Christ our Creator's Sabbath in Gen 2? Really?

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Galatians 4:4 speaks of the entire Law of God as known in the scriptures.

Christ did not break any of it.

He Himself states that He did not come to break the Law in Matt 5.

How have I changed on that view.

Gal 4:10 speaks of pagan days - not the word of God. Paul is condemning anyone in Gal 4:10 that may be returning to a practice of observing pagan days - He is not condemning anyone for observing the commands in the Word of God. In fact in Romans 14 Paul insists that if someone wants to keep this or that day as found in the Word of God - they are welcomed to it.

I don't know why you are supposing a change on my part. What is up with that?

in Christ,

Bob

I have been telling you, Bob Ryan, how courageous of you it has been to hold this view concerning Galatians 4:10 which you have herewith again stated. I did not suppose a change on your part; I commended you for holding to your view BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST the meaning your church attaches to this Scripture.

But I also challenged you to accept the real meaning against the meaning your church attaches to Matthew 28:1-4 with the same courage you differ with your church with regard to Galatians 4:10.

But I'm not stupid. Halve a word to the wise is enough and many words do not add to the confusion of the fool.

 

[BobRyan]

I have been telling you, Bob Ryan, how courageous of you it has been to hold this view concerning Galatians 4:10 which you have herewith again stated. I did not suppose a change on your part; I commended you for holding to your view BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST the meaning your church attaches to this Scripture.

.

I do agree that you could find some SDA author here or there that would not agree with me about Gal 4:10 as if it applied to ceremonial laws etc. But that detail about Gal 4:10 is not in our Fundamental Beliefs - so my difference with those authors is not about our actual denominational statement of beliefs.



in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In Rev 1:10 it is on "The Lord's Day" that John is "in the Spirit" and not "any day you care to select". So it appears that a "specific" day was known to both John and his readers.

And as we find in Mark 2:28 Christ is "Lord of the Sabbath". Again - a very specific day of the week not just any day one cares to pick.

Some people on this board have argued that the first day of the week is to be kept holy as a day of worship - not because there is any Bible command to do so - but simply because of what God did on that day - by having Christ rise from the dead.

Some people insist that what the Bible calls "week day 1" should be considered as a day devoted to the worship of God.

============================================

By contrast they do not want to keep the seventh day of Genesis 2:1-3 as God's Holy Day - since in that chapter day-7 is not "named" and since in that very chapter - day-7 is not given in the form of a command.

But in that chapter we are told that it is a holy day. Unlike week-day-1 in the NT where no such instruction is given.

And in the Bible we are told the name of that day "the Seventh day is THE Sabbath of the Lord Thy God" Ex 20:8-11. And it is not an imagined or supposed command - it is in fact one of the TEN Commandments.

Commandments that are said to have begun in Eden and to still apply to the saints today - at least if one is willing to listen to H.C Spurgion, R.C.Sproul, D.L. Moody, The Baptist Confession of Faith 1689, the Westminster Confession of Faith -- etc.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Yeshua1]

In Rev 1:10 it is on "The Lord's Day" that John is "in the Spirit" and not "any day you care to select". So it appears that a "specific" day was known to both John and his readers.

And as we find in Mark 2:28 Christ is "Lord of the Sabbath". Again - a very specific day of the week not just any day one cares to pick.

Some people on this board have argued that the first day of the week is to be kept holy as a day of worship - not because there is any Bible command to do so - but simply because of what God did on that day - by having Christ rise from the dead.

Some people insist that what the Bible calls "week day 1" should be considered as a day devoted to the worship of God.

============================================

By contrast they do not want to keep the seventh day of Genesis 2:1-3 as God's Holy Day - since in that chapter day-7 is not "named" and since in that very chapter - day-7 is not given in the form of a command.

But in that chapter we are told that it is a holy day. Unlike week-day-1 in the NT where no such instruction is given.

And in the Bible we are told the name of that day "the Seventh day is THE Sabbath of the Lord Thy God" Ex 20:8-11. And it is not an imagined or supposed command - it is in fact one of the TEN Commandments.

