Travis63

Have you ever seen Christians act as if they were lawless? Unfortunately yes How do Spirit-led Christians fulfill the spirit of the law? Submitting to the Spirit's leading, following the leading of the Holy Spirit, by imitating the best example, which is Christ, by demonstrating love of God and loving people. Jesus knew the letter of the Law, He knew the spirit of the Law as well because He sought the Father's counsel. As we learn and take in His commandments (everything that God says to do is a commandment) we are to adhere to His Spirit as we apply the command. What does backbiting and rudeness in a congregation say about the spiritual climate of that congregation (5:15)? The spiritual climate is non-unified, with a high sense of being fleshly, backbiting and rudeness aren't portrayed as loving sentiment, nor do they show that the people demonstrate love. The spiritual climate is poisoned and toxic were backing and rudeness is amidst.

What is "the offense of the cross" that offended the Jews? The preaching of righteousness (salvation) alone in Christ. The offense of the cross here refers to the offense to Jews caused by preaching Christ crucified, they were saying that circumcision was necessary. Paul preach of the atoning work of Christ as the way of righteousness acceptable by God. Jesus' work on the cross is preeminently above everything else, it is the foundation of Christian hope. This a stumbling-block to the Jews, in addition the cross was associated with being cursed, for them the two did not go together. They didn't connect that which was prophesied. In essence Paul was saying the gospel they preached was false and this offended them. To be called a liar offends anyone, even a liar. How does the cross offend people in our day? It is yet a stumbling-block today, but for different reasons, flesh and traditions are still the main proponent however they differ from those of the first century Jews. There are too many reasons why a person will not become a Christian, too many. To generalize the answer I'd say background, current lifestyle, current belief (religious or non-religious). These same circumstance existed during the first century, the same consequence presents itself in our day. If someone acknowledge and accepts the Gospel true, they should no longer live in a manner that doesn't coincide with it, thereby it offends. Have you noticed Christians softening their proclamation of the cross? Live no. From things that I have read yes. There have been time that I have heard a Televangelist do so, which makes it difficult, very difficult to listen to one. Does this help them communicate more clearly to our age or does it compromise the true message? Those who do so communicate very effectively, just as the Judaizers while in Galatians did. The leaven in a negative manner has reached far and continues to reach. Itchy ear preaching isn't a new concept, if one were to search you could find some evidence in the Old Testament. I don't believe it a sin to preach or speak about other things in the Bible, however when you stray away from main element, the cornerstone of the Gospel that is the greatest danger that a person who is a Christ can present. This itchy ear communication (prophecy, testimony, preaching) is more than a compromise to the true message, it is damming.

Circumcision had been the primary "mark of identity" for a believer in God. In what way has the Spirit become the new "mark of identity" for the believer? Circumcision of the heart, (Ezekiel 36:26-27; Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4; 9:26), this circumcision help all who believe exhibit the piety that is acceptable by God. It doesn't facilitate stubbornness, rebellion, nor one walking (living) according to their spirit. This circumcision allows for our spirit to align with His Spirit. What is the evidence of the Spirit's presence in a believer's life according to verse 6? Love, "faith expressing itself through love". Amazingly Paul united the three basic Christian virtues in these verses: faith, hope, and love. The Holy Spirit makes all three possible. "In Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision." What does matter is that we trust Him, is work on the cross alone provide justification acceptable by God. "Love is not an additional prerequisite for receiving salvation, nor is it properly an essential trait of faith; on the contrary, faith animates the love in which it works.”

Exactly what does Paul mean by "fall from grace" here? Paul's use of "fall from grace" in this context points to the believer's no longer maintain a position of favor with God, instead they have fallen to a less than favorable position. Paul is saying that they are choosing to place works above the faith of Christ. Basically fall from grace here in context is their choosing their own way by way of religious rites to become righteous. The religious rite was circumcision, the point is that the continued practice of circumcision as a religious rite after the work of Christ Jesus on the cross nullified the significance of His sacrifice. In essence circumcision is not wrong, Paul does not object to circumcision, he objects to it as a means that is supposed to bring a man into a right relationship with God. "Without God's favor on us, we are left to our own devices, to try to cobble together our own righteousness based on righteous deeds that stem from mixed and often corrupt and selfish motives. Isaiah said, "All our righteous acts are like filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6), literally menstrual cloths. We may think we look good, but stains and filth and pollution are what God sees." What has occurred that has caused this fall? Their choosing to trust in their own efforts by way of ignoring the Gospel. Self righteousness, works with the intent of being righteous replaces faith. In essences here the Galatians act of self righteousness was substituted for Christ's righteousness. The allegory Paul gave is beautiful. Abraham and Sarah through Hagar in their own efforts attempt to keep the promise of God. Verse 29 (translation / paraphrased) At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. KJV But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. In verse 29 born after the flesh, (flesh - the sensuous nature of man). The son Ishmael was born after their own logic, where as Isaacs was born according as God desired. Abraham and Sarah, through works, applying their own mechanism did not fulfill the promise, they obtained the opposite result. It was not clearly revealed to them until Genesis 17:19 what God had said previously in Genesis 15. By contrast, when Abraham trust God to fulfill His promise, the promise was fulfilled. How can present-day Christian legalism cause such a "fall from grace"? Through misunderstanding what fall from grace means, associating it with immoral conduct. An atheist can walk in good moral conduct, as can an agnostic. Someone may fall from grace and be damned without ever falling into grossly immoral conduct. One must remember that no one is eternally saved because of their moral conduct. It has always been by grace through faith. In our present day understanding we automatically incline to the word legalism too quickly. (Any word commanded God is a commandment). The purpose however does not eternally save, it is by grace through faith, yet a Believer should not live lawlessly, laws do have a purpose. Legalism can be a subtle thing, I have heard many say that they assemble together or that one must do so in order to be saved; others say that they were water baptized or that a person must be in order to be saved, etc.., neither is by grace through faith. Having said what I have said I am not against assembling together nor water baptism, however these and other things are in line with what James brought to light, "faith without works is dead [James 2:18-20]." I don't attend worship service to get saved, I go because being there edifies and encourages me, because I believe. I was water baptized, I did so because I desired to be unified with Christ. Both Paul and James turned to the life of Abraham to illustrate justification. Moving in a different direction but relevant to my answer. Paul is dealing with the necessity of faith before God, James is concerned with an outward demonstration of such faith before men through works. Paul stresses acceptance before God entirely by grace through faith, whereas James presents the continual evidence before men of the initial transaction. James does not teach that good works are necessary in order to be eternally saved and Paul never teaches that good works are unnecessary after a person has trust in the Lord, united with Christ. On the contrary, Paul agreed with James that for the person justified by faith, good works are essential (Phil. 2:12-13; Titus 3:5-8; Eph. 2:8-10). Likewise, James agreed with Paul that the only condition for inheriting the kingdom was faith and faith alone James 2:5. Paul simply says law or not law it is of God's grace that any will be saved, and that belief is the main factor. Having said that he does not condone riotous living. Most of Paul's ministry was about conversion, declaring how the guilty and or lost could get in right relationship with God. James was writing to those whom had made the profession of faith in relation as to how they could demonstrate that their faith was with substance. The same guy Abraham (And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness, Genesis 15:6) by faith accounted righteous, (Genesis 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.) was not perfect, however God acknowledge that there were standards that he recognized.

