For SDA's on Sunday worship

Downsville had said:

I do not agree with Downsville on this.

My Bible said that "He nailed our certificate of debt" to the cross. Not the Law of God. Not even
the ceremonial law of God. The ceremonial law did not have to be nailed to the cross - it just had to be fulfilled - the shaddow pointing to the sacrifice of Christ.

However our "debt" did have to be "paid" it had to be nailed to the cross as "paid in full".

Eric said

No.

#1. Moses has no authority to make any law. It was all the "Law of God".

#2. The Law of God consisting of shaddows pointing forward to the death of the Messiah - were predictions about the death of Christ. Those predictions were fulfilled as specifice.

Christ the Creator's 7th-day holy Sabbath memorial of His creation event is not a prediction about death.

Eric said

The 10 commandments were the only part of God's Law kept "inside" the Ark. God had the rest of His Word placed "outside" the Ark. God - made the distinction.

The 10 commandments were the only part of God's Word that God spoke audibly to Israel - the rest - was spoken individually to Moses or a prophet. God made the distinction.

Paul continues to quote from those 10 commandments as "authorotative" in Romans 7, Ephesians 6, Romans 13 etc.

James quotes from them as "authorotative" and as "judging the saints" in James 2.

The unit continues to be authorotative.

I never gave God's Law nor commanded it.

The dietary laws (including the Levitical law forbidding the eating meat with blood in it - enforced even for the Gentiles in the NT - in Acts 15) are still in tact because they do not "point to any future event". They are simply a matter of health.

Christ did not die so you can eat ham. (As much as some would make that the issue at the cross).

Eric said

If that speculative supposition were in fact "true" then you would not find the NT authors quoting from the books of Moses AS IF they had any authority at all.

But instead - they show that Christ quoted from them, Paul quoted from them, Peter quoted from them, Gospel writers quoted from them... James quoted from them... All quoting and showing God's Word to "still" be in full application.

In Hebrews 10 we are told that Christ put a stop to sin offerings and sacrifices (as Daniel 9 predicted by the way). But we still see the Levitical code enforced about meat with blood in it, Loving your neighbor as yourself and the Deut 6:5 statement about loving God with all your heart in addition to the 10 commandments quoted from in the NT.

So when Moses said in Gen 2:3 that on the 7th day of Creation week God rested, and blessed and sanctified it - and that this is how mankind has its seven day week - that is in fact "Moses lying"? Or would that be "God" lying since all scripture is inspired by God?

When Christ said "The Sabbath was MADE for Mankind and not Mankind MADE for the Sabbath" speaking of the "making" of both - Christ is "lying" because when the Sabbath was "Made" it was "Only Made for Jews"?

Indeed you have speculated "There does NOT remain therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God" because it was only given to the Jews....

But Christ said "the Sabbath was MADE for Mankind".

Again - God tells us that in the New Earth "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL Mankind come before Me to worship" and you can only respond "who knows??"

God is being consistent from start to finish - it was MADE for Mankind - there CONTINUES to be a Sabbath rest for the people of God - and in the New Earth "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL Mankind come before Me to Worship".

The case could not "Be" worse for the POV you are pushing - as you try to get this turned into "who knows that this really is consistent just because it looks consistent".

Jesus said - pre-Cross - "If you Love Me KEEP My commandments" John 14:15. That statment is itself a quote from the 10 commandments.

Your idea that "Exegesis" would lead to an interpretation of John 14:15 such that the hearers of Christ would NOT know that the commandments are the 10 commandments OR that Christ is in fact God - who gave them... leaves something to be proven.

See? Even you can not help but show yourself to be in violation of Christ the Creator's 4th commandment.

You suppose that when Christ (speaking before the Cross) says that Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:5 are the key foundation stones of His Word - His Law that this really means "all but the Sabbath" all but Christ the Creator's 7th-day holy day made holy at Creation as a memorial to His creative act -- you are simply mistaken. Furthermore it is poor exegesis to suppose that John 14:15 was spoken to a group that thought the 10 commandments were now down to "9" pre-cross.

In Christ,

Bob

 

It wasn't "hidden" from them; while they read about it in the Gospels, still, it was a Jewish practice that was never expected of them.

But the fact that he is condemning just the "keeping" of days and times in themselves (as you kept pointing out), shows that just the act of them keeping them is the error condemned in the OT. In other words, the only reason they were keeping them was because they were influenced by these leaders who made it mandatory in order to please God, when they were now to be a person's own devotion to the Lord. You place paganism in there, though it is nowhere in the text. It is purely Jewish Lawkeeping that is criticized in the whole passage.

If Christ IS our Passover (1 Cor.5:7), then you are not ignoring it. It does apply. The only thing you are ignoring is the Letter, but the letter is what is the shadow.

And this old Creation is a shadow of the new one.

Not, no meaning, the New Earth will be the antetypical sabbath.

These still don't define for us what God espects of us today. In fact, "from sabbath to sabbath" does not even specify whether it's weekly or annual, so the Armstrongists/Messianics/sacred namers will use this same passage to say the annual are still in effect, and even claim that the same arguments used against them are the same used against the weekly sabbath!

I've mentioned this before, and this is the first time you addressed the passage (though you skipped over the point I made with it). Read the chapter, really good. This is not talking about a literal "sabbath", but rest in Christ, which is clearly shown bere to "fulfill" the intent of the sabbath. (at least the "resting" aspect of it). This is what I have been saying all along, but you keep making charges of just "ignoring" the whole commandment, intent and all.

What about unleavened bread: putting bread out of one's house. What did that have to do with a "prediction" of dying? It pictured the putting out of sin in our lives, and this was accomplished with Christ; so now we do not have to literally do that anymore; just trust Christ, and He will give you the power to put sin out of your life. Of course, the other groups mentioned will still say this does not eliminate observance of the letter either.

