For SDA's on Sunday worship

You're changing my point into "respect it". I am not talking about the [negative] ADULTERY commandment, but rather the argument that because something was "made for mankind", all men are obligated to ENGAGE in it, period. Not talking about ABUSING it, any more than the Jews who kept the Sabbath abusing it into a burden where you could not even heal someone. Also, connected with this is the [positive] command "be fruitful and multiply". Once again, someone could take this and say that every single person MUST get married and have children.
We are not seeing eye to eye in many cases, yet you interpret this as me avoiding your arguments.

Still, continuing to meet on it does not equal KEEPING it. And the only time I said anything about them not knowing anything about it was in the Gal.4 discussion, referring to before they were converted; nowhere else.

And you completley ignired my answer to this. The word translated "seasons" means "appointed times", which would apply to Jewish observances as well.
One reason it is good to try to keep this discussion as concise as possible; you miss a lot of things, and then think I never answered it.

There is much more to it than that, as I explained above. You make it sound like he is speaking both statements to the same people, but it is two totally different circumstances.

In the OT they were bound by both the letter and the spirit. Here in the NT, the "salvation rest" is plainly said to BE our "sabbath rest". You can't generalize "they were expected to keep it both ways back then, so it must be the same now".

More sensationalized, untrue words. Just what are you trying to prove? Since it was "the same Gospel", then Christ's death changed nothing? --except only the sacrifices, because there is a verse mentioning that. Still, that is a change, and it disproves your logic.

He's dealing with people who were under a vow, so he has them fulfill the Law. He had kept the Law, including circumcision, being raised an Israelite. But once again,. if you take that to the exteme you are suggesting, then he must still have been keeping sacrifices, because to Jews who did not accept Christ, to stop keeping them because "Christ fulfilled the Law", would be violating the Law. Jesus of Nazareth meant nothing to them, and the whole Law was still in effect in their view.

No, you're the one who in one place says "it is never right to ignore the Law of God", then in another place "oh, yeah, it is OK with the sacrifices because Heb.10 says so". How do you resolve this. Like I said, there is the letter and the spirit. Certain laws we can "ignore" in the letter because they are somehow fulfilled in ths spirit by Christ, and therefore in principle, no law is broken.

You simply "insert" paganism into the text, and continue to reverse the order of those two verses, and then past them back together to support your view. And you continue to sensationalize. YES, if you keep the Sabbath (weekly or annual) "unto the Lord" as personal devotion, then you are in the right, and we should respect it. YES, if you legalistically mandate it to everyone, then you be questioned as possibly falling back into bondage, and are to be warned. It is a simple distinction between keeping days out of personal devotion, and keeping them out of legalistic compulsion; very easy to understand.

 

Eric --

It is clear that you don't like my answers and that I don't see you carrying your point beyond the place where it is mired in some quagmire (in my view).


#1. I argue the Heb 10 case that "HE put a STOP" to them. God gave them - only He can declare when they stop.

#2. Consequently -- I argue that we completely ignore what they would "require" of us for Heb 10- said "the blood of animals could NEVER take away sin" that means that DONE RIGHT - it never worked and it only pointed to the REAL and ONE sacrifice - Christ.

#3. This is an example of the Romans 14 "person" that does NOT "observe". You can't get any more "NOT" than "NOT" doing it.

You keep insisting that NOT performing these sacrifices is a good example of "OBSERVING" in Romans 14 - but in a "LESS obligating way" so much "LESS" that we actually don't do anything.

And thus by that strained and impossible logic - you create a space to "observe" Christ the Creator's 7th day memorial of creation "made FOR ALL mankind" in a LESS restrictive way.

And though "All mankind comes before Him from Sabbath to Sabbath to WORSHIP" in the New Earth - (as though your "less restrictive observing" were not "enough") you simply ignore the point.


Summary of my arguments --

In summary -

#1. I am arguing ONE Gospel according to Gal 1:6-11 and Gal 3:7 says it was preached in the OT as does 1Peter 1:10-12 show to be the case and Heb 4:2 as well.