Commandments that are said to have begun in Eden and to still apply to the saints today - at least if one is willing to listen to H.C Spurgion, R.C.Sproul, D.L. Moody, The Baptist Confession of Faith 1689, the Westminster Confession of Faith -- etc.

in Christ,

Bob

aagin, you keep quoting these men of the christian faith, but NONE view it as the SDA does, as you regard Sabbath keeping as essential to staying saved!

 

[BobRyan]

They affirm key Bible doctrines that you reject - and I accept.

They declare that the Sabbath is still binding on the saints, that it was given to mankind in Eden etc.

Andy Stanley even declares it to be a form of taking God's name in vain - to claim that God told you it is ok to break one of the TEN Commandments.

You can hardly find a more stern sermon against Sabbath breaking as you find in D.L. Moody's text.

If you were affirming the Bible points that these mostly Baptist sources affirm - we would then get to the part where I differ. But at the start - you reject even what THEY accept - long before we even get to my differences with these Baptist sources.

Those who have been objecting to the TEN Commandments on this board so far - are not simply opposing a Seventh-day Adventist acceptance of Bible doctrine - they are rejecting their own Baptist Confession of Fath 1689 and then pretending that is just a difference with them and Seventh-day Adventists. In so doing they place their own argument at disadvantage, because they are stuck at the level of a Baptist-in-house difference and cannot get passed that point.

Were we "not supposed to notice?"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Yeshua1]

They affirm key Bible doctrines that you reject - and I accept.

They declare that the Sabbath is still binding on the saints, that it was given to mankind in Eden etc.

Andy Stanley even declares it to be a form of taking God's name in vain - to claim that God told you it is ok to break one of the TEN Commandments.

You can hardly find a more stern sermon against Sabbath breaking as you find in D.L. Moody's text.

If you were affirming the Bible points that these mostly Baptist sources affirm - we would then get to the part where I differ. But at the start - you reject even what THEY accept - long before we even get to my differences with these Baptist sources.

Those who have been objecting to the TEN Commandments on this board so far - are not simply opposing a Seventh-day Adventist acceptance of Bible doctrine - they are rejecting their own Baptist Confession of Fath 1689 and then pretending that is just a difference with them and Seventh-day Adventists. In so doing they place their own argument at disadvantage, because they are stuck at the level of a Baptist-in-house difference and cannot get passed that point.

Were we "not supposed to notice?"

in Christ,

Bob

the reformed baptists use and hold to those Conessions of faith, and they use the terms that the SDA do, but do NOT mean the same as you do with those words!

NO Reformed would ever say that by not keeping sabbath as saturday, one forfeits their salvation, gets mark of the beast, notr that we MUST keep the jewish law in order to be saved!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

They affirm key Bible doctrines that you reject - and I accept.

They declare that the Sabbath is still binding on the saints, that it was given to mankind in Eden etc.

Andy Stanley even declares it to be a form of taking God's name in vain - to claim that God told you it is ok to break one of the TEN Commandments.

You can hardly find a more stern sermon against Sabbath breaking as you find in D.L. Moody's text.

If you were affirming the Bible points that these mostly Baptist sources affirm - we would then get to the part where I differ. But at the start - you reject even what THEY accept - long before we even get to my differences with these Baptist sources.

Those who have been objecting to the TEN Commandments on this board so far - are not simply opposing a Seventh-day Adventist acceptance of Bible doctrine - they are rejecting their own Baptist Confession of Fath 1689 and then pretending that is just a difference with them and Seventh-day Adventists. In so doing they place their own argument at disadvantage, because they are stuck at the level of a Baptist-in-house difference and cannot get passed that point.

Were we "not supposed to notice?"

in Christ,

Bob

Just cut me out!

 

[BobRyan]

Just cut me out!

Sorry about that - I meant "Bible Sabbath keeping Christians"

Thank you for the correction.:godisgood:

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

They affirm key Bible doctrines that you reject - and I accept.

They declare that the Sabbath is still binding on the saints, that it was given to mankind in Eden etc.

