For SDA's on Sunday worship

Eric responds

The problem is that you are trying to "introduce a principle" about Bible truth - the commands of God the Creator "when not repeated it is deleted". I am showing that such a rule does not work in either NT or OT.

You clarify the point above by saying "I wish to insert this rule ONLY at a dividing line IN the NT BETWEEN the Gospels of the NT and the Post-Cross teaching of the Apostles".

However creating that "insertion" in the middle of the NT - takes more than wishful thinking. You have to show something to the effect "where not repeated it is deleted and we can ignore the teachings of Christ in the Gospels if not repeated by the Apostles later".

As I said before --

I admit that proving your case would need to be objective, and detailed to make the case. So far I have not found that regarding the case you are claiming for the division between the Gospels and the NT authors or the precross Christ vs the postCross Christ.

Rather, as we find in Heb 13 "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Regarding Galations 4 --

Well in that case -- well done!

I would agree that Galations deals with both problems. Both the problem of Judaizers wanting to establish "another Gospe" - one of works "Which is NOT REALLY another Gospel" because it is "NO Gospel" (Gal 1:6-11). Paul flatly condemns this error and says they are losing salvation over it. Far from a "less beneficial gospel" - Paul says it is sending them to hell.

And Paul address the fact that these pagans newly converted to Christianity were ALSO having the problem of incorporating pagan "observance" of days, seasons etc. Paul flatly condemns this and declares that they are losing their salvation over it. Far from "condemning all that might condemn their practices" as he does in Romans 14 when it comes to the annual feast days - Paul says their practice of OBSERVING these days is sending them back to paganism and they are losing salvation over it.

#1. Paul never criticizes scripture or God's Word or the Creator's law - ever.

#2. He begins by criticizing the "Jewish error" of thinking that the law "is a means of attining salvation" that was 'never true' says Paul "for IF A Law had ever been given that could produce life THEN INDEED righteousness would have been based on LAW" Gal 3:21

#3. But NONE of this is called "paganism". There is a clear distinction between the errors of the Hebrews regarding the Creator's laws and the errors of pagans worshipping false gods and creating pagan systems of worship.

And in this you are correct. Paul is arguing that they are in fact going back to those very practices.

There no way to equate pagan systems with God's own feastival days which Paul affirms and where Paul even "Condemns" ANYONE that would condemn Christians that keeep them (see Romans 14).

In fact Paul himself kept them as we see in the NT.

Indeed your mixing of God's Law with paganism DOES make them both "practicaly the same thing" if you choose that interpretation for Galations 4.

Not only does it make God the author of paganism - but it aims the condemnation of pagans in Gal 4 - at Paul and all Christians in Romans 14 for in Gal 4 the "very practice is condemned" and in Romans 14 the "very practice is defended to the point of CONDEMNING anyone who would condemn the practices of Romans 14".

You simply walk into a hornets nest of self-conflicted notions when you do that. That is why I urged you to take care before walking into that set of contradictions by you using Gal 4 to shoot Paul in Romans 14.

Calling the Creator's OT days "paganism" and calling the practice of those "paganism" as you seek to do with Gal 4 makes God the author of paganism AND condemns Paul who HIMSELF practiced those very observances.

Indeed I would and more than that - I would argue that Romans 14 clearly defends "OBSERVING ALL the Days" God gave. And I would argue that Paul shows that he himself kept some or all of those days after the cross.

So then the giants of faith in Heb 11 are NOT OT saints? The success models that the NT author gives of "Salvation received" in Heb 11 are NOT OT saints?

Come one Eric - we both know that your statement fails on these points.

The errors of the Jews post-cross AND pre-cross were NEVER the "errors of God" as HE taught them to the Jews. He did not teach errors. His law is not paganism. It is not error - not even a little.

"If you love Me KEEP My commandments" John 14:15.

"So live and act as those to be Judged by the Law of Liberty " James 2- where quotes from that law are in fact quotes of the 10 commandments in James 2.

IF your view "had been true" then in Romans 14 Paul would be "required to condemn those who observe aLL those days AND the one that observes even ONE of them above another".

#1. In Romans 7 Paul says God's law STILL defines Sin.