#2. I am arguing "REAL" observing is not what we do today with animal sacrifices

#3. I am arguing that Christ the Creator's 7th-day memorial was MADE FOR mankind

#4. I am arguing that it will continue to be observed "for REAL" in the New Earth Isaiah 66

#4.I am arguing that the "sacrifices were ended" for Real but only at God's explicit statement in Heb 10:4-12.

#5. I am arguing that the unit of 10 - that God identifies as a unit in His Word - remains in the NT and is quoted from repeatedly in the NT.

But Never are the NINE listed and quoted as a unit in the NT as if -- this is the new slimmed down version of the Ten. (EVEN though we do see segments of the 10 quoted in Matt,Mark,Luke,John - it is not a "reduction" of the 10 pre-cross in the Gospels - or anywhere else)


AS for responses to your arguments --

#1. I am arguing that if you apply the Gal 4 blanket unqualified condemnation to practices claimed to be "weak and elemental things of this world pertaining to that which is no god at all"
to the Romans 14 practices that are "only to be defended" as we see in the text --
you end up with horribly contradicting theology.

#2. I am arguing that the Sabbath is NOT repeated in Matt, Mark, Luke John AND IS STILL binding there EVEN by your standards - which means that you have to "make up" the idea that "where it is not repeated in the NT it is obliterated" or "observed in a lesser way such that you don't see it being observed any more".

I have already pointed out that your view of wholesale rejecting of the Law of God - expecting Him to start over and salvage whatever He wants to keep by repeating it again after some magic point in time -- is not supportable. And all you say is that you would know about not continuing to observe animal sacrifices (though Heb 10:4-12 speaks to this directly) were you not free to delete the Law of God wholesale and start over in the NT.

#3.
You argue that these sacrifices are good examples of laws STILL binding upon us but "less restrictive" in that we don't actually do anything while "STILL observing animal sacrifices" in your view.

I point out that such an extreme indfensible position is where your argument leads - and I can not go there, I am surprised that you do.

#4. When you argue that we are no longer under law - I have shown from James 2 and Romans 7 and Eph 5 and ... that infact the 10 commandments continue to be quoted from AND the Sabbath itself is unquestionably stated as continuing in Isaiah 66 for "ALL mankind".

The quotes that you give for "not under law" ALL say that the LAW of God (that SAME LAW) continues to define sin. Obvioulsy then - they do not mean that God's LAW no longer defines sin or that we are free to "keep it LESS by not keeping it at all" - it refers to no longer being condemned to hell (by God's Law) as lost sinners.

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:Bob said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The charge that I did not use scriptures like

1 - MAtt 18 forgiveness revoked -
2. - John 12:32 "I will Draw ALL mankind unto Me"
3. 1John 2:1-3 "He died as the atoning sacrifice for Our sins and NOT for our sins only but for those of the entire WORLD".
4. 2Peter 3 - "God is not willing for ANY to perish but for ALL to come to repentance"

can not be supported by a careful review of those debates (and the texts above are just one small set). Recall that I was challenged to give 50 texts in support of the Arminian view. I gave 50 specific refrerences consisting of 100's of texts in response.

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

They did not get the Arminian side period.

My reason for "re-posting" is that "the scenario" was devastating to the 4 and 5 point Calvinists.

If you will notice - The 4 and 5 point Calvinists would "eventually" drift to the mode of saying "Calvinism is a better God centered view - because Arminians want God to be FAIR - but FAIR means that everyone goes to hell - so give me UNFAIR and GRACE for the FEW instead".

Calvinism "requires the luxury of careless indifference to the lost". I simply posed a scenario that denies them that option that is "so necessary" to proclaim the arbitrary and selective nature of their view of God.

Without that - you can't have 5 point Calvinism or even 4 point Calvinism.


Every time they came back to that idea of "unfair is best" when questioned on their statements that God is basically arbitrary and selective - I posted the "future Calvinist scenario" to expose the part of that "unfair" that they claim to be so happy with - that exposes the flaw in their argument.