Andy Stanley even declares it to be a form of taking God's name in vain - to claim that God told you it is ok to break one of the TEN Commandments.

You can hardly find a more stern sermon against Sabbath breaking as you find in D.L. Moody's text.

If you were affirming the Bible points that these mostly Baptist sources affirm - we would then get to the part where I differ. But at the start - you reject even what THEY accept - long before we even get to my differences with these Baptist sources.

Those who have been objecting to the TEN Commandments on this board so far - are not simply opposing a Seventh-day Adventist acceptance of Bible doctrine - they are rejecting their own Baptist Confession of Fath 1689 and then pretending that is just a difference with them and Seventh-day Adventists. In so doing they place their own argument at disadvantage, because they are stuck at the level of a Baptist-in-house difference and cannot get passed that point.

Were we "not supposed to notice?"

the reformed baptists use and hold to those Conessions of faith, and they use the terms that the SDA do, but do NOT mean the same as you do with those words!

NO Reformed would ever say that by not keeping sabbath as saturday, one forfeits their salvation, gets mark of the beast, notr that we MUST keep the jewish law in order to be saved!

There are some baptists here that know that the Bible Sabbath of the 4th commandment cannot be "edited" - it was Saturday even at Sinai and and cannot be edited to say something else. So one must either accept it or not. Changing God's Word is not an option. You might be one of them.

I agree with that much of what they believe.

There are other Baptists that choose to agree with the Bible doctrine of the Baptist Confession of Faith - on the points about the Moral law, its content as the TEN Commandments (not just nine-or-none) and the fact that it began in Eden and continues for the saints today - just as the Baptist Confession of Faith states.

I agree that much of what they believe.

But others are stuck warring against the Baptist Confession of Faith on that very point.

I am not stuck there.

IF I were having a discussion with a Baptist who was not at war against their own Baptist Confession of Faith on the Bible fact that the TEN Commandments are the moral law of God, given in Eden to all mankind and still applicable to the saints today -- THEN I would be debating and urging the Bible point with them that you actually do accept - which is that the Commandments cannot be edited according to Mark 7:6-13.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

the reformed baptists use and hold to those Conessions of faith, and they use the terms that the SDA do,!

Let's "look" at their "terms" - the ones you do not even quote.

Baptist Confession of Faith 1689

19. The Law of God

1. God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience which was written in his heart, and He gave him very specific instruction about not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. By this Adam and all his descendants were bound to personal, total, exact, and perpetual obedience, being promised life upon the fulfilling of the law, and threatened with death upon the breach of it. At the same time Adam was endued with power and ability to keep it.


2. The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the Fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in the ten commandments, and written in two tables, the first four containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.

3. Besides this law, commonly called the moral law, God was pleased do give the people of Israel ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances. These ordinances were partly about their worship, and in them Christ was prefigured along with His attributes and qualities, His actions, His sufferings and His benefits. These ordinances also gave instructions about different moral duties. All of these ceremonial laws were appointed only until the time of reformation, when Jesus Christ the true Messiah and the only lawgiver, Who was furnished with power from the Father for this end, cancelled them and took them away.

4. To the people of Israel He also gave sundry judicial laws which expired when they ceased to be a nation. These are not binding on anyone now by virtue of their being part of the laws of that nation, but their general equity continue to be applicable in modern times.

5. The moral law ever binds to obedience everyone, justified people as well as others, and not only out of regard for the matter contained in it, but also out of respect for the authority of God the Creator, Who gave the law. Nor does Christ in the Gospel dissolve this law in any way, but He considerably strengthens our obligation to obey it.


6. Although true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works, to be justified or condemned by it, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, because as a rule of life it informs them of the will of God and their duty and directs and binds them to walk accordingly. It also reveals and exposes the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts and lives, and using it for self-examination they may come to greater conviction of sin, greater humility and greater hatred of their sin. They will also gain a clearer sight of their need of Christ and the perfection of His own obedience. It is of further use to regenerate people to restrain their corruptions, because of the way in which it forbids sin. The threatenings of the law serve to show what their sins actually deserve, and what troubles may be expectedin this life because of these sins even by regenerate people who are freed from the curse and undiminished rigours of the law. The promises connected with the law also show believers God's approval of obedience, and what blessings they may expect when the law is kept and obeyed, though blessing will not come to them because they have satisfied the law as a covenant of works. If a man does good and refrains from evil simply because the law encourages to the good and deters him from the evil, that is no evidence that he is under the law rather than under grace.