#2. In Romans 7 Paul never says that sinners may blame their conduct on God OR on His Law -

#3. In Romans 7 the solution is never - "destroy God's Law" OR "God's Law is another form of paganism"

Eric said

Indeed the Jer 31:31 principle is clearly shown in the NT. For the Gospel was "preached to US just as it was to them also" Heb 4:2.

Even so - Paul never calls the Jewish error and misuse of God's Law "paganism" - nor does he call God's law "nearly the same thing as paganism".

Here we find another weakness in your argument.

Lets take a law that is in fact ended at the cross. The laws regarding animal sacrifices.

EVEN the pagans today or the most blind legalist can not be condemned by the laws about animal sacrifices because those laws no longer apply. They condemn no one.

But the 10 commandments DO continue to define sin and do continue to condemn sinners. They CONTINUE to be authorotative and so Paul quotes the 5th commandment in Ephesians 6 in the UNIT of 10 saying "This is the FIRST commandment WITH a promise" and argues that it is still authorotative and binding.

Because "observing" seasons and months and days - as they were doing - WAS in fact the return to the very things they had been doing - in honor of pagan gods.

Paul does not make a case in Gal 5 that "These are the only sins it is possible to commit".

Your argument above "needs" that to be the case. Neither do a list of "violations" become the new "10 commandments".

Building 10 commandments out of "violation lists" (as we also find in 1Cor 6 and elsewhere) would be conjecture rather than exegesis.


Eric said

Paul never says "it is ok to commit this sin".

Paul never says "it is ok to break the Sabbath".

James says that "he who is guilty of one is guilty of all" in James 2.

I do not find quotes actually saying what you seek to find - I see your list of one sin-list missing out on other sin-lists - but I see no "9 commandments" declared as the new "optimized set".

In Christ,

Bob

 

As I explained before, the Sabbath command was of a different nature than the others. God positively cannot allow us to worship other gods or idols, misuse His name, dishonor our parents, kill each other, commit adultery, steal, lie or covet. The Sabbath was neither spiritual nor moral, but rather a "memorial" as you call it, that was actually a shadow of Christ, will give us rest and a new Creation in His Kingdom. Thus it is fulfilled, and this is the only application of it in the New Testament Church. That is why it changed. You can't compare it to the other commands.
The tithe was another command that was eased in the transition (a free will offering as you are able, rather than a mandatory 10%. I forgot which practice the SDA maintains).

You yourself said it earlier: Baptism (as well as Communion). You can also add witnessing and suffreing for Him. All of these things instructed to us are "commandments". You can't assume "the Ten Commandments" every time you see that word.

Of course what is God's is Christ's, but God in the OT commanded one thing, and then God in Christ through the Holy Spirit commanded the Church something else. God can change His rules if He wants to, and if you take that "same yesterday, today and forever" to try to disprove this, then the sacrifices must still be in effect as well.

No, YOU said I was arguing that. That's precisely the problem. You try to interpret what my statements mean, then actually believe I was arguing that. What I said was that God for some reason did not command it before Moses. the Fall occured after Gen.2:3, so whatever significance it was to have in the unfallen world was not revealed. Why call this "keeping it a secret", as if man was being denied some knowledge due him? God can reveal what He wants when He wants, as I said before.

Never "admitted" this. What I was allowing for was your theory that the act of sanctifying it then made it intended to be applicable to all man. But we just do not see it commanded then, nor anyone condemned for not keeping it (with all the over sins man was being condemned for), so if it was to be given then the Fall must have changed it.

He couldn't say that when He never commanded it of them in the first place. Once again, Moses was the first person recorded that He revealed the Sabbath to and explained its significance. Why is that so hard to understand? Genesis 2 is a narrative, and God is not commanding anything to anyone there.
Why the Fall would change it? We are not told. Perhaps because God now had to start with a single nation to carry His truth to the world, and first raise up its patriarchs, then this nation would be given the Sabbath as their "identity" as God's people. Still, this does not change the fact that it was not recorded as revealed, commanded, enforced or even warned about then.