Every time they came to an argument that said of their arbitrary and selective views of God -- "God is big and you are little - stop asking that things be FAIR by your standards" --

I posted the Calvinist scenario.

I had to be very careful to QUOTE THEM in the Calvinist scenario so they could see that this is THEIR argument about God not mine.

You claim that none of them "Became Arminian" over this.

What you are missing is that each time I posted that (re-posted it) they dropped their "God is UNFAIR and that is better than the Arminian POV" argument on the spot waiting for people to "forget" that future scenario that their own POV dictates.

Then when enough time passed -- they would come back with how wonderful it is that God is not fair - but arbitrary and selective. They freely "repeat" their own accusations against the Arminian POV - but vigorously complain when the "scenario" returns to expose the flaw in their claims.

The scenario stood the test of time - in that they never found a way to recover from it other than to ask that it not be posted as a response to their attacks on the Arminian idea of "fair".

They would drop their "fair" vs "unfair" ideas and let more time pass and then attack Arminians on the same points all over again, sometimes with some new faces that had not seen the future scenario.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Still, you fail to understand the distinction between letter and spirit

This is the LETTER of the command...

...else this statement could not be true. If God just "put a stop" to the whole principle or spiritual intent, then Christ would not have been necessary.
What I should have added last time, if you are completely "ignoring" or "not keeping" sacrifice, since Christ now is the reality who Is our sacrifice, you are saying you are not covered under Christ. You "ignore" it only in the LETTER, but there is a spiritual intent of it that is being fulfilled, so no law is simply being thrown out, like you accuse me of doing with the Sabbath.
Remember, this whole part of the dabate came because you kept accusing me of just throwing out part of the Law. But when I show that you can "ignore" (in the Letter) what is fulfilled (in the spirit), you still don't get it, and accuse me of double talk.

No, what you ignore is that you can't take that to define Church practice for today. He did not command it of us today. In fact, this is just like a discussion on "the Reason for the Season", which I may respond to if I get time, where Carson Weber justifies Catholic practice (all the elaborate ritual, high priests, "sacrifice of the Mass", etc) on the heavenly scenes Rev. 4. Is that right? God did not command us in the New testament to copy all of that now (though they claim "your will be done on earth as is in Heaven"). We will partake of it when we get there. You are one of the biggest critics of RCC on these boards, but you are using the same exact type of reasoning, and pasting together scriptures that are not really teaching what you claim.

Still, the practice has changed. If you acknowledge that God could "put a stop" to sacrifices (and yet it is still "the same Gospel", then He could put a stop to other things as well.

Your word "real" should be "in the letter". It is observed, but in the spirit, and this is as "real", or even more "real" than the old rituals, else, Christ's death has no meaning.
Elsewhere, Christ explicitly tells us not to judge over sabbaths, but to keep them to the Lord ourselves if we choose.

And so was marriage, and every other thing we have today. That does not mean all are commanded to partake of it (and that is "partake", not "repect").

Once again, that says nothing regarding today. And still, sacrifices, new moons, priests and Levites were also mentioned.

The New Testament does not deal in "numbers or lists of commandments" except the two: Love for God and love for fellow man. Some of the 10 Commandments are repeated in the principles, and some things are included that were not included in the 10 commandments. This is the difference between the letter and spirit. the Letter doeas with lists and numbers that can be checked off ("well, kept that one! Next!"), while the NT deal with the spiritual intent of the law.

[ December 28, 2003, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

You still are not even quoting the passage as it appears, but reversing two verses, and destroying the contextual flow. What we see is:
1. Gentiles previously followed what was no god.
2. They get converted, and are shown the truth
3. They allow themselves to come under the influence of Jewish legalists.
4. They now [still claim to be following the true God, but are doing so in a fashion that leaves them] just as much "in bondage" as they were before, by keeping days God once commanded in a compulsory fashion (as they were demanded of the Israelites before Christ), instead of their own voluntary devotion to the Lord.

