Core Beliefs, and Ideology
When I encounter people of the Hebrew Roots Movement, I find that they are constantly in damage control mode. As I’ve stated before, I believe the HRM began under contrived ideology, not revealed theology and many of its claims appear to have been made under the nose of what it thought was a sleeping or dying Church. Well, those of the HRM have quickly found out that this has not been the case; not only because there are modern scholars who simply disagree with their position, but because the evangelical church has already addressed these issues long, long ago. It’s possible the HRM was convinced that because the majority of evangelical churches do not observe Saturday Sabbath, nor study Hebrew, therefore we must somehow be Biblically illiterate. There is almost no issue that hasn’t been addressed and recorded by Bible scholars and systematic theologians which deal with HRM beliefs even prior to their inception. Along with Spurgeon, Wesley, F.B Meyer, James McGregor, Moody, Murray and countless others, what I believe has gone unrivaled to this day, when it comes to “Faith and Works”, or “Law and Grace”, are the works and theology of Charles Finney, Oswald Chambers, and Watchman Nee. I know there are disputes about these authors, but my point is that the HRM is nothing new under the Sun, and my experience with the HRM, reveals that there is a great deal of frustration among them over the fact that their ideology has been challenged.
The HRM seems to be ever evolving, and after you see what I know to be their beliefs, there’s no question as to why many are in constant damage control mode, and easily frustrated.
The beliefs listed below may seem odd at first, but I have compiled them from a street level point of view. Most of these are not written down somewhere in a church handbook or statement of beliefs page. They are however, exactly what will rise to surface during any debate and reveal that these are the core positions in which the HRM operates.
Core beliefs of HRM:
1) Saturday as the only true and Biblical Sabbath recognized by God or Jesus Christ.
2) The literal written Law of Moses is still in affect as a covenant and supreme guide and standard of which all who believe in the God of the Bible are obligated to obey, follow and draw from as their distinction from unbelievers.
3) Hebrew is the only language by which one can interpret the true meanings or implications of God’s Word.
4) Since we are grafted into Israel according to Romans 11, we are therefore obligated to practice and assimilate with the Biblical standards of ancient Israel.
5) Observance of Biblical Feasts, especially since they are contained in the Law.
Note: I do not mention Jesus Christ and Salvation by grace through faith as a core belief because, although they affirm these things, they do not hold to the view that all things are summed up in Christ, nor is there any mention of the Gospel apart from works. I have never come across a full blown explanation of the Gospel message from any in the HRM, without the addition and mentioning of laws and obligations.
-Lists of beliefs that are differed or undecided upon within the HRM:
1)The whole Law of Moses is still in affect, or only the Decalogue/ 10 commandments is in affect.
2)Should the Temple be rebuilt in Israel, all believers would be obligated to participate with it, in exact accordance to the Old Testament.
3)The penalties and legal proceedings of the Law of Moses should still be in affect and employed by every Christian/Bible based society or government.
4)The advent of Jesus Christ made no alterations to the Law and our obligations to it.
5) The advent of Jesus Christ provided nothing to the spiritual condition of man that wasn’t already available.
6) The advent of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice on the Cross did/didn’t abolished animal sacrifices.
7)The advent of Jesus Christ did not provide for any different manifestation of the Holy Spirit that wasn’t already available.
8)On what Jesus meant when He said He came to fulfill the Law.
9)The Deity of Christ. Some believe He was only a man appointed as Messiah, while others believe He was both Messiah and God in the flesh. But almost all, universally reject the Trinity.
10)Jesus did/didn’t establish a new covenant.
11)We are/aren’t in the New Covenant.
12) Observing all the Biblical Feasts/Feast days.
13)The New Testament is/isn’t God-breathed scripture.
-Common ideologies of the HRM
1)Nothing has changed with Jesus Christ, therefore our identity with ancient Israel is the only Biblical standard for living.
2)When Jesus returns, He will set up or reinstate life under the Law of Moses, therefore we must prepare for that by living under the Law of Moses now.
3)Since we are to live under the Law of Moses, and the 10 commandments were written in Hebrew(supposedly), the study of Hebrew is the only true way of interpreting them.
-Catch phrases commonly used (in one way or another).
1)The purpose of the Holy Spirit is to help us live according to the Law and not according to the Spirit as a self-sufficient form of righteousness.
2)Jesus is the Torah(Law).
3)We are supposed to keep the Law because Jesus is the Torah, and He said, “If you love Me, you will keep My
4) Since the Bible says that sin is transgression of the Law, and there is still sin, we must still be under the Law.
5) Faith has always existed according to Hebrews chapter 11, therefore there is no such things as righteousness through the Law, it was always by faith.
6) Faith has always existed according to Hebrews chapter 11, therefore salvation by grace through faith has always existed. It is not exclusive to the New Testament.
7) Jesus only/simply removed the penalty of the Law but not the Law itself.
8) We are supposed to keep the Torah because Jesus kept the Torah and He is our example.
These points above comprise the bulk of the HRM doctrines, or lack thereof. All of these issues, I will subsequently address either directly or indirectly throughout this blog. The theology in each article will confront at least one if not more of the points listed above, but I fully plan on addressing and confronting every point that is listed at some time or possibly dedicating one whole article for that purpose.