Before, I allowed for the possibility that it was in some way intended for all men. But still, Gen & Mark do not exactly say this (you are reading it into them). So here is an example: there are many things "made for man[kind]" that not all men get to use or are expected to use. My job operating NYC subway trains was made for man (certainly not made for animals, plants, etc), but that does not mean that you can be reprimanded for not showing up to work at one of our terminals and operating. The prison system was made for man. But not all are expected to go there. It is only under a certain circumstance that it is for a given person. Likewise, God made marriage holy at the beginning (and it pictures Christ and His bride, the church forever), but no every man is mandated to get literally married (The Jews seemed to think so, though!) So even though you may be noticing me wavering between two possibilities (that it was intended in some way for all of man, or that it wasn't for all men), still, you are reading too much into "mankind" and even "sanctified". Jesus was instructing, for those who were keeping it, that the priorities of the Jewish leaders were mixed. They made it a burden, as if man was made to do this thing for God. But Jesus showed that whatever reason He gave it to whichever mmen he gave it to, it was for them, not them for it. He is not saying anything about the whole world of men for all ages.

I answer it, and then you simply say:

Once again, this logic would render all 613 commandments of the Law as still in effect. (Did God change since giving them?). I have given the scriptures where the Sabbath was no longer binding. read them instead of reinterpreting them.

No it does NOT say that! You are reading into it something that is just not there. Paul is dealing with one problem and one problem only, and that's the influence of Jewish leaders. They would not be teaching pagan practices, but rather were trying to get them to keep the Law of Moses (2:14, cf. Acts 15:1). do not add to the text.

I never said what is in bold. What I said was wahat you got right in #2. There may be a distinction between the two errors, but both will render the people still lost, so that's why Paul says they are in effect returning to their old lives.

What Romans 14 (as well as Col.2) is teaching is not to Judge anyone over a day. I vever said people were to be condemned for keeping any of them. No, they were defended, but only as a persons wn choice as unto the Lord. What's being condemned is one who does keep them mandating them to everyone. A person can keep or not keep them if they choose, and neither is anyone to condemne anyone else for keeping or not keeping them. And this once again would include the weekly sabbath.

Here you continue twist and reinterpret my statements, and ignore my explanations of them. If they were trying to be justifuied by keeping God's laws, they were just as lost as when they were keeping pagan days. Nowhere did I say God's laws were pagan.

But the principle still applies, for without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. They need Christ, of whom the sacrifices were a shadow.

But no one is building a new 10 commandments. The point is, that we do not even live by "the 10 Commandments", as such a neat point by point code. That's the letter. But the letter did not include physical lust and anger. So yes, with the moral and spiritual laws, the letter commandment can be quoted as a reference, but that still did not prove the sabbath was still in effect. We walk by the spirit now, (who will of course enforece the letter as well as the spirit of the moral and spiritual commands). But He is not today convicting anyone to keep the sabbath. If so, then you would have to assume we have all resisted Him to the point of being seared with a hot iron (possibly the unpardonable sin), and as I said before, that we were all lost.

Most of us believe many of them are not, for that reason. Those that are are those who avoid those paractices, knowing it is not pleasing to Christ (then the question remains why they still remain in that institution)

 

Eric said --

No question. The point was that the "real" forgiveness that we see in the OT even to the extreme case of those taken directly to heaven in the OT with dying the first death - is all through the shed blood of Christ. Because as Paul said in Romans 4 "God counts those things that are not as though they are" and gives the case of him calling Abraham "the Father of many nations" while as yet he had no children.

quote: Bob said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the 10 commandments DO continue to define sin and do continue to condemn sinners. They CONTINUE to be authorotative and so Paul quotes the 5th commandment in Ephesians 6 in the UNIT of 10 saying "This is the FIRST commandment WITH a promise" and argues that it is still authorotative and binding.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Was there an answer to that in your post?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Eric said

The commandment says "Remember the Sabbath day to Keep it Holy... the seventh day is the Sabbbath Of the Lord God.. FOR in Six days the LORD MADE... and Rested the Seventh day - therefore the Lord Blessed the seventh day and made it holy".

It is a "memorial" (a remembering) of that creation fact about our Creator.

So instead of being a "predictive" shadow given to mankind in Eden to "predict some future act of the Messiah" - it was a memorial of the Creator's creative act in the past.

Eric said

There is no possibility of viewing this as something Adam was given to point forward - out and away from the Garden of Eden - to a new Earth in the restored Kingdom.

Eric said

The system that God set up had "both" tithes AND offerings. SDAs have maintained that practice.