The Jews still did it because it was a long standing ritual of identity, but it was no longer "required" in the NT. Christ did fulfill it, because it had a few meanings: identity, but now our identity is in Christ. Also "circumcision of the ears" is linked with becoming "spiritual Jews", and thus shown also to be an antetypical fulfillment of it.

This still does not define for us our walk in this transitional period of the Church Age.

True, but what I was using this to say was that if you are consistent in keeping certain laws on the presmise that if God once commanded it, it must still be in effect, and criticize others for failing to observe what the NT shows to be personal devotion, then you in practice are acting as if salvation is in the Law.

 

Still, the Bible calls it the "Law of Moses" (Acts 15:1, 5), and it was deemed not binding on the new converts.

Once again, they are about the whole Christian life as well. The final one, "the Last Great Day" is about the return of Christ, but that has not happened yet. We are still not, however, required to observe the day. Christ's death spanned the sabbath (He actualy "kept" it in the tomb), so it is connected with His death.

This does not tell us that only all the others would be fulfilled by Christ, while all ten would always be kept in the letter. One thing many do not realize, is that the 613 commandments, is not "10 + 603", with only the first 10 being more important and eternal than the others. The rest of the law, hung on the Ten; they broke down into the rest. So this concise SUMMARY of the Law would be given a special place. But as eschatologist just showed, above, the Ten likewise hang on the TWO: love for God, and your fellow neighbor. How these are practiced does not always follow the literal 10, because the letter did not specify lust and hatred, or all oaths period, for instance. So it IS possible for some to increase in application, and one to lessen or be set aside in application. You can't say "it was apart of the Ten, and the Ten were special because they were inside the ark", or even "Paul continues to quote from those 10 commandments as "authorotative" in Romans 7, Ephesians 6, Romans 13 etc.

James quotes from them as "authorotative" and as "judging the saints" in James 2.

The unit continues to be authorotative." This "unit" itself is a summary, not the end in itself, since it hangs on a greater "Law", which does include the commandments quoted in the NT, as I have said.

OK, that's one of the universal Noahide laws, not Mosaic Law. I was referring to unclean meats. That is specifically associated with Moses, not blood.

No, but the "purpose" of that law was not a pragmatic "health" code. Lev.11:44 clearly shows that the purpose of those laws was holiness. But we all know now that holiness or sanctification is the work of the God through the Holy Spirit (2 Thess.2:13) Rather than all being uineccesarily "unhealthy", the unclean animals all had negative traits (predators, scavengers, etc. and were often very symbolic in pagan religions, so what God was teaching them was to avoid those kinds of characteristics. 2 Cor.6:17 "Touch not the unclean thing", and lPet.l:15, "Be ye holy for I am holy". Here the apostles quote OT commands which referred to unclean meats, but now (as the contexts show) their spiritual intent is to avoid unclean behavior and people.If you do that, then you've fulfilled the laws of clean and unclean.

They were God's word, but to Christians, they were a history for us to learn from and point us to Christ. That has nothing about copying the practices from them, because with that logic, once again, all the sacrifices and everything else would be retained.

Who's saying anything about pre-cross? You're the one who keeps mentioning it. We are not pre-Cross, so let's deal with today, not what God once commanded in a totally different age, most of which you don't keep anyway (since it was pre-cross, it would include all of the sacrifices, annual feasts, etc).

That's the letter I'm referring to, which is not binding now, so there is no "violation".

Also, you are still constantly referring to "made for mankind", but I earlier answered this. Not everything "made for man" is binding on all men, even if it reflects God's eternal actions. Marriage is an example.

 

Eric said --

The reasoning above is not sound.

Lev 19:18 "Love for your neighbor" and Deut 6:5 "Love God with all your heart" -- were perfectly "fulfilled" by Christ as well as the 10 commandments and all the law. That did not "Abolish love for God" as some would like to use the idead of "fullfill" to mean "abolish".

Rather the law is "established" on the Lev 19 and Deut 6 principles - not "abolished by them".

Those principle did not "Abolish the law" in the OT or in the NT. They existed in both. And that is the flaw in your statement above.

Eric said

Nope. Not possible. There is no basis for that in all of scripture. Certainly not with the 10 commandments, or the Creator's 7th day memorial of creation "Made for Mankind" and even continued in the New Earth.

Simply not possible to show it - but you seem to be content to simply "say it" rather than "Show it".

Eric said

Why not? These are just the clear facts of what is in the Bible. I am just observing that they exist.


James quotes from them as "authorotative" and as "judging the saints" in James 2.

The unit continues to be authorotative." as we see in Eph 6.

Eric said

True - they form a group that are "in harmony" and not "at odds" with each other.

The Unit of the 10 commandments "remains" as we see in Eph 6.

Eric said --

The distinction between clean and unclean animals is introduced in Gen 6.

The issue about eating meat with blood is introduced in Gen 8.

What were you thinking?

Eric said

Obedience in OT and NT is always related to holiness. That is a red herring.

The clear statement in Lev 11:1-4 is distinction between the "edible" and that which is not.

It is really simple.

Eric said

That is not true. By looking at the statements in Hebrew - it is very easy to see that the Word of God "ALL 66" remains "in tact" and "useful for Doctrine" as Paul said in 2Tim 3:16.

Hebrews 8-10 point to an end of the sacrifical system and explain "why". However it does not say "because we don't believe that our scriptures are good any more".

The point about the messiah fulfilling the promised sacrifice - did nothing to abolish the 10 commandments.

And we note that John writing decades after the life of Christ - emphasizes that point as part of his "Teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you".