You yourself said He put a stop to some things, and it had to be at some point in time (after the Gospels were written). So to keep harping on this shows your position is the one in some quagmire. Either whe whole letter of the Law is still in effect as it was before christ, or some things in the letter were put a stop to, being fulfilled in the spirit. Once again, it is simple.

What I meant was that the principle that they represented-- pardon of sin by blood sacrifice, continues for us. The Bible says that without shedding of blood is no remission, and this was not repealed. It IS still "binding" on us. But Christ shed His blood for us, so are covered, even as we "don't do anything" with any animals in a temple. Of course, these never really paid for sins, but pointed to Christ. But the principle is still binding, yet is fulfilled, and thus "less [physically, literally] restrictive" for us.

And once you understand letter and spirit, then you understand what it means to be "not under the Law". Yes, you are not comdemned to Hell anymore, but then neither are we bound to keep certain physical commands that were binding before. Yet, it is still the "same Law", we are talking about; only differing between the letter and the spirit.

As for the calvinism debate:

My only point was that it was overdone, and the same type of sensational tactics you have used here when supposedly spitting my view back out to me. I didn't say they didn't "become Arminian", I said they were not convinced by the argument. They could say "OK, I see what you mean"; that's something to think about" without abandoning their view for Arminianism. They were totally unumpressed with emotional scenarios. Instead, all that did was strengthen their claim that emotion was our final answer, and not scripture. Because the emotion was thrown at them more than scripture.

 

The Arminian position was sometimes stated as "Calvinism does not make sense to me - it seems unfair and God would never do that".

To those arguments - the Calvinists almost Always responded "Who are you to determine what is fair or right for God? Just because you don't think it is fair or right - does not mean that this is a problem with God"..

Notice - that it is there - that I would post the Calvinist future scenario. That scenario never said "This is unfair - because I don't understand how it could possibly be right". RATHER the scenario said "This IS the Calvinist future that awaits us.

Arminians will just have to find some way to content themselves with the God that actually does "So love the World that He gave His only Son" by contrast.

The emotion in the calvinist scenario that came to the surface among Calvinists - brought out more than one Calvinist response of the form "I cant stand to think about that" - basically confessing that they needed to turn a blind eye to this fact.

The "other response" that it got was "Well as horrible as that is for us - does your Arminian future scenario fare any better when a loved one burns in hell"?

(And "obviously" the Arminian scenario "I" would offer is infinitely superior because NOT ONLY do I present a God that loved my child and did everything to save them - I ALSO am not stuck with eternal-torment of my loved one in hell.)

The point of the scenario comparisons was to add incentive to stop turning a blind eye to the many Arminian texts and stop clinging to Calvinism as "if" it was "solving something".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Eric responds

#1. I thought I did a pretty exhaustive quote of Gal 4.

#2. In your own itemized list - you add the part about Jewish insistence for OTHERs (gentiles) to practice a "return" the "weak and elemental things that pertain to NO GOD" - when in fact nothing is said about that in Gal 4 speaking of those practices. Rather it says that "YOU" (gentiles) are 'observing' these things. Not "You are making OTHERS observe them".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Eric said

#1. No mention is made at all of days God "once commanded".

#2. No mention is made in chapter 4 of the "Seasons" being something that Jews made them observe.

The actual facts as listed for the problem of paganism starts with vs 8 and contains the following

Vs 8
When you did not know God - Slaves to those which by NATURE are NOT god.


Vs 9


(as they were demanded of the Israelites before Christ), instead of their own voluntary devotion to the Lord.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#2. I am arguing that the Sabbath is NOT repeated in Matt, Mark, Luke John AND IS STILL binding there EVEN by your standards - which means that you have to "make up" the idea that "where it is not repeated in the NT it is obliterated" or "observed in a lesser way such that you don't see it being observed any more".