Both the 10% tithe and free will offerings of no specified amount. Not "either/Or" - but as the Bible describes them - "both-and".

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric said --

It's the elements (days, seasons, etc) that he is criticizing them for falling into, regardless of whether they are pagan or Jewish.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob said --

 

Uh, Yes...; the next to the last paragraph, immediately after the quote of your statements on the 10 Commandments.

And that creative act of the past is a shadow of His even greater Creative act in the future.

Once again, you have to look at the context (which often extends beyond even the chapter). Chapter 2 and 3, it is the Law he is speaking about, and v.21 he begins again, with "you who desire to be under the LAW", and continues into ch.5 with that. This is the whole context. Paganism has nothing to do with it. You can't assume that "pagan was what they were, so this must be what they were "returning" to.

They used to be "without God, dead in sins", any by simply trading pagan laws for the Mosaic Law, they were "returning" to the same state, though it may have looked less ungodly. There is no "addition" or "another" problem here. Only the Judaizers are mentioned. Why would they return to paganism, while the Jews are leading them to keep the Law? It makes no sense.

What proof is offered of this? "Nothing here is ordained by God" sounds like a nice way to read it in there, but who said anything about "ordained"? Jews who followed God's "ordained" laws were still just as lost as pagans when they were without Christ and trying to justify themselves, and Paul was warning the Galatians that they were in danger of "returning" to that state, regardless of which path they used to return.

And returning to justification through the Law invalidates the gospel no less and is neither to be defended .

There is no proof for this. Those Jews were very rigorous in their practice of the Law, and would not bring in any paganism. Once again, the Law is all we see mentioned in the surrounding texts. We cannot add "paganism" just to try to prove sabbatarianism.

It is "to inspect alongside" (i.e. to note insidiously or scrupulously). "Insidious" can be to "intended to entrap or beguile", or "stealthily treacherous or deceitful", or better yet, "operating/proceeding in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way, but actually with grave effect". The trusting in the Law the Jews were "bewitching" them with (3:1ff) was definitely those things. It says nothing of it being necessarily astrology or other pagan practices. But nice try, though.
(BTW, where did you get that quote from, anyway)

[ December 16, 2003, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

Your response has a few problems.

#1. If you turn the text of Galations 4 into - keeping God's commands - out of a works-based-ethic of Legalism --- then it becomes an "error" all unto itself no matter what the day is "Sunday or Sabbath, Pentecost or Passover, Pagan feast etc" and would not be a source of "commendation and approval" from God - in any age.

In other words - it would indicate "no change". As Paul points out in Romans 9 - the failure of the Jews along that line - was a pre-cross failure. "A Gospel based on works and legalism" was never approved. Continued condemnation of it - (as you claim to find in Gal 4) does nothing to show a "change" in God's Law or salvation or the gospel.

#2. However the facts of Gal 4 do not support your view above (even though I would not mind your taking the view listed - since it does nothing to show a change in Sabbath). In Gal 4 there is no "right way" argued for observing the "seasons" (something that even the Jews did not do). Rather - the practice is condemned NOT simply "observing with the wrong attitude" or "Observing apart from faith".

This outright condemnation of the practice itsel without any reference to whether the "observance" is "of faith or not" is the opposite of Romans 14. It is applicable only to real "pagan practices". Hence the mention of them in the text.

Impossible to miss.

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you just admitted above - the reference in John 14:15 "If you love Me KEEP My Commandments" before the Cross HAD to include the Sabbath commandment and in Luke 23 the fact that they "Rested on the Sabbath according to the Commandment" makes it "crystal clear".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said

It is that "change" to the commandments and to the Word of Christ that we are studying here. There is no reason to change His Word or His statement in John 14 as Christ quotes from the 10 commandments to make His John 14:15 statement.

Further - the examples you give (which are the ones that Christ gives in Matt 5) show a deepening that KEEPS the initial "real" meaning of "adultery" and "killing" and "stealing" and yes - even "Sabbath".

In other words - there is never a case where "abolishing" or "ignoring" is a "better and deeper keeping" of any commandment. Hence all the examples given by Christ of that deeper meaning - require continued obedience to the commandment brought into view as all the Matt 5 examples show.