How is Paul’s grief over his spiritual children like that of a parent seeing children stray? Paul's grief stems from love, it isn't solely that the Galatians are steering away from what Paul has taught them, but more so that they are experiencing averse repercussions. It is very agonizing for a parent to see their child adhere to negative / damming peer pressures, a loving parent will go to great lengths to aid their child, with the hopes of curtailing this new formed behavior. He desires to be with them so that they could sense the genuineness of his intent more so than the sternness of his words. What does it look like when Christ is formed in a person? This is a difficult question to answer, it could have been asked what does a Christian look like? A Christian, a person with Christ formed in them looks just like any person outwardly. However how they live, move and have their being will differ from someone who is not in Christ. Their reasoning, the words that they say, their conduct, their behavior will imitate Christ vise the worlds. These Galatians initially made a decision to follow Christ, they until meeting the Judaizers made and external profession that didn't have internal roots. They heard the Gospel preached however it did not fall on fertile soil. They were enamored about the process of being baptized in Christ, just as some are with marriage in our day, however in their understanding they did not commit to the baptism in Christ it meant nothing, just as some in our day marry but do not commit to it. There acknowledgments to Paul in the early days did not have roots, they were not grounded. They made an emotional decision as many do in our day, at revivals. At camp meeting / revivals etc afterward you may hear a phrase that x-amount of people came to Christ. Some of them actually did unit with Christ as did some of these Galatians, however a greater amount simply made decision without roots. A person having Christ formed in them lives a life whereby the character of Christ is evident in their lives. As opposition come their way they try the spirit with what God has said concerning. As they live move and have their being they are maturing in Christ. Paul willing to go through the delivery process again strongly desires that the Galatians would embrace Christ, ingest His Gospel fully in their lives that The Truth would keep them from another gospel, that they would be able to discern the other gospel and not be deceived by it. Just as Christ was not when Satan approached Him with another gospel. What is the process involved in this spiritual formation? Acknowledging that there is a need for a spiritual change, repentance, renewing of the mind, discipleship, not taking God's grace in vain, allowing the Holy Spirit to lead, adhering to the Holy Spirit as we live, move and have our being. Hearing God as He speaks, studying, and applying what we hear as we live. Living by faith and not by sight. "The Word of God falling from the lips of the apostle or minister enters into the heart of the hearer. The Holy Ghost impregnates the Word so that it brings forth the fruit of faith." Luther The A clause of the quote is good, yet try the spirits, a person should study for themselves as well, the Word will line up if it is from God and according to God. The B clause of the quote is the linchpin, the Holy Spirit, He will not only impregnate but He will guide, lead, help, comfort etc, provide what is needed as we grow if and as we adhere to Him.

Q1. (Galatians 4:10-11) Is celebrating different special worship days essentially wrong? No Why did Paul grieve over the Galatians’ observances? Prior to Paul sharing the Gospel with them, those that worshipped did do as pagans, they did so by way of works in hopes to please the gods. After Paul shared the Gospel those that received it witnessed the Spirit's manifestation, it quickened them, they were living following Paul as he followed Christ. After this upon some visiting Judaizers they were strongly influenced, they did not completely revert to their pagan ways however they did go back to doing works with the hopes of pleasing. Paul was grieved because from what he observed he perceived that they were thoroughly perverted from the Gospel of Christ, that they had turned from Christianity to Judaism. He was grieved that there was yet another conversion in their lives, improper intent of servitude through ceremonies and rites. What significance did these have in terms of their movement towards Judaism? The importance of the Galatians honoring / keeping feast days (Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years), in terms of their movement towards Judaism was that they outwardly became acceptable by the Jews imposing this requirement. For the Galatians in their thinking they were fully being accepted. The danger, the great danger however is that by honoring these observance in the hope of being righteous before God it trumps the principle that one accepts Christ righteousness is the only acceptable righteousness, and that we have it through faith. The danger is that the work of Christ is not valued, that through one's own understanding they do not understand. "The traditions of Judaism, when accepted as ritually binding, were in Paul's eyes fetters which impeded faith and excluded liberty." How can we be blessed by observing special days in our era? Any time we gather honoring God, it can strengthen and edify us, it can also be a maturing occasion. Ritual in itself is not a bad thing, it just simply mean an established behavior, the performance of an act or a system of rites. As mentioned in the lesson Easter, Christmas or special observances in themselves can be These can be helpful to our spiritual lives, when observed thoughtfully. They can be seen as rituals, in fact some non-believers call them such. However for us as Believers we are not to maintain, keep or honor these observances in order to be deemed as righteous before God's eyes. If a person desires to keep the feast days of the Old Testament doing so is not a sin, however what the individual that does so, if person is a Christian they must not do so with the intent of being righteous before God. Christ has fulfilled the feast days of spring (Passover, Unleavened Bread, First Fruits, and Weeks) all recorded in the New Testament; He will fulfill the final three holidays (Trumpets, The Day of Atonement, and Tabernacles) upon and after He returns. As Christians, if we choose to celebrate these special days, we should put Christ in the center of the celebration, as the One who came to fulfill the prophetic significance of each of them. These days demonstrate the work of redemption through God’s Son. From the Old Covenant to the New, Genesis to Revelation, God provides picture after picture of His entire plan for mankind and one of the most startling prophetic pictures is outlined for us found within these feast days, these shadows. The danger in observing them however is when they are misinterpreted, when Christ's work is not seen as it should be, when we place flesh before the Spirit. How can observance of special days become legalistic for Christian believers? Observance of special days in themselves are not legalistic, many Christians do not see Easter observance, or revivals as legalistic. The revivals, convocations or whatever the Protestant denomination calls them more than often occur around the same time each calendar year. Again I don't believe that God is displeased with these gathering, however they too can become legalistic if we deem the days a mantle of or for righteousness. If we place our efforts, labors, works before that of Christ'. I'm being long winded again please forgive, however I'd like to use a well know man of God from his own admission. He had Christ in mind but he didn't have His work first early in his life. John Wesley, preformed what we'd call good works, one after the other. He did ministry in prisons, sweatshops, and slums. He gave food, clothing, and education to slum children. He observed both Saturday and Sunday as the Sabbath. He was a missionary, he studied his Bible, prayed, fasted, and gave regularly. Yet all the time, he was bound in the chains of his own religious efforts, because he trusted in what he could do to make himself right before God instead of trusting in what Jesus had done. Later, he came to "trust in Christ, in Christ only for salvation," and came to an inner assurance that he was now forgiven, saved, and a son of God. Looking back on all his religious activity before he was truly saved, he said: "I had even then the faith of a servant, though not that of a son."