Clearly your view give you a Bible that is less than 66 -- in fact it is less than the 27 of the NT - you appear to be down to 23 - and all this just to get away from the 10 commandments?

That seems like a huge sacrifice.

What do you do about the fact that the NT writers in the part of the Bible that you do still accept as fully authortative - are quoting from the part of the Bible that you do call "just a history" as the "force of authority" for their doctrines?

Thou shalt not kill - letter? Binding?

Do you really think that ignoring the Creator's law will result in "no violation" even when James says that to break part is to break all?

How can you feel comfortable taking that road?

Marriage is a perfect example of another institution "made for mankind" that came out of Eden and was created before sin.

Be "assured" if you take someone elses wife - God will consider that "a violation" -- EVEN if you choose no to marry her. It was made "for mankind" and is still in force today. Only by physically changing the biology of all mankind could that ever change to the point that nobody could be blessed by Marriage any longer.

In Christ,

Bob

 

BTW - Merry Christmas to Eric and all my Lord's Day bretheren.

In Christ,

Bob

 

They would not think of this as a “Jewish creator” or “a Jewish mankind”. As soon as they found that
#1. “The Sabbath was made for mankind”
#2. in the New Earth they would be “worshipping from Sabbath to Sabbath”
#3. the 10 commandments were spoken directly by God to the people – and included the Sabbath…

Then they would join the Gentiles of Acts 13 and Acts 17 that were “already” worshipping on Sabbath in honor of the One True God – just as many gentiles do today… including this one.

Eric said

Indeed – that is the “clue” that this can not be the Romans 14 “observances” that are always “defended”.

It is another practice entirely. It is a pagan practice for which there is no possibility of “Keeping in good faith”.

Combine the information you get in Romans 14 about faithful obedience up to the discretion of the individual to freely select with what you have in Gal 4 about paganism – and it becomes very clear – these are two very different “observances”.

Eric said

If your flip-flopping back to saying that they DID have a valid way to keep these pagan seasons “but” they were simply not doing it with faith. Hence you are stuck with the two problems. #1 Your need to get the pagan observance of “seasons” to mean “annual feast days of Lev 23”. #2. When you do that you can then see that I have already stated that condemning an error already condemned in the OT (See Isaiah 1 and Malachi 1) does not "Show a change in the law".

Lets draw this out to a fine point. Do you mean “keeping” what God commanded as in Romans 14? Keeping something that is “up to the free choice of the individual to do so and fully honor God in doing it”. Is that what you are now calling “the weak and elemental things – serving that which is NOT God and Returning to the practice” of paganism as Paul describes it in Gal 4?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Your approach of calling Christ the Creator’s work in Genesis “the Old Creation” and the work He does in the New Earth “the New Creation” is not found in scripture – but what we do find is that God says of the New Heaven and New Earth “From Sabbath to Sabbath shall All mankind come before Me to Worship”.

Which means that each time you say to the Mark 2 statement of Christ the Creator “Yes – but that was the old creation we are looking for a New Earth” you are simply employing circular reasoning. God already said “]“From Sabbath to Sabbath shall All mankind come before Me to Worship”. And your response “Eric said – the New Earth will be the antetypical sabbath.”
.

Eric said

In acts 13 when we see preaching “for 3 Sabbaths” in Isaiah 66 when we see “From Sabbath to Sabbath” – even the Jews knew what this meant. The “confusion” that your view requires here – just is not in scripture. You are right to appeal to the Armstrong Church of God to show confusion -- rather than Israel to whom this was written – because the Jews have no confusion at all on this point.

Eric said

I believe you would prefer to make that case from Heb 4 but I have not seen you actually do it using the text.

In the text itself it is the 7th day Sabbath (not an annual one) that is specified and the conclusion “There REMAINS therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God” shows us that we still have the Sabbath blessing to be entered into – today. In the same way that the godly faithful saints of Heb 11 that ALSO entered the Land Canaan – were not “cast of out Canaan” when they become the faithful spirit-filled people of God. Rather they lived IN Canaan AND were born-again spirit filled “giants of faith” as recorded in Heb 11. The “either/or” dichotomy that you are looking for – does not exist in scripture.

The feast of unleavened bread and first fruits are all part of Passover week. It points to a spotless lamb (without sin) offered as man’s sin offering – and then the resurrection on week-day-1.

Yes it was still required in the NT. For this reason Paul has Timothy submit to it in Acts 16 AND Paul states 3 times from Acts 21-then end that his teaching was consistent with what God gave Moses.

In Romans 2 – Paul says that the “spiritual meaning” of that act is “still” the same as Moses said it was – the “circumcision of the heart” by the Holy Spirit. No change – OT or NT.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Eric insists If Christ IS our Passover (1 Cor.5:7), then you are not ignoring it.

By not keeping Passover – (which I could freely “keep” today if I chose to according to Romans 14) – I am the one that “does NOT observe”. This is very obvious. I am the one that is “ignoring it” – I am not the example of the Romans 14 saint that chose to “Observe the day”. Your idea of “still observing what you ignore” is a internally-conflicted position that your defense has forced you into. It is not a logical position supportable from Rom 14 or Gal 4 or Matt 5 – “keeping what you ignore” is just not there.

Eric said

In Matt 5 when Christ contrasted the letter and the spirit – keeping it in the spirit ALWAYS included and surpassed outward performance. You have gone the to the extreme opposite were “ignoring” is a “spiritual keeping and observing”. That position is so “conflicted” that it totally makes mush out of Gal 4- because even when you think you are “faithfully ignoring those pagan Seasons” you are still “keeping” by your definition and as Paul said in Gal 4 – lost.

