Do you accidently contradict Rom 14 with Gal 4??

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Sgt Fury
"It's actually the Bible that teaches that the OT has been done away with."

GE
In the New Testament it never is the Scriptures meant for and as the Old Covenant. It prelimenary is the understanding of the NT - 100% as in the OT - that the 'Old Covenant' is that of man's works and of man's undertakings. The New Covenant is the very Eternal Covenant of Grace the one and same as throughout Holy Scriptures.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Sgt Fury,
"I have no creed, church manual, or confession of faith but the Bible."

GE
I know in whom I believe; how can I not have a Confession. God's salvation in Christ never is not, "to-us ward"; it never is "to-me ward" but 'i' as one OF, 'us' the Church-Temple of Christ IN THE WORLD as that mysterious ENTITY separate from the world; How, can I not, have a Confession "WITH the saints"?

I think you really do not know what you believe yet, dear Sgt Fury. Join the Church if only in your heart, or exclude yourself from all salvation. I, "was forced" to do that, and once I became one of the Flock, and found My Shepherd's abundant and endearing care my soul's desires filled to overflowing. Even though only in my heart through faith am I a member, and so cannot otherwise but with the Church of all time, Confess. I have no other procalmation, than my Confession - my Confession of Faith.

 

[Sgt. Fury]

What I meant by having no "confession of faith other than the Bible" was that neither I, nor the church of which I am a member, have a separate document that states our beliefs since what we believe is the Bible as a whole.

For example, when I was a member of the Baptist church, we had a little pamphlet called "The Baptist Faith and Message" that laid out the doctrinal distinctives we subscribed to that identified us as Baptists.

I mean no ill-will toward Baptists, (after all, this site is run by Baptists who have alotted a section of their forum for non-Baptists to partake in discussions/debates), but the "Baptist Faith and Message" pamphlet was lacking in several areas when compared with the Bible.

Other groups have other documents that spell out the things they believe as well. Again, these organizations are surely filled with good people, but I fail to see the purpose for "little books" to explain what they believe about the "Big Book", unless the "Big Book" holds more than what they believe. See what I mean?

 

[Sgt. Fury]

In the New Testament it never is the Scriptures meant for and as the Old Covenant.

I must admit it took me a few times to make sense of this.

In 2 Pet 3, Peter equates Paul's writings with the OT Scriptures.

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

The writers of the NT understood that they were writing by inspiration. Their words carried as much weight as the OT scriptures.

 

[BobRyan]

Certainly it is true that they were inspirted. But as we see in Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures daily to see IF the things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO".

They never used the term "OT scriptures" nor did they use the term "Old Testament" -- these terms are things we have added over the centuries. Things they probably would not recognize.

They simply had "scripture" and that would be equivalent to our term "Bible". We do not have "Old Bible" and "New Bible" and they did not have "OT scripture vs NT Scritpure" not once are these terms used in "The Bible".

Having said that - you make a good point that among the saints who tested and proved those writings - the inspiration of Paul was well recognized.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

What I meant by having no "confession of faith other than the Bible" was that neither I, nor the church of which I am a member, have a separate document that states our beliefs since what we believe is the Bible as a whole.

For example, when I was a member of the Baptist church, we had a little pamphlet called "The Baptist Faith and Message" that laid out the doctrinal distinctives we subscribed to that identified us as Baptists.

I mean no ill-will toward Baptists, (after all, this site is run by Baptists who have alotted a section of their forum for non-Baptists to partake in discussions/debates), but the "Baptist Faith and Message" pamphlet was lacking in several areas when compared with the Bible.

I too have a copy of that book and I have to tell you that from the standpoint of an outsider looking at Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, Adventist etc -- it was very helpful to have the "Baptist Faith and Message" by way of comparison.

All of the groups above would "claim" that the Bible supports their doctrinal statements and in fact would claim that their view of the Bible and the doctrines it supports/teaches/promotes is best described by the doctrinal statements of whatever group they belong to at the time.