I have already pointed out that your view of wholesale rejecting of the Law of God - expecting Him to start over and salvage whatever He wants to keep by repeating it again after some magic point in time -- is not supportable. And all you say is that you would know about not continuing to observe animal sacrifices (though Heb 10:4-12 speaks to this directly) were you not free to delete the Law of God wholesale and start over in the NT.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You yourself said He put a stop to some things, and it had to be at some point in time (after the Gospels were written). So to keep harping on this shows your position is the one in some quagmire. Either whe whole letter of the Law is still in effect as it was before christ, or some things in the letter were put a stop to, being fulfilled in the spirit. Once again, it is simple.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#3.
You argue that these sacrifices are good examples of laws STILL binding upon us but "less restrictive" in that we don't actually do anything while "STILL observing animal sacrifices" in your view.

I point out that such an extreme indfensible position is where your argument leads - and I can not go there, I am surprised that you do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I meant was that the principle that they represented-- pardon of sin by blood sacrifice, continues for us. The Bible says that without shedding of blood is no remission, and this was not repealed. It IS still "binding" on us. But Christ shed His blood for us, so are covered, even as we "don't do anything" with any animals in a temple. Of course, these never really paid for sins, but pointed to Christ. But the principle is still binding, yet is fulfilled, and thus "less [physically, literally] restrictive" for us.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#4. When you argue that we are no longer under law - I have shown from James 2 and Romans 7 and Eph 5 and ... that infact the 10 commandments continue to be quoted from AND the Sabbath itself is unquestionably stated as continuing in Isaiah 66 for "ALL mankind".

The quotes that you give for "not under law" ALL say that the LAW of God (that SAME LAW) continues to define sin. Obvioulsy then - they do not mean that God's LAW no longer defines sin or that we are free to "keep it LESS by not keeping it at all" - it refers to no longer being condemned to hell (by God's Law) as lost sinners.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And once you understand letter and spirit, then you understand what it means to be "not under the Law". Yes, you are not comdemned to Hell anymore, but then neither are we bound to keep certain physical commands that were binding before. Yet, it is still the "same Law", we are talking about; only differing between the letter and the spirit.

As for the calvinism debate:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every time they came to an argument that said of their arbitrary and selective views of God -- "God is big and you are little - stop asking that things be FAIR by your standards" --

I posted the Calvinist scenario.

I had to be very careful to QUOTE THEM in the Calvinist scenario so they could see that this is THEIR argument about God not mine.

You claim that none of them "Became Arminian" over this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My only point was that it was overdone, and the same type of sensational tactics you have used here when supposedly spitting my view back out to me. I didn't say they didn't "become Arminian", I said they were not convinced by the argument. They could say "OK, I see what you mean"; that's something to think about" without abandoning their view for Arminianism. They were totally unumpressed with emotional scenarios. Instead, all that did was strengthen their claim that emotion was our final answer, and not scripture. Because the emotion was thrown at them more than scripture.

 

Eric said

#1. No mention is made at all of days God "once commanded".

#2. No mention is made in chapter 4 of the "Seasons" being something that Jews made them observe.

The actual facts as listed for the problem of paganism starts with vs 8 and contains the following

Vs 8
When you did not know God - Slaves to those which by NATURE are NOT god.


Vs 9
But NOW - you have come to KNOW God

So why are you Turn Back AGAIN to "THE WEAK and
elemental things" - that you WERE doing. "Again"

You are desiring to be enslaved ALL OVER AGAIN

Vs 10
For example you OBSERVE Days AND Months AND Seasons AND years.


Notice that this pagan practice spoken of above is not mentioned anywhere else in all of scripture OT or NT.

Your argument that they were simply committing the error of 1Cor 8:13 WITH God-given commands and that the 1Cor 8:13 practic "is equal" to paganism - fails the test of scripture.

For in 1Cor 8:13 when dealing with that problem Paul said --

13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble


However our model is to say that God Himself is the author of Paganism - because in your words to do what God commanded in Scripture - AS He commanded it - is "paganism"

So it is easy to see why that would be a rejected idea.