7. The aforementioned uses of the law are not contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but they sweetly comply with it, as the Spirit of Christ subdues and enables the will of man to do freely and cheerfully those things which the will of God, which is revealed in the law, requires to be done.[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm#part24[/FONT]
Quote:
[FONT=&quot]CH Spurgeon[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]“The Perpetuity of the Law of God”

Very great mistakes have been made about the law. Not long ago there were those about us who affirmed that the law is utterly abrogated and abolished, and they openly taught that believers were not bound to make the moral law the rule of their lives. What would have been sin in other men they counted to be no sin in themselves. From such Antinomianism as that may God deliver us. We are not under the law as the method of salvation, but we delight to see the law in the hand of Christ, and desire to obey the Lord in all things. Others have been met with who have taught that Jesus mitigated and softened down the law, and they have in effect said that the perfect law of God was too hard for imperfect beings, and therefore God has given us a milder and easier rule. These tread dangerously upon the verge of terrible error, although we believe that they are little aware of it.[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]http://www.angelfire.com/va/sovereigngrace/perpetuity.spurgeon.html[/FONT]


And notice that the Westminster confession uses the "same terms" - Hence R.C. Sproul's acceptance of it.

And Dr. Sproul points out explicitly that when they are talking about Sabbath in the OT - they do not mean Sunday - they mean Saturday.

In any case - I am not denying your right to be at war with your own Baptist Confession of faith on those Bible points - I simply do not choose to join you in your opposition to it - on those specific Bible teachings so well defined in that document.

You may call anyone who holds to the Baptist Confession of Faith's teaching on the perpetuity, of the moral law of God - as ALL TEN of the TEN Commandments "a cult" - but I do not choose to join you in doing that.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Yeshua1]

Let's "look" at their "terms" - the ones you do not even quote.

Baptist Confession of Faith 1689

19. The Law of God

1. God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience which was written in his heart, and He gave him very specific instruction about not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. By this Adam and all his descendants were bound to personal, total, exact, and perpetual obedience, being promised life upon the fulfilling of the law, and threatened with death upon the breach of it. At the same time Adam was endued with power and ability to keep it.


2. The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the Fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in the ten commandments, and written in two tables, the first four containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.

3. Besides this law, commonly called the moral law, God was pleased do give the people of Israel ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances. These ordinances were partly about their worship, and in them Christ was prefigured along with His attributes and qualities, His actions, His sufferings and His benefits. These ordinances also gave instructions about different moral duties. All of these ceremonial laws were appointed only until the time of reformation, when Jesus Christ the true Messiah and the only lawgiver, Who was furnished with power from the Father for this end, cancelled them and took them away.

4. To the people of Israel He also gave sundry judicial laws which expired when they ceased to be a nation. These are not binding on anyone now by virtue of their being part of the laws of that nation, but their general equity continue to be applicable in modern times.

5. The moral law ever binds to obedience everyone, justified people as well as others, and not only out of regard for the matter contained in it, but also out of respect for the authority of God the Creator, Who gave the law. Nor does Christ in the Gospel dissolve this law in any way, but He considerably strengthens our obligation to obey it.


6. Although true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works, to be justified or condemned by it, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, because as a rule of life it informs them of the will of God and their duty and directs and binds them to walk accordingly. It also reveals and exposes the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts and lives, and using it for self-examination they may come to greater conviction of sin, greater humility and greater hatred of their sin. They will also gain a clearer sight of their need of Christ and the perfection of His own obedience. It is of further use to regenerate people to restrain their corruptions, because of the way in which it forbids sin. The threatenings of the law serve to show what their sins actually deserve, and what troubles may be expectedin this life because of these sins even by regenerate people who are freed from the curse and undiminished rigours of the law. The promises connected with the law also show believers God's approval of obedience, and what blessings they may expect when the law is kept and obeyed, though blessing will not come to them because they have satisfied the law as a covenant of works. If a man does good and refrains from evil simply because the law encourages to the good and deters him from the evil, that is no evidence that he is under the law rather than under grace.