You are adopting a defensive position here for which there is no logical support

Eric said This still does not define for us our walk in this transitional period of the Church Age.

There is no support in scripture for saying that God’s Word is now cancelled because we would like to start using phrases like “the transitional period of the church age”. That kind of cancellation – does not exist in scripture. Its source is “tradition”.

Eric said

I agree with your view that IF you can’t just trash the Laws of God wholesale – then you actually have to pay attention to it – and who knows you might have to keep it all (as horrible as that might be). My entire point is that your view is correct to a point. Instead of wholesale dismissal of the Word of God (because it pertains to the Word of God before the Cross) what we really have is “ONE” Gospel in ALL ages. We pay “close attention” to His word in Heb 10 saying that the Sacrifices and offerings were “put to a stop” by Christ.

In other words – it is God’s explicit statement that must be applied to each part – to show that it is no longer binding – and can be freely ignored.

Eric said

Actually this debate consists of you criticizing others for saying that the Word of God is still in force regarding the moral law to the point that it still includes Christ the Creator’s Holy day – that He made Holy on the 7th day of creation week and placed in His ten commandments.

Your argument that “salvation is IN the law IF you choose to honor and obey God by keeping Christ the Creator’s Law” was never true in the OT – and continue to be untrue in the NT. Consistently in Romans 3, Galatians 3, Romans 14 and James 2 – we are told that Christ the Creator’s Law “continues” to “define sin” authoritatively. Violation of it “IS” sin – the idea that midway through the NT books -- violation of God’s Law “is righteousness” or “is faith” or “is the New Birth” is not found in scripture.

Perhaps that is a key difference that we should explore further.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Still, the Bible calls it the "Law of Moses" (Acts 15:1, 5), and it was deemed not binding on the new converts.

Actually – Acts 15 does bind the new converts to statements made in the first 5 books of the Word of God. Notice that the laws about fornication, adultery, idols, eating meat with blood in it… they all come from the “scriptures” that the NT saints were reading. You know…. the OT.

Eric said Once again, they are about the whole Christian life as well.

Actually – 1Cor 5 makes the case “Christ our Passover has been slain” – he does not say “Christians now exist so no need for Passover”. Passover predicts the substitutionary death of the Messiah – not the substitutionary death of sinners.

Eric asid

Which of the Lev 23 feast are you calling “The Last Great Day”??

Eric said –

Yes – He was in the grave Friday, Saturday and Sunday. All 3 days still exist and the weekly cycle of creation week still remains. What is your point? Nothing about the Sabbath “made for mankind” – points to death. Notice that in Gen 2:3 it is a “memorial” of Christ the Creator’s divine act in creating mankind. That is why Christ the Creator says that He “Made the Sabbath For mankind”.

Eric said – That's the letter I'm referring to, which is not binding now, so there is no "violation".

 

No one said that the two commandments were "abolished". they are what the wholeLaw hangs on. It's particular points of what hangs on them that may be commanded in one age, and repealed in another. But the principles of the two would still stand.

You yourself both say it and show it by pointing out other laws are no longer binding, because they were shadows of Christ. First you say "not possible", as if I'm making it up, then you say "certainly" not the 10 Commandments, as if now, perhaps it is possible with the others.

Now you're saying but not showing. Just because you say "they quoted the other commandments, that means the Sabbath is still in effect" does not "show it to be fact". You acknowledge the fact that commandments were quoted, but then add in your own overgeneralization.

 

No one said that the two commandments were "abolished". they are what the wholeLaw hangs on. It's particular points of what hangs on them that may be commanded in one age, and repealed in another. But the principles of the two would still stand.

You yourself both say it and show it by pointing out other laws are no longer binding, because they were shadows of Christ. First you say "not possible", as if I'm making it up, then you say "certainly" not the 10 Commandments, as if now, perhaps it is possible with the others.

Now you're saying but not showing. Just because you say "they quoted the other commandments, that means the Sabbath is still in effect" does not "show it to be fact". You acknowledge the fact that commandments were quoted, but then add in your own overgeneralization.
Eph. 6 does not mention them as a whole "unit", as I have been pointing out. You then only say "well, does that then mean that any other commandments not mentioned there are not binding?", but then they are mentioned elsewhere in the NT. The Sabbath is left out of EVERY list of "commandments", or "sins" (for not keeping it) in the NT.

Like with the Sabbath, clean and unclean were mentioned in Genesis, but not commanded (9:3). Blood was forbidden upon its first mention. Even your staement is forced to acknowledge this: a "distinction" between clean and unclean, versus an issue of eating blood.

But obedience to this specific group of laws was specifically an external code of holiness and nothing else.

WITH the understanding that what He commanded them did not always coincide with "what Moses/them of old" gave them. (Matt. 5, 19:8). else, once again, the sacrifices would still be in effect, regardless of whether they were shadows ("does 'fulfilling' the shadows mean ingnoring them and not intensifying them", as you keep arguing)

Doctrines, but not practices, except for universal principles, such as the commandments that are repeated.

First of all, "thou shalt not kill" was one of the universal laws that mankind always had, and which of course carries over to the NT, and in the spirit includes even hatred or nasty words. You elsewhere said said something like "we ignore the sacrifices and feast because they were shadows of Christ. But the groups that keep the feasts will say the same thing you just said: If we 'ignore' parts of God's laws...if we break one we break all".

But still, no one [individual] is required to partake in it just because it was "made for [all of] mankind". That was my point, not violating the rules of partaking in it.

Been through this way back in the beginning. They were not "keeping" the sabbath, only meeting in the synagogue on the day that service was held in the synagogue.