In Fact Paul argues "Do we then make VOID the Law of God by our faith? God Forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW of God" Rom 3:31.

You have turned that into "Do we then OBSERVE the LAW of God as He commanded it? God Forbid! In Fact that would be Paganism"[/b]

quote: Bob said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#2. I am arguing that the Sabbath is NOT repeated in Matt, Mark, Luke John AND IS STILL binding there EVEN by your standards - which means that you have to "make up" the idea that "where it is not repeated in the NT it is obliterated" or "observed in a lesser way such that you don't see it being observed any more".

I have already pointed out that your view of wholesale rejecting of the Law of God - expecting Him to start over and salvage whatever He wants to keep by repeating it again after some magic point in time -- is not supportable. And all you say is that you would know about not continuing to observe animal sacrifices (though Heb 10:4-12 speaks to this directly) were you not free to delete the Law of God wholesale and start over in the NT.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric responds to the Heb 10:4-12 point --

Well yes - that is the Heb 10:4-12 explicit statement of God dealing explicitly with His commands regarding "sacrifices and offerings" saying that EVEN in the OT they did not have power to forgive sins - and adding that in the NT the "ONE Sacrifice" put a "stop to sin offerings and sacrifices"

There is no "in the spirit" language used in Heb 10. Please not those 8 verses referenced above. God simply says the the REAL physical sacrifice of Christ put a stop to the REAL animal sacrifices.

My point has been - we can read it - we can see it in Heb 10:4-12. No "need" to invent a "all law ended" concept to deal with Animal sacrifices. Rather Heb 10 deals with that explicitly.


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#3.
You argue that these sacrifices are good examples of laws STILL binding upon us but "less restrictive" in that we don't actually do anything while "STILL observing animal sacrifices" in your view.

I point out that such an extreme indfensible position is where your argument leads - and I can not go there, I am surprised that you do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agreed - the Bible principle quoted in Heb 9 about forgiveness needing the shedding of blood is truth - though it is not in any way "a commandment".

God is our creator - and He created the World - that is "truth" -- it is not a commandment.

Christ is the Son of God - that is "truth" but it is not "a commandment".

I agree that we benefit from Christ's sacrifice as did the OT saints benefit from HIS sacrifice - we receive forgiveness of sins AS they did (and some of them even went directly to heaven without dying for example). But THEY ALSBEYED the "Active" laws regarding animal sacrifices - whereas we "IGNORE" those laws. There is no way to consider us BOTH ACTIVELY practicing them.

In this regard we are the ones in Romans 14 "NOT OBSERVING". Even you admit that in Romans 14 we have REAL people that REALLY do not "observe" a specific feast day (like Passover for example) while others chose TO observe it.

"Not Observing" is "really NOT observing" as Paul points out in Romans 14.


quote: Bob said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#4. When you argue that we are no longer under law - I have shown from James 2 and Romans 7 and Eph 5 and ... that infact the 10 commandments continue to be quoted from AND the Sabbath itself is unquestionably stated as continuing in Isaiah 66 for "ALL mankind".

The quotes that you give for "not under law" ALL say that the LAW of God (that SAME LAW) continues to define sin. Obvioulsy then - they do not mean that God's LAW no longer defines sin or that we are free to "keep it LESS by not keeping it at all" - it refers to no longer being condemned to hell (by God's Law) as lost sinners.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only way you are not condemned as a sinner is to accept Christ. That means that BEFORE you accepted Christ - the "STILL LIVING and Active" LAw of God DID condemn you as a sinner.

This is not true of those animal sacrifices that ended at the Cross. BEFORE becoming a Christian the laws regarding animal sacrifices STILL did not apply or condemn you as a sinner. Only "active" laws like the 10 commandments were binding on you as a lost sinner.

The SAME Active law that condemned you BEFORE you came to Christ -- REMAINS binding upon you after becoming a Christian (So live and so act as those to be judged BY that Law of Liberty) - for though you are no longer under the condemnation of the law - your faith must "ESTABLISH the LAW" rather than "abolish" or "make void" the LAW Rom 3:31. This is nothing like the current practice of simply "turning a blind eye to it".