How does the Spirit's filling demonstrate we are full sons? As we live and move and have our being according to His leading will demonstrate that our align with His, that we are His sons. As we reflect Him. His will and not ours we demonstrate that we are His sons. The Spirit's filling is more than and greater than the thought some carry as baptism of the Spirit, full sons in order to demonstrate that they are full sons must have more speaking in tongues as their witness; a full son will not confuse Spirit-filling with sanctification, sanctification in a sense is processing as we live in and through Him; a full son will confuse Spirit-filling with the fullness of the Spirit; having said so within a full son the fullness of the Spirit needs to be evident. The Spirit's filling demonstrates we are full sons as we adhere to it through living, not only at gathering with people of like beliefs, nor while on planned exploits. It is demonstrated as we worship and praise God with our life and our lives not just our lives if there are onlooker or if there isn't. Spirit-filling is the very power of God energizing the faculties of our inner man, it will be demonstrated as we live accordingly. What is the special sense in which the Aramaic word abba is used to speak to one's father? The special sense is that this word conveys the personal, the intimacy in a relationship. Being that adopted this word allows to move beyond the title father to daddy. In no way it is disrespectful, in my marital relationship my wife's title is wife, however when I call out to her when not calling her by name, I may say Honey, Sweetie, these words move beyond the title. the formal word of wife to express intimacy within the relation as does "Abba," we can do this as full sons! Hallelujah. What is the significance of being heirs of God? Being an heir the heir can come before Him without terror, the heir is to do so with reverence, yet not with consternation. The significance, the importance is that the heir once again has the freedom to be once again be in the presence of God. The righteousness of Christ affords them to not only be a recipient of His Grace, nor only an extension of His mercy, but the awesome privilege to reign with Him in eternity. Are we sons in the same sense that Jesus was God's Son? We are more than servant, we are no more a servant / slave to sin. Jesus was His Begotten Son, we are adopted sons, even so through Him, Christ we have an inheritance afforded to us. We become family we are heirs / sons of GOD through Christ Jesus. We all the privileges of a son, as an heir through the Redeemer, and with Him. Another passage of Scripture says that we are joint heirs with Him. In the limited understanding that I have and with a humble heart, I simply say THANK you Jesus for allowing me to be the son that I am, that I can be.

In what sense were both the Gentiles and the Jews enslaved? Improper sense / understanding of piety. Mankind in a sense Jew and Gentile were in slavery under the basic principles of the world. Verse 3 "Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world." The key word "world" "When talking about the Jewish experience, it was the Mosaic law in its condemnatory and supervisory functions that comprised the Jews' 'basic principles' of religion. Later in verse 9 when talking about the Gentile experience, it was paganism with its veneration of nature and cultic rituals that made up the Gentiles ''basic principles' of religion." Paul's point is that the prior to the Messiah's coming, both Jews and Gentiles were under bondage. They both need freedom from their slavery. For a trained rabbi to say such a thing is amazing. Longenecker, "Paul's lumping of Judaism and paganism together in this manner is radical in the extreme.... For Paul, however, whatever leads one away from sole reliance on Christ, whether based on good intentions or depraved desires, is sub-Christian and is therefore to be condemned. What does "redeem" mean in verse 5? Debt resolved, liberated, bought back, paid in full What are the implications of adoption regarding a person's legal and spiritual rights? The inference, that which is implied regarding a person's legal and spiritual rights is that those in Christ are inheritor. The person that is in has access to the same intimacy with God the Father that God the Son, Jesus Christ had. Through Christ Jesus a person is released from slavery. By way of receiving that indescribable act on the cross we have redemption; we are all heirs to God's Kingdom.

Why do you think it took so long to send the Messiah? It was according to prophecy, in Genesis it was prophesied that the children of Abraham would go into bondage in Egypt. Jeremiah and his contemporaries prophesied of the Hebrews going into bondage at the hands of Babylon. In Daniel it was prophesied not only of the four empires, not only of the Hebrews coming out of bondage but also of the arrival of the Messiah. During the fourth empire world reign, after about 490 years ( I can't specifically recall) it speaks the Messiah. This was prophesied by Daniel in chapter 9, there are many, many interpretations on chapter 9 of Daniel, nonetheless it speaks concerning the Messiah regardless how you slice it. Verse 27 is crucial, and I believe it speaks directly to this question. I also agree with Pastor Ralph, for the things he mentioned coincide: The time was right religiously - There was a great need for a refocus; The time was right culturally; The time was right commercially; and The time was right politically. What about the first century world made it fertile ground for the revelation of the Messiah and the spread of the gospel? The influence of the Holy Spirit. After being anointed, Christ began His ministry, He Himself said He came to set the captive free (Luke 4:18). The religious authority of the day were sharing and upholding the gospel from a misunderstood and misinterpreted perspective. The ground was fertile because the prophesy was coming to fruition, as Isaiah prophesied. First unto the Jews and then to the nations, whereby all that came would become children of the Most High.