Question about your own set of beliefs. Are they sufficient to get you classified to the point of being allowed to post in the baptist-only section of this board? Or do you appear to be a "non-baptist" to baptists?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It's actually the Bible that teaches that the OT has been done away with.

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

What we call "The OT" today - - the Bible calls "scripture". Each time in the NT where you see a reference to "scripture" and then a QUOTE of scrpture you see NT writers quoting the OT. This is without exception in the NT.

1. Col 2 says nothing about "scripture being nailed to the cross" or "scripture being done away with".

2. Nothing in ALL of the NT text mentions "The Old Testament" as a name for something. But in all cases where "Scripture is quoted" you will find a quote of THE OT.

3. Scripture is never called "the Old Covenant" in the NT and scripture is not "nailed to anything" in all of the Bible.

4. The New Testament text is never called "The New Covenant" in all of the Bible. Rather it is the OT that is quoted whenever the "New Covenant" text is quoted/listed/mentioned in the Bible. And that includes the quote from Heb 8

Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Nothing here saying "Matt through Rev is the New Covenant" nothing at all to suggest that the New Covenant is anything OTHER than the quote from JEREMIAH as found in Paul's letter to the Hebrews.

All of these teach that the OT, including the Patriarchal and Mosaic systems, are superceded by the New Testament in Jesus' blood.

When Jesus held up the cup and said "THIS is the New Testament in my blood" his reference was to the passover cup -- the cut of the Lord's Supper pointing to His death on the cross. It was not a reference to a book containing the letters of Matt-Mark-Luke-John through to Rev.

Letters by his disciples that had not yet been written.

Neither does Christ say "you do not yet have the New Testament but one day mabye in 70 years or so you will finally have it".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I must admit it took me a few times to make sense of this.

In 2 Pet 3, Peter equates Paul's writings with the OT Scriptures.

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

The writers of the NT understood that they were writing by inspiration. Their words carried as much weight as the OT scriptures.

GE
What I meant was, don't confuse the 'old covenant' for the Old Testament Scriptures'.

 

[BobRyan]

Hmm A surprise again.

The NT is not the NC and the OT is not the OC. Very often Christians make that substitution without realizing that it is not a Biblically supportable position.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Duplicate --

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Sgt. Fury
“It's actually the Bible that teaches that the OT has been done away with.

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;...”

GE
Absolutely so! Just as long as we remember what the ‘OC’ is. And I can go so far as to unreservedly accept the view it is the “Law” of the ‘Old Testament’ that has been ‘done away with’, but with the correct understanding of what ‘done away with’, means! For the ‘Written Code’ is as immutably for or against “the transgressors” as He who spoke it.

Because for those ‘under the New Covenant’ Jesus Christ has become the Law of God; the Law, Jesus Christ! The Law is not our Saviour; but Christ; The Law no longer is our Law; but Christ.

In Colossians 2:14-15 we see this truth having become The Truth for the New Testament Church, the truth of Jesus Christ having “Blott(ed) out the handwriting of LAWS that was against us, Law, contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” -- “HIS” cross! It wasn’t like the Church that summoned the members to bring all their Old Testament Scriptures to cast the ‘Written Code’ in flames of lawlessness. It was Jesus Christ hung on the cross for our sins, even He the Law against sin and sinners, crucified to do away their sins and their guilt. Now the Law on the cross was Christ “to us-ward”, Christ come to our salvation; Christ contrary the adversary; Christ against death and sin; Christ spoiling principalities and powers, making a show of them openly, triumphing over them in resurrection from the dead. “Let no man therefore, judge you eating and drinking of Feast, whether of month’s or of Sabbaths’.”

In Colossians 2 we find this grand Truth of redemption in Jesus Christ and not by the works of the Law, believed in and acted upon by the Christian Congregation in Sabbaths’ Feast. We see the Church, spiritually eating and drinking of its redemption wrought by Christ, against the whole world free in the face of and despite “the legal document summonsed against us” for being this rejoicing “Body of Christ’s Own”. Yea, theirs is an “eating and drinking” of God’s “Sabbaths’ Feast” in Jesus Christ who triumphed through resurrection from the dead. This is what Colossians 2 teaches. It does not teach the unbelief of lawlessness.