You keep saying pagan practices. I never conceded that these were pagan practices. The only thing mentioned there were Jewish practices (the Law)

I keep explaining this to you and you are not getting it. For a person to keep a day or days as their own personal devotion to God is acceptable, to try to command all of the days to gentile converts, not by their own choice, but because one is trying to get them to keep the Law, is "returning them to weak and elemental things", and notice how you have to paste v.8 at the end of v.9, as if it is a continuous statement. Paul mentions what they were before, (v.8), and now claims they are "returning" to bondage (the point of the verse, not what they were in bondage to, before), by now adopting what the Jews, who supposedly served the true God, but still were just as much in bondage as the pagans, were binding on them.

 

Rev. 21:8, Isaiah 65:17 and as an Adventist, you should know this better than anyone. There are similar principles elsewhere (Rom.8:22, 23) even in your sabbath passage (v.22:23). While mentioning that, also notice that it mentions new moons, which were also observances. Either it is something that is not in effect now that will be reinstated, or it was as I said, conditional on Israel's continued upholding of the Covenant. Notice, it is concerned with preserving "your seed and your name".

Note verses like v.11, which says that this rest is something we must "labor" to enter, and that one can be barred from entering (v.3). then, 4, "He spoke in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise", then v.8 "If [Joshua] had given them rest, he would have not spoken of another day". THIS is the "rest" that remains for us today. And we must cease from our "workS", not necessary "work". It is talking about the final reward—the spiritual antitype of the "promised land", and of the seventh day, to enter which, we cease trying to receive justificatin through "works", and simply trust in Jesus. (Here it is from the text).

And also putting sin oput of your life. But even so, so it points to Christ? Still, keep the feast to "remember" what Christ did. Do we "ignore" it because Christ fulfilled it? That's how the feast day keepers argue, and once again, your argument against the feasts is the same as mine against the weekly sabbath.

But because of Christ's payment of our sins, today, the spiritual intent ("spirit and not the letter" v.29) is what superseded the old law, else, the sacrifices and feasts must still be in effect as well. The Law was our tutor to bring us to christ. (Gal.4) that is why both spirit and letter existed side by side in the OT, but now the spirit supersedes the letter. (So you cannot keep saying "the spirit of the law existed then, and the letter still mandated, so it must be the same now). The spirit was what God was teaching them through the letter, but without Christ and the new birth, most would not get it. So Christ, the "reality" replaces all of these shadows, and we aim for the spiritual intent, whether it includes/expands upon/magnifies the letter, or supersedes it. Once again, Paul in that one instance had Timothy obey the rules of the Jews. It was not preached as binding on anyone else.

Because your definition of "ignore" keeps changing. On one hand, it is some violation of the intent of the law as if it was never justified, ("Do you really think that ignoring the Creator's law will result in "no violation" even when James says that to break part is to break all?"), but now you're saying it is OK based on Rom.14 but only for certain commands. So what I am saying is that if it is never right to "ignore God's commands", then we are not ignoring them if they were shadows of Christ.

There is no way to keep pagan days "in the spirit", either literally keeping them or ignoring them. That is unheard of and totally moot in scripture, so this analogy is totally useless.

And Hebrews 4 shows what our true rest is. Several other scriptures say not to judge on sabbaths, and that keeping days is now a personal matter before the Lord, not something we impose on others. You simply reinterpret them to maintain trying to impose your practice on everyone else.

Criticizing others? Really, I'm the one on the defensive here. My Christian persuasion is being accused of basically, living in sin, and I have the right to try to prove my practice scripturally, since I believ it is scriptural. Otherwise, I do not bother sabbatarians.

 

These are all just another reiteration of points that are not proven. I say one thing, and you answer with something else that is equally in question in the argument (i.e. it is not a given interpretation that is agreed upon). This is why we are going in circles. And you use these attention grabbing statements like "Jewish creator", "Jewish mankind", now add "only using less than x number of books of the Bible", "violation of the law is righteousness" as well as the earlier "God says it is for mankind, you say it is only for the Jews", "God sanctified it at creation, you ignore it", "God says we will worship on the sabbath in the Kingdom, you say 'who knows'", "whatever is not repeated is deleted", etc. I am sorry, but all of this is not proving your case. It is just building a bigger non-sequitur and making it look like it is supported by scripture. I've given the scriptures showing that the sabbath is not mandated to us today, you take these other scriptures on the past and future, put them together into a universal command for all times, and then reinterpret the scriptures I give, and then conclude I'm trashing the Word of God, and other emotive charges. I can see now this is your method of debate. Just like on the Calvinism debate, when you kept repeating over and over a scenario of a person seeing his child passed over to Hell, which drove the Cals up the wall, but did not prove to them what the scriptures really teach on that. I was on your side in that debate, but still, I felt that tactic made our side look bad. No matter how much shock value you try to cast my view in, there is still not enough proof of your view in the reasoning you give, or even that your interpretation of scripture is right. When God wants us to keep a command, He repeatedly tells us, and warns of judgment for not keeping it. We just do not see this with the sabbath in the NT (Like we do in the OT). Instead, we see it is something we are to keep unto the Lord if we so choose, but not judge one another over, in the letter, and that it is rest in Jesus, in the spirit. Please don't bother reiterating "oh, the other commands become more binding in the spirit", "those were annual days", or "those were pagan days", because I have heard that, I have answered it, it is not there, and you are only using your assumption of the sabbath being mandatory to reach those conclusions. I am NOT denigrating the Bible or the Law, or saying it is OK to sin, any more than you are for saying we don't have to keep the feasts. It often takes me hours to repond to all of this (I've spent just about all of Christmas Eve on this one), so please stop repeating this stuff, and stick with scriptural statements, not interpretations of what you think I am saying.