(Galatians 4:26-29) Do you think Jewish Christians regarded Gentile Christians as second-class citizens? Yes, however I do not believe that all did. I truly understand what is meant when I see or hear the word gentile, however for me, from the little understanding that I have it does not compute, the term Gentile Christian. In my understanding, which I hope aligns with God, the term Gentile Christian is an oxymoron. In fact I believe the same with Jewish Christian. When one is baptized into Christ they are Christians, a child of God, a son of the Most High. I understand that to say Jewish Christian it is a measure of distinction. However the word gentile if to be summed up is defined as "the nations", beginning from the Old Testament meaning a nation not of Abraham; in the New Testament meaning literally Greek, savoring of the nature of pagans, alien to the worship of the true God, heathenish. In basically the term gentile was regarded as one who did not believe in God, they believed in gods. King James Dictionary reads - In the scriptures, a pagan; a worshipper of false gods; any person not a Jew or a Christian; a heathen. The Hebrews included in the term goim or nations, all the tribes of men who had not received the true faith, and were not circumcised. The Christians translated goim by the L. gentes, and imitated the Jews in giving the name gentiles to all nations who were not Jews nor Christians. In civil affairs, the denomination was given to all nations who were not Romans. When regarding myself I do not do so as a African American Christian, I am simply a Christian. I will never refer to any Christian not born a Hebrew as a gentile, because if they are born into Christ they know Him or they are striving to know Him as did Paul Philippians 3:10. As Christians "Our new identity is in him, not in our personal distinctions." Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Again I understand when reading and also when I hear Gentile, it is merely a way to distinguish, however I belief that it a negative distinction and also an incorrect one, those baptized into Christ are no longer Gentile! What is the basis of our unity in Christ? As we are baptized in Him it is an outward expression of faith, our belief in Him; that we believe in the faith of Jesus Christ, we believe in His work on the cross. In what way does this unity pull down barriers? "For [Christ] himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility." (Ephesians 2:14-16) The barriers are pulled down when individual truly follow Christ, let me say it a different way, when individuals truly imitate Christ. When I say imitate not pretending to be like Him, but striving to be like Him. As a Christian walks in the newness of life they strive to execute the concepts found in the Beatitudes. Regardless of one ethnic background, their heritage they strive to adhere to Romans 14:19 & Hebrews 12:14, thereby being in the Body of Christ no one should boast or think more highly of themselves over others. It is unfortunate Christians sometimes, often time when referencing themselves as gentiles erect and propel barriers. I have unfortunately as well witness people from the denomination Messianic Jews do likewise. The wall prior to Christ work on the cross invisible however it was distinctively seen. After His work on the cross He destroyed this wall, unfortunately man makes attempts to rebuild it. Do any groups continue to be regarded as second-class citizens in our congregations? Unfortunately yes. It is sad but true. I've seen this, I've heard of this, and I have read of this. I extend this apology in advance, I do not make the next statement to often anyone. Many denominations do this when they speak against others. What should we do about this? Do as Christ did, for this problem exist as He walked the earth. He lived doing in the Will of the Father, He prayed. We are to adhere as the Spirit leads and address accordingly as He guidance.

What was the purpose of the law? Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, providing guidelines revealing God's holy standard. To bring under control, curtail fallen human nature; to make wrongdoing a legal offense, and; to point us to faith in the Messiah as our only hope. Was it intended to justify a person? No, the law agitates man's intrinsic rebellion by way of revealing a standard, if acknowledged it shows us clearly our need for salvation in Christ Jesus. The Law be it Ceremonial, Moral or Civil saved anyone, just as the serpent on the rod didn't save the people in the desert. The serpent on the rod was a conduit, an instrument if look upon with the correct intent pointed to God. The Law is likewise, it will not save but if looked upon with the correct intent it will point to Christ. We as children of the Most High do not need to keep the Ceremonial Laws Jesus has fulfilled what is required and He will upon His return. The Moral Law are standards that convey right standards to live by, Christ did not do away with them, they want save us, however they provide godly guidelines to live by. The Civil Law from the OT principles as culturally applicable can be good principles to consider and possibly to adapt. Again none of these save anyone, they do not justify, sanctify, nor do they glorify. Christ alone does that, we obtain salvation by grace through faith. In what ways did it restrain sin? The law in my opinion did not restrain sin, if adhered to it allowed an individual to be within an acceptable standard of conduct. If not adhered to and an individual knew of the standard they knew that they were not within the acceptable standard. Paul in Romans paraphrasing said, "If it were not for the Law he would not have known what sin was." In what ways did it expose sin? It reveals acceptable and unacceptable behavior, conduct, and actions desired by God.

What is Paul's argument for salvation by faith based on the concept of the "curse of the law"? Based on a concept of curses found in Deuteronomy 21:23. On what basis do the Gentiles receive "the promise of the Spirit" (3:14)? They receive "the promise of the Spirit" by faith, "that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." Galatians 2:16

What is Paul's argument for salvation by faith based on Abraham? Abraham was justified by faith, according to Genesis 15:6; God promised Abraham that, "All nations will be blessed through you" (Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 22:18); Galatians 3:7, 28-29, those who now have faith in Christ and of His faith are found just as Abraham was, justified and righteous through faith. In what sense are we "children of Abraham"? Paul says it best in verses 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Another strong by Paul passage can be found in Romans 4:16-17. Basically ethnic background nor gender affords an individual privilege nor preferential access to God's deliverance or beneficiary providence. All can become beneficiaries of God's promises to Abraham if we have the faith of Abraham and belong to Jesus Christ.