7. The aforementioned uses of the law are not contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but they sweetly comply with it, as the Spirit of Christ subdues and enables the will of man to do freely and cheerfully those things which the will of God, which is revealed in the law, requires to be done.[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm#part24[/FONT]
Quote:
[FONT=&quot]CH Spurgeon[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]“The Perpetuity of the Law of God”

Very great mistakes have been made about the law. Not long ago there were those about us who affirmed that the law is utterly abrogated and abolished, and they openly taught that believers were not bound to make the moral law the rule of their lives. What would have been sin in other men they counted to be no sin in themselves. From such Antinomianism as that may God deliver us. We are not under the law as the method of salvation, but we delight to see the law in the hand of Christ, and desire to obey the Lord in all things. Others have been met with who have taught that Jesus mitigated and softened down the law, and they have in effect said that the perfect law of God was too hard for imperfect beings, and therefore God has given us a milder and easier rule. These tread dangerously upon the verge of terrible error, although we believe that they are little aware of it.[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]http://www.angelfire.com/va/sovereigngrace/perpetuity.spurgeon.html[/FONT]


And notice that the Westminster confession uses the "same terms" - Hence R.C. Sproul's acceptance of it.

And Dr. Sproul points out explicitly that when they are talking about Sabbath in the OT - they do not mean Sunday - they mean Saturday.

In any case - I am not denying your right to be at war with your own Baptist Confession of faith on those Bible points - I simply do not choose to join you in your opposition to it - on those specific Bible teachings so well defined in that document.

You may call anyone who holds to the Baptist Confession of Faith's teaching on the perpetuity, of the moral law of God - as ALL TEN of the TEN Commandments "a cult" - but I do not choose to join you in doing that.

in Christ,

Bob

Are the Confessions scriptures? Do they have the authority of God behind them, were they inspired by the Holy spirit?

NOT saying that they are not valuable, nor worthwile to go thru, but you MUST have the bible to argue this, and you keep going to the Confessions, for the bible does NOT support your case!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

If it 'never happened' that 'the Sabbath had been changed', Jesus Christ never became a Man.

It's talking and reasoning like Samuele Bacchiocchi, who, when I asked him if it mattered that Jesus rose from the dead on the Sabbath, that it would give it new meaning, and meaning, anew, he answered me and said that if it were so,
"Jesus would have capitalized on the fact".
As if everything Jesus ever did or taught could not be capitalized MORE, THAN BY HIS RESURRECTION! And as if He would not DO AND BE what has been promised and expected from of old “according to the Scriptures”!
This is not arguing in a circle; this is the "FINISHING of all the works of God" in CHRIST and by Him “by the working of the EXCEEDING GREATNESS of his mighty power which God WROUGHT / ACCOMPLISHED / FINISHED when He RAISED Christ from the dead ".
"O that I may know HIM and the power of his RESURRECTION" "HITHERTO" which both Jesus and his Father "on the Sabbath ... WORKED"—and, indeed, "on the Sabbath", “WROUGHT"!
God is the keeper of his promises. He makes true his every “blessing” of the Sabbath Day in and through Jesus Christ. God created the Seventh Day and bestowed “sanctity” and “holiness” on it—“setting it apart”, FOR JESUS CHRIST and with the view to Him in his “entering in into” and fulfilling of God’s “REST” on the Seventh Day—the NEW beginning of God with all the “works” of his creating; the “REST” promised and wrought by the Power of Christ and of “his Resurrection from the dead”.
Jesus is not and made no change FROM the Sabbath to anything else; HE, IS, the 'change'—HE, IS, the DIFFERENCE TO and IN and OF the Sabbath HE MAKES.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Are the Confessions scriptures? Do they have the authority of God behind them, were they inspired by the Holy spirit?