In Christ,

Bob

 

This is simple.

If this is still NOT ok:

Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

Then THIS is still NOT OK!!!

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Why is that confusing to you?

God Bless,
Kelly

 

That's what practically the whole book is about. You can't isolate these two verses and ignore the rest of the context. And as far as that quote and the "observe witheevil intent=astrology" argument, I have shown that "observe" in that case means ..."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.
As far as "God the author of paganism", once again, you/the quote are twisting my )or other non-sabbath teachers) words. If God had not commnaded gentile converts to keep OT laws, and Jewish leaders come into the Church compelling them to do these things, then to God, that is just as much "bondage", and "weak elements", (and thus a "return" for the gentiles) regardless of who created them (God or pagan religion). It's not the practices that are on trial, it is the "intent" (there's your key word), of the PEOPLE, so why can't you understand that?
You are simply reiterating something ahtt was already refuted.

Once again, this is the context of the book.

This is what they did BEFORE. Now, they are being moved in a new direction, with different practices, but the same spiritual state, and thus a "return". Once again, you have to keep with the CONTEXT. The "paganism" of their past is a passing mention. The whole premise of the book is about Jewish practices.

TYo repeat, this is talking about their spiritual condition. If they observed pagan practices, they were without Christ. The receive Christ. Now, they are compelled to keep OT days as if Christ had never come. They appear to have "returned" to their former state, even those these are days God once aommanded, and not pagniism. Just think: Aren't uncoverted Jews basically in the same spiritual state or condition as pagans? Even thoug most of what they observed came from God and not pagainism? (In fact, they may be worse off, since they have the Word of God are will be held more responsible for the truth). So this argument means nothing. If I'm making god the author of paganism, then so are you if you believe observant Jews are lost, even though they are keeping the Law, since it is only paganism that condemns, apparently.

Yeah, there's no "pagan PRACTICE" mentioned anywhere. Just a general statement that they once SERVED false gods, and now that they have come to the truth, have become influenced by Jews, with their practices.

If GOd says something He once co9mmanded is no longer madatory, but can be done as one's personal devotion to Him, and someone comes and makes it still mandatory, that person is NOT doing "what God commanded".

It's elsewhere in Paul's writings...

...and what you're doing is to trade the biblical language of "letter and spirit" for "active", "real[ly]", etc. Once again, there is no distinction between the 10 Commandments and the rest of the Law. Th3 10 was just a summary of the 613, and now, the 2 is a summary of it all, and certain practice, both in and out of the 10, can change.

 

Same thing. I have answered this before. You cannot separate the 10 as all eternally binding in the letter.

 

You 7th Day Adventists need to get out of your WORKS oriented organization and find a faith based
group.

You can do nothing for GOD as long as you are worried about living under the LAW. You are in bondage to the LAW and not to GOD through Christ.

Everything about 7th Day Adventists revolve around correctness in worship and prophetic revelation. You don't live for GOD. You live for your beliefs.

 

This is a debate forum.

That means that everyone does not start out with "your" bias.

And "that means" you have to "show your work" when saying something that you would like to think had "credibility".

Simply saying "you guys never ..." and "you people always ..." is a good "opening claim" but needs "some data".

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In your own itemized list - you add the part about Jewish insistence for OTHERs (gentiles) to practice a "return" the "weak and elemental things that pertain to NO GOD" - when in fact nothing is said about that in Gal 4 speaking of those practices. Rather it says that "YOU" (gentiles) are 'observing' these things. Not "You are making OTHERS observe them".

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

Eric said --
That's what practically the whole book is about. You can't isolate these two verses and ignore the rest of the context.
[/quote]

This was already refuted - when the point was made that just as the first letter to the Corinthians addressed "more than one issue" so also in the case of Galations.

In chapter 1-3 we see the issue of "More than one Gospel" being refuted.