In Christ,

Bob

 

So what this shows us is that the times they were observing were not now mandated by God, though they once were. In the OT, they were to keep the times "in faith", but many didn't, instead counting on it as their justification. Now, these same type of people would try to impose their works righteousness on the gentile converts by mandating observances that were fulfilled by Christ. They would not have been keeping those days for any other reason, so Paul is alarmed. But if individual people decided to keep the days "unto the Lord" (personal devotion to Him, not as a means of justification), it would not be condemned by Paul, but defended. He knew that was not why all of a sudden the Galatians began keeping days. That is the difference.

The word is really "times" in the KJV, which gives us a better idea of its meaning: "an occasion" (i.e set or proper time) There were plenty of these under the Mosaic Law. Sorry, but this attempt to make these pagan observances simply fails on all counts. Once again, the only "right way" to keep them is unto the Lord, without trying to justify yourself or mandate them to others.

Once again, as I have said before, the moral and spiritual laws are eternal principles in themselves. The Sabbath (though you do not agree) is a shadow whose eternal principle is fulfilled by Christ in our lives and in the future Kingdom.

 

Eric said -- So what this shows us is that the times they were observing were not now mandated by God, though they once were.
</font>[/QUOTE]Unfortunately for your view - if we followed your initial claim - it shows no such thing. If this was just a "faithless" "Godless" observance of Levitical feast-days that you claim it is - it would be condemned in both OT and NT by God AND would no more "change the Sabbath" in the OT than in the NT. Nor would condemning this error change the obligation of mankind to obey God faithfully "either in the OT or the NT".

There is no age of mankind - were condemning "Error" would mean "stop obeying God" or "change the day that is Sabbath" or "ignore Sabbath now". Condemning an error would not have "changed anything" in the OT or the NT.

If indeed this is simply the error of "godless" and "faithless" observance of Passover (as you seem to want to claim).

In Christ,

Bob

 

Eric said

Again. These are not the "faithFULL" OT saints of Heb 11. Even if your view is right - it would no more indicate a change in the NT than correcting the "godless" and "fathless" non-Heb11 people in the OT.

Your use of this text to get at the Sabbath or show a change on that basis - would fail.

The problem is that - this shows no change in the law from the OT - IF all this is - is condemning paganism which is the "godless" and "faithless" practice of religion that would have been condemned EVEN in the OT (see Isaiah 1) under the FULL authority of the Law.

You just wiped out the use of Galatians 4 to make your case for "change".

But as for the fact that your interpretation itself is incorrect for Galations 4 --

Eric responds

As already pointed out -- Paul shows "no right way" to "observe" them. In Romans 14 he says that those who observe "one day above another" (NOT a reference to months or seasons or years) does so for the Lord.

But in Galations 4 the practice -- the "observance" itself is "condemned" unconditionally - no "correct way" to observe is listed since this is a pagan system consisting of the "elemental things of this world" and the service of those "that are not gods" as Paul said.

Eric said

You "need" to show that Christ the Creator's 7th day holy day made as a memorial of His creative act in making mankind - made as a blessing for mankind - is "ok to ignore" in contrast to all other laws listed in Matt 5 that Christ "did not abolish" - you "need" to show that in the special case of Sabbath "ignoring it" in some "deeper way" is to "deepen it".

But you don't get that as an example in Matt 5 - in the pre-cross statements of Christ on the Law and the deeper meaning of the Law.

Neither do you get it in His quote of the 10 commandments "IF you Love Me Keep My commandments" in John 14:15.

Frankly - you have not found a text to base that view upon.

In Christ,

Bob

 

There are places in the OT where God condemns the way they keep the laws, or the fact they they try to justify themselves through it while ignoring other principles (Amos is one example I can think of now). Of course, they were still under the law, so there was no "change". But now, in the NT, it had changed, and Gal.4 is one of the proofs of this. With gentiles coming in who never kept the Law of Moses, but had their own pagan days, which of course they gave up, and the Law fulfilled in Christ; for these same types of Israelites, who looked to the Law for justification, to come polluting the new converts, Paul would note that they, having been freed from the "elements" of paganism, would now simply trade them in for the "elements" of Judaism, when they had supposedly accepted Christ. I don't see what's so hard to understand. I didn't say Gal.4 is what "changed" it; it was changed, and the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to teach this change in his letters.