The Confessions witness to and confess of the authority of God behind them, according to the Scriptures inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Some people on this board have argued that the first day of the week is to be kept holy as a day of worship - not because there is any Bible command to do so - but simply because of what God did on that day - by having Christ rise from the dead.

Some people insist that what the Bible calls "week day 1" should be considered as a day devoted to the worship of God.

If it 'never happened' that 'the Sabbath had been changed', Jesus Christ never became a Man.

It's talking and reasoning like Samuele Bacchiocchi, who, when I asked him if it mattered that Jesus rose from the dead on the Sabbath, that it would give it new meaning, and meaning, anew, he answered me and said that if it were so,
"Jesus would have capitalized on the fact".
As if everything Jesus ever did or taught could not be capitalized MORE, THAN BY HIS RESURRECTION! And as if He would not DO AND BE what has been promised and expected from of old “according to the Scriptures”!
This is not arguing in a circle; this is the "FINISHING of all the works of God" in CHRIST and by Him “by the working of the EXCEEDING GREATNESS of his mighty power which God WROUGHT / ACCOMPLISHED / FINISHED when He RAISED Christ from the dead ".
"O that I may know HIM and the power of his RESURRECTION" "HITHERTO" which both Jesus and his Father "on the Sabbath ... WORKED"—and, indeed, "on the Sabbath", “WROUGHT"!
God is the keeper of his promises. He makes true his every “blessing” of the Sabbath Day in and through Jesus Christ. God created the Seventh Day and bestowed “sanctity” and “holiness” on it—“setting it apart”, FOR JESUS CHRIST and with the view to Him in his “entering in into” and fulfilling of God’s “REST” on the Seventh Day—the NEW beginning of God with all the “works” of his creating; the “REST” promised and wrought by the Power of Christ and of “his Resurrection from the dead”.
Jesus is not and made no change FROM the Sabbath to anything else; HE, IS, the 'change'—HE, IS, the DIFFERENCE TO and IN and OF the Sabbath HE MAKES.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The Seventh-day Adventists reject Christ for being the Substance of the saints' "Sabbaths'-Feast"; they despise the fact; they hate its truth; they "TRAMPLE UNDER FOOT" the ONLY meaning and benefit "My Holy Day", "for man" or "SON OF MAN", EVER, has had, then boast how they keep the Letter of the Law written on the stone of their hearts.

Sundayers, don't rub your hands in glee, because you do much worse; so much worse that even the letter of the New Testament receives no respect from you.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Let's "look" at their "terms" - the ones you do not even quote.

Baptist Confession of Faith 1689

19. The Law of God

1. God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience which was written in his heart, and He gave him very specific instruction about not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. By this Adam and all his descendants were bound to personal, total, exact, and perpetual obedience, being promised life upon the fulfilling of the law, and threatened with death upon the breach of it. At the same time Adam was endued with power and ability to keep it.


2. The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the Fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in the ten commandments, and written in two tables, the first four containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.

3. Besides this law, commonly called the moral law, God was pleased do give the people of Israel ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances. These ordinances were partly about their worship, and in them Christ was prefigured along with His attributes and qualities, His actions, His sufferings and His benefits. These ordinances also gave instructions about different moral duties. All of these ceremonial laws were appointed only until the time of reformation, when Jesus Christ the true Messiah and the only lawgiver, Who was furnished with power from the Father for this end, cancelled them and took them away.

4. To the people of Israel He also gave sundry judicial laws which expired when they ceased to be a nation. These are not binding on anyone now by virtue of their being part of the laws of that nation, but their general equity continue to be applicable in modern times.

5. The moral law ever binds to obedience everyone, justified people as well as others, and not only out of regard for the matter contained in it, but also out of respect for the authority of God the Creator, Who gave the law. Nor does Christ in the Gospel dissolve this law in any way, but He considerably strengthens our obligation to obey it.