What argument for salvation by faith does Paul give from the presence of the Spirit? Verses 2 and 5 Paul basically asked them a question and reminds that that they had been with the Sprit (received the Spirit) prior to their doing works with the intent of being saved. They had received the Sprit by faith before they knew of the works that were introduced to them. Upon hearing the Word, the Gospel they entered newness of life and also experience miracles as the Spirit ministered to them. What does this tell us about the spiritual environment of the Galatian churches? Prior to the Judaizers arrival The Spirit was received, there were manifestations of the Spirit (natural and supernatural), the Spirit was forefront, the environment was a dynamic environment. When the Judaizers arrived the Spirit was no longer affront but their spirits began to lead attempting by works vise faith to save themselves. Those that were influenced by the Judaizers fostered a surrounding, an atmosphere that was not conducive to faith / devotion that God desired. The spiritual environment of the Galatian churches was that of legalism. The critical genuineness of justification by faith rather than by the works of the law had been obscured by the Judaizers’ insistence that Believers in Christ must be circumcised in order to be saved or to gain God's approval. There is not a written reference that these certain from James did not believe in Christ. They simple held to what they had learned to be acceptable by God, God told Abram to do it. And that by doing so it would be a token of the covenant betwixt God and Abram (Genesis 17:7-14). This was pre-Mosaic Law, however the concept is found within the Ceremonial aspect of the Law. These Judaizers and others missed the spiritual connection of Abram and held on to the natural, to be bunt in and overview this is what they held to be unique. Through misinterpretation it promoted a strong sense of exclusivity, through their interpretation throughout the years pride and prejudges became strong pillars. Many until Paul acknowledges it did not see that in actuality Abraham was justified by faith and not of any works. How can we regain this dynamic environment in our own congregations? This dynamic environment can be prevalent in congregations that follows the Spirit vise spirits (others, Satan's, leaders or our own). It in a way is a tricky thing yet it isn't, from the Word we gain an understanding. Unfortunately sometimes that understanding may be misinterpreted, there are a lot of denominations that derived from reasoning. For now we see through a glass, darkly. Another Scripture tells us to (1st John 4:1) try the spirits whether they are of God. The Word should be reviewed line upon line and precept upon precept, it was breathed from / by the Spirit, it will guide us. My answer is that we adhere to the Spirit's counsel, the Spirit's counsel will not contradict the Word, God's character will not contradict His Word. The later dynamic that emerged in Galatia Legalism yet exist today, it can be a tricky thing, it can be overt or subtle. Speaking from the subtle view it will not deny that Jesus is the Lord and Savior, or that he died on cross for sins, or that you have to put your faith in Him. However through a congregations doctrine they have interpolated some things that supersedes or conflict what the Scripture convey. These things from their doctrine in themselves may not be bad, just as all that the Pharisees had written were not, but when misapplied and or conflicts what God requires it does not make one a true follower of the Almighty, in fact it contradicts. Legalism in our day does some of the same things as it did in the first century. Display a guarded persona vise being opened and receiving; it alienate and promote exclusivity vise being welcoming and promoting inclusion; it promotes perfection, vise realizing that correction is still needed and that one learns as they grows; it is stern / rigid when imposing disciple vise showing compassion and rebuke with love. We can regain the dynamics of legalism as we continue faithfully pursuing that we have to do a certain thing in order to be saved.

In what sense have we been "crucified with Christ"? Romans 6 in context affirms what is said here, Romans 6:6-18 paints a clearer picture so to speak. We are to surrender to Him, to unit with Him, to surrender all our efforts to His work. " I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live" we just as Paul acknowledged cannot save ourselves, we are crucified as we adhere to this truth. The Law does not save, that was never it's intent. Not only are we JUSTIFIED / FORGIVEN of past sins through Christ work on the cross, He also through this act fulfilled the acceptable requirement. Thus for those whom believed if the faith of Jesus the Christ the requirements that were a shadow are no longer required. Justification includes two elements, pardon, forgiven of our past sins, and the new-birth experience in which we are transformed by the Holy Spirit. When we are justified, we die to The Law in the sense that we are no longer under its condemnation, nor are we misusing it as the means of righteousness and salvation. What does that mean? As we are in Christ Jesus we, nor anyone on our behalf are required or asked to performs physical acts for forgiveness. Hebrews 7:27; 9:28; 10:10. In what sense do "I no longer live"? Paul as should we now lives by and through this truth. He nor should we perform any of the Ceremonial Laws physically or cut away flesh physically in hopes to identify with Christ. Jesus' work on the cross satisfies any ceremonial requirement we are to live differently having this knowledge. Being pardoned, forgiven we are to live a justified by faith, on the righteousness of Christ. Daily moment by moment our desire should be to live in the process of sanctification by the quickening influences of the Holy Spirit. We are to walk /live in newness of life. Whose life now motivates us? Jesus How does this verse relate to Paul's closing comments about the "new creation" (Galatians 6:15 " We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,")? Man's spiritual birth has a greater value than his physical, God has always desired circumcision of the heart, He provided the Ceremonial Laws as a shadow, it was never given to replace the real purpose. What does Galatians 2:20 teach about Christ's attitude toward us? He loved us, His creation and He loves us! He wants to be in close relationship with us.

What happens to the importance of Christ's death if circumcision is deemed necessary to salvation? To the individual(s) that believe such, it taints their faith in Christ. It maybe the antecedent to other works in addition to believing. Mankind is not justified by any work of his own, those whom are justified according to God are justified through Christ Jesus work. Mankind is saved by every man shall be accounted "saved by grace through faith" not by any merit o their own whatsoever. The importance of Christ's work becomes obscured when we add to it, some have placed a greater value on what they do. Why was this issue of the sufficiency of the Messiah's death so important in Paul's day? It was important because it was the truth it was the Gospel. It was so important because it was in accordance with the Will of God, as the Gospel was moving forward, as Christ was being lift up. It was important because to those whom received it because their eyes were opened that God's desired to include them in His master plan. Why was this issue important to Luther and the reformers? It was an affirmation, it was the foundation of their protest, the protest was more than a protest against the Roman Catholic Church, it was more than 95 thesis, it was that people are saved by works. That salvation is not earned by good deeds but received only as a free gift of God's grace through faith of / in Jesus the Christ as Redeemer from sin. Note: Many versions and translations of the Bible debate over "by the faith of Jesus Christ", some change it to "faith in Jesus Christ". I agree that we must have faith in Jesus Christ, however I as well believe that we would not be able to do so if it were not for the faith of Jesus the Christ. Had He not believed we would not believe. Paul in my understanding clears up all in the next few verses. Why is it so important in our own day? It is extremely important in our day, just as it was in Paul's day and the Reformers. The same applies, our eternal salvation is not obtained by any works plus Christ. having said that the way will live should give witness to our faith in Him. There is justification, sanctification, and there will be glorification. Faith is required in relation to all three, the principle is yet real by grace through faith. Romans 4:6,7 through faith in Christ a Believer passes from a rebel, a child of sin and Satan, to the position of a loyal servant of Christ Jesus, not because of an inherent goodness, but because Jesus receives this individual as His child by adoption. After we have made the decision to unit with Christ (justified) we can't just live a riotous live by deliberate choice, that would not convey sanctification, that would convey obvert disobedience, and making God's extended grace a mockery. It would not convey that we believed in Christ, or that we valued His work. We are not saved in our sins but from our sins. As we mature in Christ through the process of sanctification we are not to deliberately enjoin with sin that wouldn't show appreciation of God's grace. Taking Hebrews 12:14 out of context, yet the principle has merit, it holds truth and is true. " Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: without it we want see Him now nor will we see Him in His glory. The Law (no part of it Ceremonial, Civil, or Moral) doesn't save anyone when it comes to eternal salvation, it never did. However it does provide guidance, we cannot live as it appeases us alone, there has to be a bases of standard upon which to judge. The Ceremonial Law doesn't provide the standard of right living that is acceptable. Christ has fulfilled and will fulfill that requirement to be saved. We in our daily lives through choice and choices show our faith and what is the substance of our faith. How does it affect the relative legalism of our congregations? The principle that Paul, Luther and the reformers stood on should confirm what God has said, and that is what we should stand on as well. However we just as the religious authorities of their day inject from our learned behaviors and or traditional upbringings. The other extreme in my opinion is that many misinterpret not under the law as a I don't have to follow any mandate from the Old Testament. That any reference to the Law other than those of prosperity, being the lender not the borrower, the head and not the tail; being victorious over those against us; being healed or in health is regarded as legalism. Many look at the words that Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write but not as his life as a whole. He was not for legalism but he did live by standards of righteousness. To answer the question it affects us in the same manner as it did in the 1st century and after, negatively because the Law was misapplied or misinterpreted then as it is now.

