanukkah has been called a sort of Second Tabernacles based on 2 Maccabees 10:1-8.  1 Maccabees 4:44-59 does talk about "Sacrifices and Thanksgivings" being offered in some translations.

At the very least Hanukkah can be a good excuse to get people to read John 10.  Many also seeing how it revolves around The Menorah (being often called The Festival of Lights) as a good time to talk about all the New Testament symbolism it has, the 7 Lamp stands surrounding The Throne in Revelation 4, the Seven Fold Spirit.  As well as Jesus being the Light of The World.

Hanukkah is about history that we know is a type of the End Times, Antiochus Epiphanes is a type of The Antichrist.  So it's a good prompter to studying Bible Prophecy.

Oh, that's right, this Pastor had in another Sermon ranted on how he rejects the notion of Antiochus Epiphanes having anything to do with Daniel, people like him are the straw-man Preterists cling to to make all Futurists look bad.

His logic was that you shouldn't have to read anything else to understand The Bible.  Only The Bible is God's Word, but part of the purpose of Prophecy is to authenticate God's Word, therefore proving from secular historical documentation that Bible Prophecies have been fulfilled is vital.

But showing his hypocrisy again he brings his understanding of New World Order conspiracy theories into his view of Bible Prophecy, a lot of extra Biblical sources are needed to make that work.