 

[Sgt. Fury]

Question about your own set of beliefs. Are they sufficient to get you classified to the point of being allowed to post in the baptist-only section of this board? Or do you appear to be a "non-baptist" to baptists?

in Christ,

Bob

Sorry it took so long to reply. I've been in and out a lot lately.

I have not posted in the "Baptist only" sections. I did once on another Baptist site, and was reprimanded. As I've mentioned earlier on other threads, they have been kind enough to provide the rest of us a place to post, so I'll respect their boundaries.

I would not wish to be mistaken for a Baptist, nor do I think many Baptists would want me to be mistaken for one of them. I hold no ill will toward Baptists, or any other group, though.

 

[Sgt. Fury]

Concerning scripture being nailed to the cross, it's true that while the NT was being written the OT was what was referred to as "scripture". After all, what else did they have? What we need to understand is that there are things in the scriptures, both old and new testaments that do not have universal application.

I've made mention of God's command to Noah to build an ark. This is one of those commands that is not universally applicable. There would be no point in anyone else building an ark in order to survive a global flood, since there is no danger of another global flood.

The OT, the Mosaic Law, the Ten Commandments, were only given to the nation of Israel. Gerhard made a critical distinction when he said, "...don't confuse the 'old covenant' for the Old Testament Scriptures'."

There are principles from Genesis to Malachi that apply to all men of all time. For example, murder was sin long before the OT was given on Mt. Sinai.

 

[BobRyan]

Concerning scripture being nailed to the cross, it's true that while the NT was being written the OT was what was referred to as "scripture".

True -- the NT writers always refer to scripture as "scripture" and they never say "scripture has been nailed to the cross".

When Paul says "do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid -- we Establish the Law of God" Rom 3:31 this was before all of the NT was written - and the readers had to be looking at the OT text to understand Paul.

After all, what else did they have? What we need to understand is that there are things in the scriptures, both old and new testaments that do not have universal application.

Certainly that is true. We are not all spies sent into the land of Caanan. Nor are we all members of Gideon's army.

I've made mention of God's command to Noah to build an ark. This is one of those commands that is not universally applicable.

True.

But when God DOES apply something explicitly to "ALL MANKIND" we ought to listen.

Is 66 comes to mind "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship"

The OT, the Mosaic Law, the Ten Commandments, were only given to the nation of Israel.

But They were never said to be "just for the nation of Israel".

The Word of God has always been given FOR the benefit of mankind.

"The Sabbath was made for MANkind" Mark 2:27.

In the OT the Jews were supposed to be God's witnesses evangelizing the rest of the world.

God never said "tell no one that I created the world and that Adam fell and that the flood came just as it is written in Genesis".

in 2Peter 3 -- Peter argues that the extent of the rebellion of mankind after the cross can be measured in the degree to which they ignore the OT text speaking of the origins of man and the flood that destroyed the World.

The idea that this was all burned or nailed to the cross or - not for non-Jews to know etc -- can not be supported.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Sgt. Fury]

Exo 19:3 And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;
Exo 19:4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
Exo 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
Exo 19:7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.
Exo 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.

This covenant was offered by God to the children of Israel, who were chosen from among all other people. God offered them a covenant, and they accepted.

Exo 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

This statement could apply to none other than the nation of Israel, to whom this covenant was offered.

Exo 20:22 And the LORD said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven.

It was only the children of Israel that were addressed here, where the Ten Commandments were delivered from Mt. Sinai. Even Moses' father-in-law had returned to his own land where he presumably continued his task as the priest of Midian

Exo 18:1 When Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses' father in law, heard of all that God had done for Moses, and for Israel his people, and that the LORD had brought Israel out of Egypt;

Exo 18:27 And Moses let his father in law depart; and he went his way into his own land.