Why do you think Paul confronted Peter publicly rather than privately? 1st Timothy 5:20, I sure this was a difficult things for Paul regardless of the personality that we perceive he had. I believe that he confronted Peter directly and the others indirectly publically because the offense was public. This difficult teaching moment was beneficial to both the offender(s) and the offended as [if] they allowed the Holy Spirit to minister to them. Hypocrisy is a spiritual disease, it is best addressed when noticed in hopes to prevent it from spreading. Do you expect Paul had talked with Peter about this previously? Not sure, I believe that their movements were interdependent. When they gathered to converse concerning the spreading of the Gospel they discussed it's growth. Perhaps they talked about cultural differences but I'm not sure if it was in a manner for corrective actions or to gain a greater understanding but more so conveying what was seen. In the past when I traveled abroad, as I talked among friends, I mentioned some things I noticed, my intent was nothing more than acknowledging. Having said that I was not born again and they were not going on a mission. Being around people returning from a mission now that I am born again, I gained the same sentiment. They were simply sharing what they observed and or experience. In short I'm not sure, if Paul had talked with Peter about the issue. How did a public discussion of this benefit the Jewish Christians? They were able to see the principles of the Gospel in action and active. I'm sure it increased their faith as well. There are references in the Bible were Peter would react quickly providing the circumstances, yet there is no evidence that he became angry here, or that he did not receive the reprimand by Paul with perfect good temper. Peter's actions contradicted faith in Christ, faith in the Gospel. Faith that is not manifested in action is worthless. Faith begins when God speaks. Romans 10:17 explains, "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Every person mentioned in the Bible's Hall of Faith, Hebrews 11, exercised their faith by responding to what God told them to do: Abel offered a sacrifice; Noah prepared an ark; Abraham offered up Isaac; Moses left Egypt. When God said, "Do this," they did it. "Stewardship is what I do after I say I believe" . Author Unknown The Judaizers of this instance, to include Peter and Barnabas professed faith in Christ but denied it by their behavior. Paul and all whom adhered to the leading of the Holy Spirit demonstrated their faith in Christ's grace by appropriate action. When our faith and actions are in complete accord with the Gospel, we are Christians in the true sense. Discord between faith and action results in hypocrisy. How did it benefit the Gentile Christians? They saw faith in action, they more than likely felt good that compassion was shown to them, they saw the principles of the Gospel adhered to. I believe it increased their faith. What kind of pressure do you think this put on Paul? A great deal of pressure, Paul wasn't an outcast but there were difference being that he had once lead in persecution. Peter had been a part of the Gospel movement, he was influential as well, he would be a great person to have on ones side. For Paul to have Peter against him could trouble the waters so to speak. Barnabas was his fellow laborer not having him along side would as well trouble the waters. Peer pressure can be dangerous for those who gave into it and for those who do not, but the Lord was with Paul, He as well touched Peter and Barnabas for we do not read of any grave irritation after this encounter.

(Galatians 2:11-14) Why do you think Peter first embraced the Gentile believers in Antioch and later withdrew from them to eat only with Jews? He embraced them because he had a single focus and was in the Will of the Lord. He later withdrew because he became distracted and perhaps the focus of his will became the more dominate view. Peer pressure, FEAR, He was afraid of criticism, what he perceived they thought of his dining with the Galatians or of what they may have said of his fellowshipping with them. Possibly fear as to what others would think upon hearing about his fellowshipping with the Galatians. We really can only speculate the motives behind his fear, but with certainty we can say that he feared and that he was influenced. What does this tell us about his character? It still needed development as do many of ours. Prior to these men from James Peter would eat with the Galatians. His separating himself upon their arrival shows that he was influenced by them. Peter was not only influenced by their appearing, there was either some monologue or dialogue that took place that may have as well levied the influence. It is not written in exactness as to what was said. However from Acts 15:24 we gather that some things were said by them. Acts 15:24 For as much as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, You must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: Note: For many who hold Peter in high esteem might be surprised by his actions; but we really shouldn't be for we all are at risk do to the weakness and corruption of our flesh, especially at times when we are not anchored. It is easy to criticize Peter; but every person knows what it means to do something you know is wrong. Everyone knows what it feels like to go against what you know very well is right. No man's standing is so secure that he may not fall. Why should he have known better? He had been with Christ, he saw how Jesus interacted among those less desired by the religious authority. Jesus yet conveyed love and concern, inclusion and on occasion shared edification to all within the sound of His voice the need for doing what He was doing or being where He was when He was. What does this tell us about Barnabas? It tells us that he like Paul was influenced as well, it reinforces that peer pressure expressed or implied can be powerful. Acceptance, belonging, are powerful elements, the feeling of belonging is a very powerful force that can outweigh ties to church, family, or community. Peter was a figure head however in ways Barnabas' being carried away with their hypocrisy may have been of a greater capacity. Family and friends misgivings sting is often greater in comparison to an acquaintance or stranger. Barnabas Greek-speaking Jew who had been born in Cyprus. The people perhaps felt a greater comfort around him, he could relate if he grew up around non-Jews. If Barnabas saw his being carried away with hypocrisy as the loving thing to do, so as not to offend these visitors from Jerusalem. He probably felt as many family members do when they do things in a none intentional manner. They feel or assume the potential offend family member should not be offended or hurt. They take their relational connection / closeness for granted. It can be said that compromise is an important element in getting along with others, but we should never compromise the truth of God's Word. If we feel we have to change our Christian beliefs to match those of our compromise, we are on very dangerous ground. Again we can only speculate as to why Barnabas and Peter did as they did, however we do know that they both at that moment were not in the perfect Will of God. We know that the probable affected some in damaging manner. We can speculate that it was God's perfect Will that Paul observed what was going on and addressed it accordingly. Although the Scriptures' were not specifically written to us they are written for us, for our learning. What does it tell us about the political clout of the visitors from Jerusalem? Their influencing Peter, Barnabas and others suggest they either were important figures or well connected. Perhaps they were men of great prestige and influence whereby their voices were heard and recognized. Later in Acts 15 we learn that they were Believer that had came from a sect of the Pharisees, we also learn that they had no commission whatever from James. Have you ever acted like a hypocrite to impress others? Probably more than I would like to believe. I know on more than one occasion at work I have laughed at a joke or two that some may have found offensive. A joke that was not spiritually edifying in any manner. What should you do when you recover your senses? There are however times when I remove myself, there are time when I acknowledge in a none offensive manner that I would prefer not to be a part or engaged in activities as such.