In the first half of Gal 4 we see "pagan worship" of those things which "are no gods" and "the weak and elemental things" being condemned.

In the problem of Chapter 1-3 it is shown that OTHERS are making the GENTILES practice a kind of legalism.

But in Gal 4 8-12 it is the GENTILEs who are in error and NOT because they are ALSO making even MORE gentiles do this - but because the practice itself is pagan.

Eric Said --

Indeed - this is "not" the word for "Observe" in Romans 14. It is a pagan practice of treachery regarding seasons and years. Nothing at all like the practices that God set up in His Word.

You have "turned this into" the God-given practices of scripture and said that simply practicing them AS God gave them is "treachery" and a return to "paganism".

And as noted - That has already been refuted.

This was already refuted - when we note that in Romans 14 those practices are DEFENDED without ANY reference to "but not defended if the one OBSERVING is a Gentile" as you propose above.

Read your own statement carefully - it makes your error quite clear. By simply BEING a Gentile and observing what God commanded AS HE commanded it (for example Isaiah 58 and foreigners with the Sabbath?) you say "this IS paganism".

But even Romans 14 would at - best - DEFEND this saying that it is "protected" WHETHER or not you are a Gentile.

Your point was refuted in detail as we observed that Romans 14 would not allow your approach of "OK if a Jew practices this but if a Gentile submits to the SAME scripture - it is a return to paganism".

As noted in these examples - you are simply repeating what has already been refuted and thoroughly debunked.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hello A_Christian.

I must say, as an SDA, that you sure do have me figured out. Your right, I do live for my beliefs. Although, I must confess, that I am not quite so successful as I desire to be. I want to be like my hero, but I have a long way to go yet. You see, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that there is salvation in no other. I believe that He was our perfect example in all things, and I desire to be just like Him. When He was here on earth, He said the following-

Matt 4:4 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

The bible is the Word of God. Therefore, in accordance with the instructions of my Savior, I study His Word, with the intention of living by it; that is, in accordance with it’s instructions. If that offends you, I am sorry. However, I believe I will stick to Peters advice on this one.

Acts 5:29-33 29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
33 When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them.

Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith

 

As an "SDA" you are joining yourself to the likes of Ellen G. White and William Miller. God wants you to worship Him 7 days a week. There isn't a reason to restrict yourself to Saturday, anymore than there is a cause for males to be circumcised.

I would NEVER intentionally ally myself with a fraud and that is exactly what every "SDA" does. That organization is based on false teaching and false prophesy. I have been to several "SDA" outreaches and it ALWAYS comes down to the day and time of Christ's return. The error of such is
obvious, even 160 years later.

 

Once again, v. 8 is a PASSING REFERENCE to their past. IN FACT, to prove once and for all, that "bondage under the elements" is NOT only "paganism", (And I should have drawn attention to this way before), look at verse 3:, Paul speaking " "Even so, when WE were children, were in bondage to the elements of the world..." Paul includes himself in that state, even though he was "doing what God commanded". Observing all those commands did not save anyone, especially when he still opposed the truth. So Jews still not converted like Paul was, who were trying to bring them back under their bondage, are what this is clearly addressing.

As per, the above, this silly argument should end now. The Jews practiced the "law as God gave it to them", but their INTENT made them "treacherous" regarding days and times.

You consistently keep ignoring INTENT! That is the magic word. It has nothing to do with "Jew or gentile". If anyone, Jew or gentile, keeps the days out of personal devotion to the Lord, they are defended in Rom.14. If anyone, Jew or Gentile, keeps them out of compusion like they are under the Law, they are warned by Gal.4. Why is this so hard to understand? Perhaps, stop reconstruing my statements into straw men that you have ready answers for, then you might get it.

 

And what about women being quiet in the church? If Ellen G. White listened to the New Testament, she might not have become the noted fraud she choose to become. You cannot hang true Christians on holy days. You can only make your point as to why YOU choose to worship when YOU do.
It still seems odd that a group that is so bent on Saturday worship seems ignorant of other scriptual policy...