Merry ["pagan"] Christmas to you

 

Actually - each of those points above - relied upon specific references to scripture and your own response to it. They show how your response establishes an unsound principle of Bible study that could never be supported.

In each case you reach a point where you back away from advancing your point to the next level and simply repeat your prior assertion without answering the problems I bring up with your view - as I show that it is not workable.

Your next statement is an excellent case in point.

That is just it. You have not.

#1. Instead of giving a scripture you "introduce" a "proposal" that if the Sabbath is not repeated it is deleated. The problem is - it is not in Malachi and it is not in Matthew "pre-Cross" at a time when even you admit it is "not deleted".

#2. Then you introduce the idea that "maybe.. unlike all the examples Christ gives in Matt 5 pre-cross, the Sabbath is strengthened and deepened in a way that lets us not-observie it at the same time". This "novel" suggesting finds no support in all of scripture for this being a "deeper way to keep one of God's commands".

#3. Then you suggest that "we keep what we ignore" and use the Passover as an example. My point was made that in fact we don't keep Passover at all because "Christ our Passover has been slain" 1Cor 6. He fulfilled it - we don't keep it at all. I even gave you the exmaple of Romans 14 showing you that this is a perfect case of the one that "does not observe" one of the specific feast days. I will be reading your recent responses in the morning - but until know I have not seen you respond to this.

And so - having all these irons in the fire with this one point alone - you simply double back and repeat your opening assertion.


On the Timeless binding nature of Sabbath -

We saw that it began with God and mankind in Gen 2:3 and Christ shows us that His own Creation Memorial 7th-day holy day was "made for Mankind".

Then we saw that it continues even into the New Earth in Isaiah 66 "From Sabbath to shall All mankind come before Me to worship".

Your response was

#1. Maybe the New earth in Isaiah 66 is "some other New Earth" other than the one the Bible speaks of in places like Rev 22.

#2. You argue that maybe God made the Sabbath for mankind but forgot to actually tell mankind about it.

#3. You argue that since it is not repeated in the book of Acts - maybe it "Transitions" out for a while in the NT before coming back in - in some future New Earth for all mankind.

#4. You argue that although Christ and the Jews were keeping the Sabbath in the Gospels - maybe after the Gospels in - some other part of the NT - they stopped. You propose that the absence of the Sabbath commandment "Shows" that it is not to be kept EXCEPT when we see it absent in Malachi and EXCEPT when we see the commandment not fully repeated in Matt, Mark, Luke, John etc. You simply "make these rules up" as if that is "scripture telling you to do it".

Having taken the steps listed above - you then summarize your own history on these points as follows --

Surely - you can not look at the numbered - specific points above - and then read your summary - as a "satisfactory" response to the problems your view is facing in all of this.

My point in the Calvinist future scenario was that if we contrast the Arminian scenario with the Calvinist one - we see that the Calvinist view retreats to a consolation of "well then it is all about ME after all - I really shouldn't care about my loved ones that did not make it".

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.

Again - your summary is not accurate.

If you took the Arminian side in that case - and observed the 100's of texts given - and see even that I usually narrowed it down to a few key zingers so as not to confuse the other side and keep the issues in sharp focus - how in the world could you claim that this was "not giving scriptural support" or "not showing that these scriptures applied to our Arminian vs Calvinist" debate?) - Where do you get that?

I affirm your using that example as it is "common ground" and easy to see where the point could be made.

You already made that claim. I already answered that if that were true - we would see it "repeated century after century" even in Malachi's day and then again in Matt, Mark, Luke, John pre-Cross. ALL of these are cases where even you admit that the Sabbath is still binding - and "yet" the "oft-repeated commandment" idea is totally missing. This is "test case" material showing that your "mere proposal" does not pass the test.

You seem to complain that I would even subject it to the test at all.

Again. When we observe that the NT INCLUDES the pre-CROSS accounts of Matt, Mark, Luke, John when the Sabbath IS still fully binding "even" by your view - the fact that it is not repeated is no indication at all that the Sabbath was "abolished before the Cross". Your proposal does not pass the test "even" in the NT.

You are then reduced to slicing up the NT between the pre-cross and post-cross sections and even abolishing the words of Christ Himself in the Gospels - if spoken Pre-Cross. How "legitimate" is that as a mere "proposal" Eric? Surely you can see that you are simply climbing farther and father out on a limb on this point.

You are simply going out on another limb here. In the case of commandments which were indeed "valid but optional" (as you seem to want to class Christ the Creator's Holy 7th day memorial of Creation) the rule in Romans 14 and 1Cor 8 is to defend the practice AND even to "become vegetarian" if eating meat cases any of the "weaker" non-meat eaters to "be offended" -- see 1Cor 8:13.

So if in fact you wanted to "apply" that category of "observance" to Sabbath - what you would be saying is "I would keep every 7th-day Sabbath strictly if not doing so should cause my brother to stumble" see 1Cor 8:13.

Instead you take the equivalent approach "IF my brother is bothered by my meat eating - he goes to hell as Gal 4 states". By assigning Sabbath keeping NOT to the optional practices of Romans 14 - but to the condemned pagan practices of Gal 4.

You simply "can't" have a Romans 14 optional practice - that is protected to the point of 1Cor 8:13 - stand-on-its-head to become anything like Gal 4 - where you go to hell for even practicing it.

You claim you won't go to hell unless you both practice it AND expect others to do likewise - which is EXACTLY what we see them doing in 1Cor 8:13 where Paul's response is "Fine then I won't eat meat".

Whereas in Gal 4 Paul says of the pagan observances of seasons etc even to practice it - gets you to hell.