Why is it so hard to take the gospel to different peoples without wrapping it in our own cultural practices? I believe many people do so because of learned behaviors and or traditional upbringings. In others word we inject what we are accustomed to and what we know, these are acceptable norms in our understanding. Somewhere in the middle we apply our values or the origin of what is conveyed stems from value system that we are living by. Can you think of examples of this in Church history? There are too many to list, the first thought comes to mind the Reformation, the Reformers as they broke away whereby we now have many denominations that fall under the auspice of Protestant. Puritans were blocked from changing the established church from within, and severely restricted in England by laws controlling the practice of religion. Since the Reformers basically every Protestant denomination has replicated the same at, they have protest to some principle doctrinal belief, hence we have countless Christian denomination. These denominations fall under orthodox, conservative, contemporary or a hybrid of sorts. Note: Relating to the text of Galatians, meal time was very, very important, it was often a time of fellowship during the 1st century, having a greater valued than most believe in our day. So this posed a great divide, being uncircumcised and eating things some found unacceptable. The noted portion of the Ceremonial Laws imposed causing the divide specifically here was circumcision. The overt opposition here was not being circumcised and eating together. I do not believe that the issue here was the eating of pork, but more so the belief that they were or would eat things that had been sacrificed to idols. By my saying this I am not saying that they did not eat unclean things, I am sure they did, and this would be offensive to the Jews, from their cultural upbringing this would make everything unclean. What is the danger? Instead of bonds being made, instead of being in accord, instead of unifying, biases, prejudices and division (cliques) clicks are formed. Instead of being diversely unified by way of infusion of multiple cultures often dissociation occurs. Through the process of dissociation a gospel moves forward with fragments of the TRUE Gospel. This is a subtle way obscures the Gospel Jesus alone and work yet creeps back into the picture. Circumcision may not be affront however believing that all have to be in exactness by way of abandoning cultural concepts that are not sinful to be accepted brings works affront. The same danger realized in Galatia under a different like. How can we avoid such cultural faux pas in our church's missionary enterprises? We can avoid cultural faux pas by following the leading of the Holy Spirit, many only refer to the like fire with cloven tongues when relating to the Pentecost experience of Acts. Many upon hearing the word Holy Spirit think charismatic, where as the Bible shows greater things occurring. The Gospel move from one setting to another, it moved beyond gathering once a week a repeating the same experience among the same people. People from different ethnic backgrounds understood what was being said about Christ, the Gospel and believed. These people then shared the Gospel, the Gospel then moved from one location to another. We can avoid cultural faux pas by living not according to the comforts of our flesh but by following the example of Christ. The Bible is great it has a lot of example for us, there are many example that warn us, that should not be duplicated. I believe if we follow the example of Christ we can't go wrong. By saying that I am not recommending that one disregard the Old Testament, because the Scriptures were approved by Him, He lived in the time frame whereby He lived according to the Old Testament. He lived according to the Fathers Will and the spirit of the Law. He was not opposed to all doctrine man extrapolated from the Written or spoken Word but He was opposed when it was misapplied, when it was not in accordance with the Spirit or the character of God.

Why do you think Paul seems to distance himself from the leaders of the Jerusalem church (2:2, 6, 9)? I in a sense do not see Paul distancing himself from the leaders, but more so an acknowledge of interdependence. Each group, both have a charge (grace) given to them. These mentioned upon the counsel according to Paul to those that were circumcised; he and Barnabas unto the heathen. In essence these two groups would both be accomplishing the mission they perceived at the time. Paul said what he said as he was lead by the Spirit, and that which he said was relevant not only to the audience but to the mediating circumstances. Note: There is truth to Paul's declaration however it was more so situational vices the Truth, the Gospel. Matthew 28:19 & Acts 1:8 gives the Apostles (actually all that believe) a different charge as does Acts 9:15 to Paul. The Holy Spirit, God placed varying circumstance in their lives where they were force to go beyond their comfort zone (their comfort zone Peter / the Apostle among people with similarities /like them. With Paul among people who received him.) Truth be told Peter and other Jew Christians which were circumcised weren't sharing love, they had biases and perhaps even prejudices that was rooted deep. Peter in Act 10 through Cornelius eyes were opened as was others of / the counsel. Acts 18:6, Paul as he was rejected by the Jews placed a greater effort towards the nations, but never totally negating the Jews (each city he went to, often he would reach out to the Jews). Why does he at the same time write of their approval of his ministry? It affirms the Gospel, it affirms what he is saying, it conveys the authentic of the Gospel and Paul. It confirms the church leaders approval of inclusion. How does this further his argument to the Galatians in this letter? By gaining the church leaders endorsement so to speak it furthers the thought that the Judaizers were promoting a different doctrine whereas Paul was sharing the Gospel.

Paul is arguing that the Jerusalem leaders support his position on circumcision, rather than that of the Judaizers. What is the significance of Paul's mention that Titus was not required to be circumcised? The significance that can be seen by the non-circumcised is that this was not a must. Titus was not a born Jew (he was a Greek), the environment where he would mainly serve were non-Jews as well. Paul refused to circumcise Titus, because he wanted to show those who claimed that circumcision was necessary in addition to accepting Christ's work that it was not necessary. This action affirmed the truth that Paul shared from the Gospel, Christ ALONE is what saves, faith in Him, His work, His works and His purpose. Timothy on the other hand was circumcised, He has Timothy circumcised, and so he doesn’t offend the Jews. Well, Paul says in 1st Corinthians Chapter 9, To the Jew I became as a Jew; to the Greek I became as a Greek. Paul is not comprising the Gospel, Paul fully understood that God prefers circumcision of the heart. Timothy is not saved by being circumcised. Paul had Timothy circumcised, because all the Jews in the area knew that Timothy's father was a Greek, therefore this was done as not to give an offense to some of these Jews. Timothy's mom was Jewish, being that they were going among the Jews, he circumcised Timothy to help him be accepted by the Jews.