He never says "there is no right way to observe them", so you are arguing based on a point that is not there. Of course he would be telling them about any "right" way to observe. They had no reason to observe them other than being influenced by these false Judastic teachers. The priority was to get them to stop adding works to God's grace. Just like he tells them that if they get that circumcision, Christ will be of no profit to them (5:2). Now, most males are circumcised in this society today, so does Christ profit them nothing? No, it was only those who had a problem using the Law to try to justify themselves. That is why Paul seems to "condemn the observance unconditionally". It would be to the Jews who thought everyone had to keep the days, or from any who would try to stop others from keeping them, that Paul instructs on "the right way" (unto the Lord).

We're not ignoring it; we're fulfilling it in the spirit. (Matt.11:28, Heb.4). Col. 2 plainly tells us that it is a "shadow".

 

Hay

Ezek.45
[17] And it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.

The sabbath, a shadow of Christ? Nope. The meat and drink offerings of the sabbath,new moons and holy days? Yup, theres the shadow. Hmm...Isnt Jesus called the prince of peace?

Col.2
[16] 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:

 

Some new testament verification on above scriptures

HEBREWS 9[1] Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. [9] Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;[10] Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.[12] Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal
redemption for us.

verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service - Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances,

It was these laws contained in the ordinances that Jesus nailed to the cross, and not the 10 commandments.

 

PS
Im not an sda.

 

Eric said

So also is Isaiah 1 and Malachi 1:10-11.

Condemning those errors made no change at all in the Law for Isaiah - any more than they would make one in Galatians 4.

You would need something "else" to show the change - not the existence of Isaiah 1 or Malachi 1 errors.

Those errors are in fact being brought to view in Galatians 1-3. But in Galatians 4 I see the additoinal error of pagan practices - pagan observances being brought in - for which there is no "right observance" possible.

Eric said

As I keep saying - you cannot claim that Gal 4 is merely addressing the "godless" and "faithless" practices of ISaiah 1 and Malachi 1 and use that to show a change for God, or His Law or the God-honoring saints.

Eric said

The "problem" for your view - is that Galatians 4 is not showing a change - it is showing the "Same" error in the NT as we see in the OT regarding the "godless" and "faithless" practices of Isaiah 1 and Malachi 1 (If we take the view you have proposed - which I do not).

I am simply pointing out - that as you say above - "you already have a change in mind" before coming to this chapter - this chapter can not be used to "show a change" since you make it "only" address the "godless" and "faithless" practices and errors that were already condemned in the OT.

This puts your argument back to square one. Needing a text that shows a legitimate change in the TRUE law and commandments NOT a text condemning errors that were the same OT and NT.

Eric Said --

I am saying that their mixing in their "no god" pagan practices regarding "seasons, months, years, days" etc - based on "elemental things" like the god of harvest, sky, fertility etc - were not "approved" practices no matter how many "nice thoughts" they were able to have while doing them. Paul utterly condemns these pagan "observances" as being themselves - a return to paganism.

Eric said

Paul has Timothy circumcised in Acts 16 right after the Jerusalem council. This does not cause Timothy to "lose salvation".

But in Galatians 4 - Paul says that "observing seasons etc" does. There is "no right way" given to observe the pagan practices listed in Gal 4.

Eric said

Substituting the Law for the Messiah - or faith in God was condemned already in Isaiah 1 and Malachi 1 - this made "no change in the law".

To find a "basis" for change in law - you can not keep going back to your view that Gal 4 errors are the same errors of Isaiah 1 and Malachi 1.

Eric said

The shadows of Col 2 are the annual feast days. We do not "fulfill" them today - we "ignore" them as shadows where type - met antitype at the cross.

These were not "made for mankind" and given to mankind before the fall - before sin - before the need for a savior.

They are not going to be kept "From Sabbath to Sabbath" in the new earth - but Sabbath is.

These were not a part of the 10 commadments.

And there is no case where any of the commandments are "fullfilled" by ignoring them.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Once again, I didn't say Gal.4 "changed" it. It's all the relevant NT scriptures (Col.2, Rom 14, Acts 15, etc) taken as a whole, plus the fact that all of these Gentiles were coming in who never kept the sabbath, and they were instructed in all the ways of God, but not the Sabbath.

v.8 is part of Paul's reference to their old religion. He didn't say that they returned to exactly the same old beliefs/practices. The point was that though they may have now come to knowledge of the true God, their reliance on the Law makes them just as separated from Him as when they were following what were "no gods".