Again - your are simply being defensive instead of objective. Look at the point. I do not "assume" the Sabbath is Legitimate to "make the conclusion". Rather I "show" that taking an objective view of it - the Annual feast days ARE the LIST of days that qualify in Romans 14. IF you choose to ADD Christ the Creator's 7th-day holy day made for "mankind" to that list THEN you can not ALSO condemn it in Gal 4 because the practices in that Romans 14 list have the defense of Paul in Romans 14 EVEN to the point of the defense of Paul in 1Cor 8:13 where "HE" becomes vegetarian IF the one not-eating meat (the weaker practice identified in Romans 14) is offended because HE is not joining them.

You simply had no leg to stand on in taking the path you took -

When We combine that with the "Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to Worship" in the New Earth - you were simply painting yourself into a very small corner.

The differences between Christ the Creator's Sabbath "made for mankind" and the feasts have already been stated - but you are ignoring the list.

#1. In Heb 10 we find strong explicit statements that "He put and end to sacrifices and offerings" - Nothing of the sort is found for Christ' 7th-day memorial of creation MADE for mankind. In fact - the opposite is found - we see it in the New Earth.

#2. There is no reference to animal sacrifices in the New Earth.

#3. Animal sacrifices are never said to be MADE for mankind and were not given before the fall.

#4. The annual feast days ALL were rooted in animal sacrifices with none of them sanctified by God in Gen 2:3.

You filled your own response to me with interpretations of what you thought I was saying and of what you thought about it.

I too spend hours in these response - so I know exactly how you feel on that point.

I too am not interested in going in circles. But I feel that the reason that this "repeats" is that given a specific line of argument - after 2 or 3 exchanges you go back and simply repeat your opening statement without carrying the argument to the next leve. That means I have to go back and give the same answer I already gave - as though I am walking you back to the 3rd or 4th exchange on that one point and encouraging you to eather take it to a 5th level or yield the point or agree to go to another one if you have no answer.

Merry Christmas - and by that I mean "A blessed Christmas" to you and a happy New Year.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Eric responds

You did not follow the point.

I said that the two commandments of Love existed already in the OT and did nothing to abolish any other part of God's Law.

You can not appeal to Deut 6:5 or to Lev 19:18 and say "SEE we have this now in the NT so we don't need the rest".

Get it?

Until you actually respond to that point - the argument above "stands".

Lets not go back to just repeating your opening statement on this without actually responding to the point above.

As I already pointed out - - Hebrews 10:4-12 makes it very clear "He put a stop to Sacrifices and offerings" as is predicted in Dan 9:27

We don't have anything of the sort for Christ the Creator's 7th-day memorial of Creation that He makes "For mankind" and makes a holy day in Gen 2:3.

"Again" - you did not follow the point already made here.

1. I already pointed out that Ephesians 6 shows the 10 commandment "unit" to still be in effect as Paul says the 5th commandment is the "FIRST commandment with a promise".

2. Quotes from that unit - are in Paul's writing, in the Gospels (pre-cross) and in James' writings.

The unit remains - and quotes from that unit continue in the NT.


Eric said

Indeed I do - but I never "introduce the speculation" that if all 10 are not repeated continuously then those that are not repeated disappear in Malachi, in Matthew or in Acts.

Those speculative notions never enter my arguments.

As I said -- and still wait for an actual response -- Paul shows that He still admits to the unit (that God identified as a Unit many times in the OT) as a unit in Eph 6 saying that that the 5th commandment is the first one on that unit "With a promise".

You have "yet" to respond to the point.

#1. There are "no lists" where we see the "9 commandments" quoted in the NT. None at all.

#2. The 3rd commandment is the ONLY one not "quoted" at all in the NT.

#3. EVEN YOU admit that the 4 gospels are in the NT - they don't repeat the Sabbath commandment AND the Sabbath WAS in full force pre-cross for those Gospels.

Your point simply has no leg to stand on. And I have pointed these facts out numerous times in regard to this oft-repeated statement of yours.

Carry your point forward or admit that you can not resolve these issues.

You have already admitted that the Sabbath was made for mankind in Gen 2:3 and that it was MADE by Christ and "not kept a secret from mankind" as a way of "making it FOR mankind" in your previous posts.

Now you have a problem - because you want to claim that by introduced the doctrine - the fact in Genesis 6 but not "commanding obedience" like the commandments in Exodus - this truth is "ignored" in Genesis - yet you already have admitted that this is not the case with Sabbath before the fall of man.

In fact you made some imaginative attempts to speculate how Adam would know to stop keeping Sabbath after the fall.

You can't go back to your old failed position on Sabbath in Eden that was "A secret" and extend it to "Unlean animals" in Genesis 6 as if we have "another secret" even though - by bringing in the clean animals "by sevens" "the secret would get out".

Please respond to this point.

Speculation. No support for that undoing of God's Word in Lev 11. You must "show" your work.

Christ's commands in Matt 5 were always MORE restrictive than the civil national laws God gave through Moses. So there is no "contradiction" in Matt 5 pre-cross they all FULLY endorse the Law of Moses - even surpassing them with MORE restrictive application.

Your point again??

I have highlighted this in my previous posts - and AS in this case - you simply wait a post or two and then re-post your opening statement for this point. That makes me have to repost my response to you "again" and wait for you to either carry your point on - or drop it.

You have repeatedly tried to argue that if we do not cast out God's Law wholesale at the cross then "we would not know" that the sacrifices are ended.

I have "repeatedly" referenced Heb 10:4-12 "Showing" that your supposition is not true - as God said that He put an end to "sacrifices and offerings" (as He predicted He would in Dan 9:27 BTW)

Going back and re-posting that we must throw out the words of Christ pre-Cross or "else" we don't know we can stop sacrificing animals - just ignores the entire dilemma that your point fell into - you just loop back to the start.