Jethro was free to continue to worship God under the Patriarchal system of worship, and was not bound by the Law of Moses. He would not be observing the sabbath, nor was he required to.

 

[BobRyan]

No doubt God spoke "to Moses" and then Moses spoke "to Israel"

No doubt Paul wrote "to the Galatians"

no doubt that he also wrote "to the church of Corinth"


Isaiah 66 "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to Worship"

Mark 2:27 "the Sabbath was made for MANKIND".

Gen 2 "God blessed the Seventh day and sanctified it"

There is no "God's law has been downsized from ten commandments to nine" in all of scripture. But we do have a number of scriptures that speak about the "Ten commandments" which "God spoke and He added no more".


Here is an example of someone who like Adam Clarke, and Jamieson, Fausset, Brown also rejects the "downsized to nine" solution for the Ten Commandments

D L Moody

http://www.fbinstitute.com/
http://www.fbinstitute.com/moody/The...ents_Text.html

I honestly believe that this commandment is just as binding today as it ever was. I have talked with men who have said that it has been abrogated, but they have never been able to point to any place in the Bible where God repealed it. When Christ was on earth, [b]He did nothing to set it aside[/b]; He freed it from the traces under which the scribes and Pharisees had put it, and gave it its true place.
"The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27)
It is just as practicable and as necessary for men today as it ever was- in fact, more than ever, because we live in such an intense age.

The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. The fourth commandment begins with the word remember, showing that the Sabbath already existed when God wrote this law on the tables of stone at Sinai. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they will admit that the other nine are still binding?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Sgt. Fury]

Bob, I've got to admit that you're making a pretty good case for keeping the sabbath. To say otherwise would be less than honest.

Still though, I am not convinced that the observance of the sabbath is required under the New Testament of Jesus Christ. In Acts 15 the matter concerning Gentile Christians and the law (of which the 4th commandment is a part) is discussed.

Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Even in this letter there is not found a "No, you don't have to be circumcised or keep the law". All the apostles say is that they had given no such commandment.

Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

The teaching that Gentiles were required to keep the law (including the 4th commandment) is characterized by the apostles as "subverting your souls", and the apostles, who operated by the guidance of the Holy Spirit had not commanded it. If they had intended the Gentiles to observe the sabbath, might they have made an exception, or made mention of it in some way?

Certainly the other nine commandments represent principles which are applicable to men of all ages. These nine can all be found in the NT as well.

Yes, God sanctified the 7th day back in Genesis. But until the command was given from Mt. Sinai, there is no record of anyone under the Patriarchal dispensation observing it. God's sabbath was not made known until He made it known to Israel in Exodus 20.

Neh 9:13 Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments:
Neh 9:14 And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:

The arguments in favor of keeping the sabbath by Barnes, Moody, and others (including yourself) are well presented and obviously the product of much thought. But we are mere men, after all, and though I can say "Amen" to many of their points, as well as yours, I remain in disagreement with you on this issue.

I do look forward to continued discussions, sir.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, I've got to admit that you're making a pretty good case for keeping the sabbath. To say otherwise would be less than honest.

Thanks.

Objectivity noted and much appreciated.:godisgood:

Still though, I am not convinced that the observance of the sabbath is required under the New Testament of Jesus Christ.

That is fine too. "Opinions may vary":thumbs:

But given Isaiah 66 and your comment above - it would appear that we would have Sabbath "MADE for Mankind" Mark 2:27 in OT days -- then dropped (at the cross?) -- then coming back in the New Earth as we see in Isaiah 66 and applicable to "ALL mankind" once again.

And the much needed proof that something as drastic as downsizing God's Ten Commandments was actually commanded?

?

In Acts 15 the matter concerning Gentile Christians and the law (of which the 4th commandment is a part) is discussed.

Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Even in this letter there is not found a "No, you don't have to be circumcised or keep the law". All the apostles say is that they had given no such commandment.

Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

The teaching that Gentiles were required to keep the law (including the 4th commandment) is characterized by the apostles as "subverting your souls",

1. As a point of observation the Ten Commandments include many things other than Sabbath keeping. (No stealing, honor parents etc) and these are not mentioned in Acts 15.

2. As you note the specific topic is circumcision because as we learn in Eph 2 this is the term used to signify "Gentiles must become Jews" - which means that they would need to keep all of the Acts 21 ceremonial legal system.

and the apostles, who operated by the guidance of the Holy Spirit had not commanded it. If they had intended the Gentiles to observe the sabbath, might they have made an exception, or made mention of it in some way?

Sabbath keeping, honoring parents, not taking God's name in vain, not murdering ... none of that was being disputed and none of it mentioned.

In fact in Acts 15 the argument by James is made IN FAVOR of a reduced instruction set for Gentiles when it comes to the ceremonial laws BECAUSE the Gentiles are hearing "Moses preached every Sabbath" just as we SEE in Acts 13 - meaning that they would always be hearig all of scripture so not requiring them to actually "be Jews" was no problem.

Context is everything.

Certainly the other nine commandments represent principles which are applicable to men of all ages. These nine can all be found in the NT as well.

But not in Acts 15.

And Acts 15 does not say "someday in the future letters will be written that will just so happen to include all the Ten Commandments but one".

in Fact in Heb 4 "There REMAINS therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God".

So it would have been hard for them to say in Acts 15 "all ten will be mentioned in the as yet unwritten letters but you can ignore the Sabbath when it get's mentioned"

 

[BobRyan]

Mark 2:27 "the Sabbath MADE for Mankind"

Yes, God sanctified the 7th day back in Genesis. But until the command was given from Mt. Sinai, there is no record of anyone under the Patriarchal dispensation observing it.

Actually God gave it before Exodus 20 as we see in Gen 2 and in Exodus 16.

But significantly in Exodus 20 "Remember the Sabbath" is a command that shows ONLY the events of Gen 2 as "establishing the authority" and sanctity of the day "FOR IN six days God... and rested the Seventh day THEREFORE God BLESSED the Sabbath day and MADE it Holy".

The argument you are making is that God "made it Holy but man is not obliged to honor what God makes as Holy" which is not a doctrine we find well documented in scripture.

In this case the very act of Gen 2 is the only act that makes it Holy -- in Exodus 20 God does not say "I now make this a Holy day for you".

Another example of this is Gen 6 and 7 - the reference to "unlcean animals" is not really explained until Lev 11.

One Author - Moses -- writing to the SAME group of people and not repeating the later book contents - all in the book of Genesis.

The arguments in favor of keeping the sabbath by Barnes, Moody, and others (including yourself) are well presented and obviously the product of much thought. But we are mere men, after all, and though I can say "Amen" to many of their points, as well as yours, I remain in disagreement with you on this issue.

All well and good. My point in bringing in those other authors is not that they have papal infallability -- it is to show that even well respected week-day-one observant scholars recognized the immutability of God's Law. These are guys who observe the same tradition that you do and had every incentive to take the same "God's Law downsized to nine" solution but did not see that it was a viable solution for them.

I do look forward to continued discussions, sir.

Same here. Keep "those cards and letters commin' ":jesus:

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The main point for this subject thread is this -- even if you follow a path of "God's ten Commandements downsized to 9" - the best you get is that in Rom 14 the days being observed and "regarded" include our Creator's Seventh Day Sabbath -

Observance of the Lev 23 annual holy days in Rom 14 is vigorously defended by Paul even if he allows them to be optional. It is worship with the God-ordained scriptures of the OT.

In Gal 4:8-11 the mere observance of the pagan days in honor of that which "by nature is not gods at all" is vigorously condemned. It is worship in a pagan system.

Those who seek to equate those two things have set the Word of God as being equal to paganism.

That was the point of the OP.

in Christ,

Bob