And I explained why circumcision and observance of days are condemned in them, but OK for others. They were using them wrong, trusting them as mandates for justification, where others who simply kept them unto the Lord for themselves, it would not be condemned. So Timothy could be circumcised, as most males today.

In the spirit, it is not "ignoring" them, but fulfilling them. You are still confusing the letter and the spirit.

But now the whole Creation is fallen, and soon to be replaced by a new one. That is why God does not have us still celebrating the old one.

In Lev.23:14 the feast day, and the OFFERING were said to be "eternal"! If one is going to be consistent with the "eternal ordinance" theory, then one should also be oo keeping offerings. See also Ex.27:21, 28:43, 29:9, 28, Lev.3:17 And circumcision was also an "everlasting covenant" (Gen.17:13). But it is understood how Christ fulfilled those commandments, so the same thing applies to the other ceremonial points of the Law. This is why Paul quoted Deut. 27:26 & 21:23 in Gal.3:10,12— "cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law..."; "The man who does them shall live by them". If you keep the sabbaths and dietary laws, then you must be consistent and keep the sacrifices too, else you are under a curse, and remember that nobody can keep the whole Law perectly. If Christ's work didn't fulfill all of those laws, then it doesn't fulfill the sacrifices either.

And earlier, Downsville had said:

You all will admit that the Law that was abolished-was the Law of Moses. But then people try to separate the Ten Commandments from the Law of Moses as a "separate eternal covenant" in itself. Mark 7:10, Romans 7:7 and 13:9 show that the Ten Commandments are apart of the Law of Moses. The dietary Laws are also apart of the "Book of the Law" (i.e— the rest of the Law outside the 10 commandments, which you admit was "nailed to the Cross"), but you all still mandate them. It seems people do not understand what a covenant was (1Tim. 1: 5-8) God had made an agreement with the children of Israel that they would be His peculiar people IF they kept the laws that were the sign of this agreement. Every sabbath, feast day ceremony and ritual offering was apart of this pact. If one party breaks that agreement, then the WHOLE CONTRACT is ended, which means EVERYTHING included in the contract, no matter how long it was to be in effect; even if it was established "forever", and even if it may have preceeded the giving of the Law, such as circumcision and sacrifices. The mistake is to assume that the laws of the Old Covenant, since they were instituted "forever", were therefore TRANSFERRED to the New Covenant, with certain modifications (meat sacrifices replaced by Christ's sacrifice, etc). But that covenant belonged to those Israelites ONLY, and no one else (except Gentiles who had joined with the physical Israelites under that Old covenant). Covenants can not be transferred.
The sabbath was mentioned in Moses' account of Creation, written long after the fall, and is apart of the Law of Moses, despite some undescribed hypothesized original intent to impose it upon all men from Creation. The Fall occureed, this changed things, and God ended up giving it to Israel only, and not continuing it for the Church. In the Kingdom for eternity, who knows. We cannot build current Church practice upon suppositions of original or eternal intents.

The commandments of Jesus are not a 'Ten Commandment' code even though some of those commandments are repeated. The reason they are repeated is not because the whole Ten Commandment Law is still in effect as such a neat point by point code, but because those individual commandments were meant to spell out the universal TWO commandments. If a person loves his neighbor,then he naturally will not do anything that violates the last 6 commandments (Rom.13:8-10), and if he loves God he definitely couldn't violate the first three; —Even though he does not necessarily ascribe to the observance of the "Ten Commandment" Law. T

 

"Of all the commandments, which is the most important." "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these"(Mk.12:28b-31). Matthew adds this to the end of this parallel scripture: "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments"(Matt.22:40;see also Matt.7:12). Also Jesus, while correcting the Pharisees, said this: "But you have neglected the more important matters of the law-- justice, mercy and faithfulness"(Matt.23:23b). Paul stated this, "The entire law is summed up in a single command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself'"(Gal.5:14) Love is fulfillment of the law(Rom.13:8-10). Mark then continues: "Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices"(Mk.12:32-33).