What factors in Paul's background made him an ideal apostle to the Gentiles? His diversity, his being a dual citizen, his understanding and ability of multiple languages, his devotion, his compassion. In Paul's own word He was ideal because he was from birth separated and called by his grace. How did God use his being different from others? As he was being used there were some up's and downs that he encounters, however as we look back God used his being different masterfully. Paul initially focused on delivering the knowledge of Christ, the Gospel to the Jews, through varying circumstances he then began to preach Christ among the heathen. As mentioned in Romans he never lost his passion to convey this message to fellow Jews as well. In essence he preached to all, he stayed on course according to what he received on the road to Damascus Acts 9:15: But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel. To ponder: How has your unique background fitted you for ministry? Through varying experience which I did not understand as they occurred. At times I am able to relate and or connect with some that may have had similar experience. There are times when I have handled or dealt with a like situation or circumstance where I am able to access things differently and or give prudent counsel. What uniqueness has God given you? Hard to say, perhaps that would be best answered by those within my circle, those who know me and of me. What will it take to see that uniqueness as a God-given strength rather than as an embarrassment? Can't really answer that as it relates to uniqueness, however over time I have sinned and made mistakes many times. As I surrender myself to His Will, as I allow myself to be available He uses me in ways that I do not realize until quite moment and or when the individual I had the encounter with testify. And there are times when I know that He is using me, it's almost as if I can see things in slow motion as they appear before me, kinda hard to explain. There are just sometimes when I can see God using me clearly.

What is the source of Paul's gospel? Jesus the Christ How do we know that it is a true revelation? By faith, by aligning what has been revealed by Scripture. Problem arises when someone gains a revelation they deem to be true. One or more happen, man lean upon their own understanding; some make it their own private interpretation; some align the revelation with manmade traditions or feelings; some assume greater authority than what the Scriptures have said spiritual leaders should have. Doctrine itself isn't bad however when it does not align with the Scriptures and the character of God there is a problem, it is not according to the Will of God. Jesus told the Pharisees that there works were self righteous, their traditions either were manmade and there were occasions where the Law was misapplied as they felt they applied the letter of the Law while missing the Spirit of the Law. He as well told others as they confess there works in His Name that they were not in the Father's Will. How does it conform to our other foundational sources of Christian teaching? An unfortunate truth is that revelation be it true aligned with the Scripture or if the revelation isn't aligned with the Word of God some will receive it. In the book of Revelations there are some corrupt things that receive a word of rebuke. True revelation from God should behave acceptably, should follow the standard, should be in line with His Will and His Character. Everything else will not be line upon line nor precept upon precept, it will be according to man's will through the influence of Satan. What is the danger of taking the teaching of contemporary leaders as our doctrinal basis without checking it with the Scripture? The danger is that an individual will not be in the Will of God; they as well will not be the salt and light that will best reflect true God. The propagation of The Gospel is thereby obscured. As this travesty perpetuates a doctrine disseminates is the guise as gospel. It hurts me deeply when a non-believer recognizes something erroneous by those whom believes and say and that's Christianity. It appears regardless of what I say an impression has been made and sometimes held.

I am in total agreement with you Servant Of God!

Q2. Paul called the Judaizers’ message as a “different gospel,” a perversion of the true gospel. How is this dangerous to the Galatian believers? The Judaizers' were teaching a different truth (misapplied truth), not the truth. this was dangerous because it was a mixed message. The Judaizers' message (verse 6) was causing those who received it to turn away the one who called them by the grace, in essence as they received this different message it was as if the work of Christ was not enough. So soon removed - Is especially dangerous because it coveys they made a decision, a decision to turn from Him to their selves They had moved from the Rock the only true foundation, to a foundation that surface was as sand. And would pervert - With certainty one cannot that the Judaizers main intent was to turn the Galatians from Christ for it is my belief that if they held Him in a different light than that of those who disdained Him their intent was not malicious. What they were doing though was bringing misguided / misapplied ceremonial principles from their heritage. The guidance God gave their forefathers along the way became polluted and they were continuing in that manner. Works NEVER was a means to salvation, it was from Adam by GRACE through FAITH. God through many Prophets express that man's righteousness according to man was not pleasing to Him, one Prophet siad that it was as filthy rags. It was dangerous because outward acts / works has a tendency to lead to self worth, pride vainness etc... By continuance to depend on self one would turn away from God, people would feel a comfort by way of competing rites and ceremonies. God through the major and minor prophets told the people that these kinds of sacrifices were not worthy. People then and those now who gravitate to this doctrine that the Judaizers project in essence are continuing in the likeness of those who believe in gods, as in we must do this or that to keep the gods appeased. if we do not unfortunate events will occur. How do twisted gospels (or an unbalanced interpretation of the gospel) affect Christians in our day? Paul in verse 7 begins it by saying, " Which is not another. " It is not a Gospel, or good new, it is misapplied doctrine which attributes justification to the works of the law. It attempts to mix grace and works equating to salvation. It affects Christians today as it did for those of the 1st Century, it gives them a false sense of hope, it corrupts, it dishonors God, etc... Works never have save, the Ceremonial Laws were not give to save nor can they save. Having said that when most look at Paul's recording as it relates to the Gospel immediately many attest that the Law was done away with. Not to get on a soap box, nor to cause contention. It is true that Christ Jesus desires relationship, that has been the desire from the beginning, nonetheless there is yet order. To my understanding no one is saved by keeping the Law, we all are saved by grace through faith. We no longer are required to maintain or physically observe the Ceremonial Laws. However the Moral law and some of the Civil Laws do have relevance in our lives today. All will be judge by some standard, where does the standard come from. Love the Lord, Love other both are contained in the Moral Law and Civil Laws that are applicable to our culture. (some civil laws the application may not be applicable however the concept has relevance. Paul himself said he would not know sin if he did not know the Law (Romans 7:7; 6:15; 3:31). Again this does not save in respects to eternal salvation, but it has relevance in our living.