6. Although true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works, to be justified or condemned by it, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, because as a rule of life it informs them of the will of God and their duty and directs and binds them to walk accordingly. It also reveals and exposes the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts and lives, and using it for self-examination they may come to greater conviction of sin, greater humility and greater hatred of their sin. They will also gain a clearer sight of their need of Christ and the perfection of His own obedience. It is of further use to regenerate people to restrain their corruptions, because of the way in which it forbids sin. The threatenings of the law serve to show what their sins actually deserve, and what troubles may be expectedin this life because of these sins even by regenerate people who are freed from the curse and undiminished rigours of the law. The promises connected with the law also show believers God's approval of obedience, and what blessings they may expect when the law is kept and obeyed, though blessing will not come to them because they have satisfied the law as a covenant of works. If a man does good and refrains from evil simply because the law encourages to the good and deters him from the evil, that is no evidence that he is under the law rather than under grace.

7. The aforementioned uses of the law are not contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but they sweetly comply with it, as the Spirit of Christ subdues and enables the will of man to do freely and cheerfully those things which the will of God, which is revealed in the law, requires to be done.[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm#part24[/FONT]
Quote:
[FONT=&quot]CH Spurgeon[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]“The Perpetuity of the Law of God”

Very great mistakes have been made about the law. Not long ago there were those about us who affirmed that the law is utterly abrogated and abolished, and they openly taught that believers were not bound to make the moral law the rule of their lives. What would have been sin in other men they counted to be no sin in themselves. From such Antinomianism as that may God deliver us. We are not under the law as the method of salvation, but we delight to see the law in the hand of Christ, and desire to obey the Lord in all things. Others have been met with who have taught that Jesus mitigated and softened down the law, and they have in effect said that the perfect law of God was too hard for imperfect beings, and therefore God has given us a milder and easier rule. These tread dangerously upon the verge of terrible error, although we believe that they are little aware of it.[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]http://www.angelfire.com/va/sovereigngrace/perpetuity.spurgeon.html[/FONT]


And notice that the Westminster confession uses the "same terms" - Hence R.C. Sproul's acceptance of it.

And Dr. Sproul points out explicitly that when they are talking about Sabbath in the OT - they do not mean Sunday - they mean Saturday.

In any case - I am not denying your right to be at war with your own Baptist Confession of faith on those Bible points - I simply do not choose to join you in your opposition to it - on those specific Bible teachings so well defined in that document.

You may call anyone who holds to the Baptist Confession of Faith's teaching on the perpetuity, of the moral law of God - as ALL TEN of the TEN Commandments "a cult" - but I do not choose to join you in doing that.

Are the Confessions scriptures? Do they have the authority of God behind them, were they inspired by the Holy spirit?

NOT saying that they are not valuable, nor worthwile to go thru, but you MUST have the bible to argue this, and you keep going to the Confessions, for the bible does NOT support your case!

"The Baptist Confession of Faith 1689" is NOT "my case" it is C.H. Spurgeon's it is the Baptists that authored that - not me.

Which is the point of the post that I made.

You are free to be at war against your own Baptist Confession of Faith 1689 if you so choose - you have free will.

But you cannot blame its content on me.

You are free to choose to differ with my view to the extent that it is in AGREEMENT with your own Baptist Confession of Faith - you have that right.

But when I bring up the Bible support for that view -- you are not at liberty to bend history as if the Bible points I raise in this regard are just mine - and not ALSO the very point made by your own denomination's published and historic confession of faith.

You are constantly pretending that I am the only one that holds these views and that this make me a member of a cult -- while conveniently ignoring the fact that the VERY points where you are making objections against God's Ten Commandments - are the VERY points promoted in your own denomination's Confession of Faith.

Which was the reason for bringing in the inconvenient details regarding the historic document - The Baptist Confession of Faith 1689.

You are taking your own in-house debate and then pretending that I am the only one who accepts the Bible statement on the perpetual nature of the Ten Commandment, moral law of God, included in the New Covenant - even though it is seen clearly in the Baptist Confession of Faith.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

"The Truth shall make you free"

"I-AM, The Truth"

There is very little academic about the Truth of God, if at all.