This man stated that the offerings and sacrifices were definitely connected with the Ten Commandments and the Law. And, as such, so were the various ordinances to which God had commanded. Mark confirmed that the man had wisely spoken: When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God"(Mk.12:34a).

So then since these ordinances and commandments were all part of the Law, did Paul say that only part of the Law was nailed to the cross or all of the Law? It sounds a little suspicious to me to separate them.

Jesus said that all the Law hung on these two commandments and then Jesus himself added this command: "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you"(Jo.15:12).

Jesus was the conclusion and fulfillment of the law. We are now under the law of Christ, which is an embodiment of the Law of Moses, now defined, as stated by Christ(Gal.6:2). It is now the law of love and grace, the law that gives freedom(Jam.2:12).

"by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of two, thus making peace"(Eph.2:15).

"Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ"(Col.2:16-17).

Therefore, since we are told to come together on the first day of the week to break bread and to give offerings by the apostles, as this is truly the day to celebrate the resurrected Christ, let us honor the reality. And the reality is this: From evidences provided by early christian writers, as early as 80-90AD, christians were in fact worshipping on Sunday. Some writers wrote long treatises to the jews admonishing them on their Sabbath worship.

I believe the Law was in fact nailed to the cross--in its entirety. We now live under the laws of Christ-- which basically you can say is summed up in love.

I love Jesus Christ everyday, butI choose to do my worship in love on Sunday. If you choose Saturday, then love him Saturday. But do not impose on me that I am wrong for worshipping Christ on the day of his glorious resurrestion! Thank you. Go with God.

 

Eric said

On the contrary "There Remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God" Heb 4.

The idea that the NT saints hid from the Gentiles the "Sabbath made for Mankind" Mark 2:27 is an error since in fact the gospels themselves where written to the gentiles and contained Christ's teaching on the Sabbath.

Eric Said

And I answered that condemning an error already condemned in the OT (See Isaiah 1 and Malachi 1) does not "Show a change in the law".

The point is that in Galatians 4 this is not the practice of Godly obedience to the scriptures - but "with the wrong thought" - rather it is pagan practices - utterly condemned by Paul

Eric said

There is no way to "fulfill" what you choose to ignore.

I am not "fulfilling" anything regarding Passover when I continue to ignore it. Rather I am considering that Passover is a prediction about hte death of the Messiah and that since the event it predicts has happened it can be freely ignored. It no longer applies.

Sabbath on the other hand - is a memorial of creation week given before the fall - before sin.

The Shaddow sabbaths - annual feast days were not "made for mankind" and given to mankind before the fall - before sin - before the need for a savior.

They are not going to be kept "From Sabbath to Sabbath" in the new earth - but Sabbath is.

Eric said

Instead of that idea - God says of the New Earth "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall All mankind come before Me to worship".

You claim that He really ought to have said that in the New Earth "Sabbath has no meaning it only applies to the old earth".

If you have some text that says "Passover was made for Mankind"

Or a text that says "In the New Earth from Passover to Passover shall All mankind come before Me"

Or a text that says "There remains therefore Passover for the People of God"

I am all ready to read it and obey the Word of the Lord.

#1. Christ "fulfilled" the ceremonial annual feast days by dying as they predicted.

#2. Christ did not "fulfill" circumcision. The Jews were still required to do it - and in the OT the Gentiles were "not" required to do it - neither in the OT or the NT.

#3. The Sabbath was given in Eden - without sin or sacrifice - observed as a day of Worship. In the New Earth - it will continue to be observed "without sin or sacrifice".

You clearly missed the point in Galatians 3.

There was "no" dissincentive such as you suppose. There was "no" fear among the gentiles being Judaized that "IF" you are circumcised THEN you will have the problem of having to do OTHER things God commanded. Rather the Point Paul makes is that BOTH the Jews and the Gentiles are condemned by the LAW of God.

You are turning his point as if he was saying "Fear to keep one part of God's Word LEST you might have to keep other parts as well".

That is not what Paul is saying. Your wrong on that point.

Paul is saying that if you seek to find salvation IN the Law of God - (as good as it is) then you have a problem because you would need to keep it "perfectly" else you come under a curse of death.

Notice that in Gal 3 Paul says the Law "leads YOU to Christ" - and the "YOU" in that case is a gentile subject to God's law and condemned as a sinner - shown to be in need of a Savior.

In Christ,

Bob