Christ "fulfilled" the sacrifice "requirement" as the Lamb of God that takes away sin - doing it JUST as these shadow "predictive" laws predicted the Messiah would do.

I DO NOT participate as that sacrifice - I don't KEEP that sacrifice. I would be one of those in Romans 14 that is "NOT OBSERVING" the passover and should not be condemned for NOT doing so.

Your idea of calling "all things" as "observing" wipes out your own point in Romans 14.

I have already posted this as well -

You did not respond to this level by carrying your point forward - you simply come back to the start again and say that "not observing" is really "observing" in this case of animal sacrifices.

That makes no sense Eric - you are grasping at straws.

When James 2 quotes from some of the OT commandments (and not all nine) he says "So LIVE and so ACT as those who are to be JUDGED by this law".

You simply have no leg to stand on in that speculative statement above.

#1. You have already admitted that Christ the Creator's Holy day memorial of Creation Gen 2:3 was "MADE" for mankind and given before the fall.

So ALL mankind had it from the very start.

#2. You can not argue "whatever WE can think up on our own trumps whatever Christ the Creator gives us".

And notice that while Marriage is introduced - the command against adultery is not.

Wrong. ALL individuals are obligated to "respect it" EVEN if the individual is NOT marries and NEVER get's married - they can not "date" someone elses wife - just taking her to dinner as a "date" would be wrong.

AS for not violating the rules regarding Marriages -- My point is the same for Sabbath. You can not "refrane from violating Sabbath" while "ignoring it".

Yes we have been through this. And I said that they were in fact meeting with the Jews ON their day of worship IN their house of worship.

These gentiles were meeting on consecutive "Sabbaths" AND were even "God fearing Gentiles" who DID honor the reading of scripture AND were coming to Sabbath services EVEN when the Jews bailed out. In fact the FEWER the Jew the MORE the Gentiles according to Acts 13.

The idea that they knew nothing about Sabbath, Sabbath services, the word of God in the OT -- Acts 13 is a devastating rebuttal of those speculative ideas.


Gal 4 --

No.

#1. There are no Jewish practices regaridng "Seasons" as there was for the Pagans in spring and fall. The text is far beyond anything Jewish.

#2. There is nothing in Gal 4 about "you observe these days and that is FINE but you also insist that others observe them so that sends you to hell".

#3. In 1Cor 8:13 the saints were insisting that "others" followed their own practice of not eating meat offerred to Idols. INSTEAD of making your argument for obviously Jewish laws (Recalol that you say that you go to hell if you observe them AND insist that others do too) Paul says "I WILL never eat meat again" if that is causing them to stumble. In your view he should be saying "you go to hell if you expect others to do what you see God commanding".

Romans 14 and Gal 4 --

Believe it or not - I hear you. So I responded #1. Your view presumes a RIGHT way to "observe" those things in Gal 4. Paul gives "no right way" in Gal 4. He says that if you observe it (not if you insist that others observe it) then YOU lose your salvation.

#2. I have recently been adding the example of 1Cor 8:13 as it is the Romans 14:1-4 issue played out EXACTLY as you would condemn it in Gal 4.

In 1Cor 8 we see them observing AND insisting that others do so as well. INSTEAD of giving them the Gal 4 "hit the road" message that your view would require -- Paul says EVEN HE would be bound by that, thus sending them all to hell by your arguments.

Your argument has been shown to be without support.

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:Bob said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heb 4 -- In the text itself it is the 7th day Sabbath (not an annual one) that is specified and the conclusion “There REMAINS therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God” shows us that we still have the Sabbath blessing to be entered into – today.

In the same way that the godly faithful saints of Heb 11 that ALSO entered the Land Canaan – were not “cast of out Canaan” when they become the faithful spirit-filled people of God. Rather they lived IN Canaan AND were born-again spirit filled “giants of faith” as recorded in Heb 11.

The “either/or” dichotomy that you are looking for – does not exist in scripture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said

The salvation rest of Heb 4 - is not in opposition to the Sabbath - NEITHER do we have the point raised in Heb 4 (or Heb 11) that once the OT Giants of Faith were born again - they stopped keeping Sabbath.

As already pointed out above - this was a case of BOTH the Sabbath AND rest in Canaan -- BOTH the Sabbath AND the faith of those in Heb 11.

In fact the argument is that neither the Sabbath NOR the rest of Canaan is of value IF you choose to rebell against God.

So when we see that the Sabbath rest REMAINS for the people of God - then as we observe Sabbath as the people of God - AS those saved and born-again we look forward to heaven when we can observe Sabbath with "ALL" mankind for "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship".

Instead of "ALL mankind may come before Me to worship OR all mankind may choose to keep Sabbath" it is BOTH aspects combined as "the blessing MADE for mankind".


quote: Bob said of circumcision of Jews-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it was still required in the NT. For this reason Paul has Timothy submit to it in Acts 16 AND Paul states 3 times from Acts 21-then end that his teaching was consistent with what God gave Moses.

In Romans 2 – Paul says that the “spiritual meaning” of that act is “still” the same as Moses said it was – the “circumcision of the heart” by the Holy Spirit. No change – OT or NT.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The spiritual intent was always there according to Deut 30:6 in the "Law of Moses" if you will.

No Change.

Deut 30 did not "become" true after the cross.

There is simply "no change".

"again" you go back to your opening idea that if we do not adopt a wholesale rejecting of God's Law then we would not "know" that God told us in Heb 10:4-12 that the sacrifices and offerings were stopped.

You simply can not argue "wholesale rejecting" as the only for us to figure out that we need to read and accept Heb 10:4-12.

I have already pointed this out numerous times - and you just keep coming back to the idea that we would not know to stop sacrificing if we did not push "reset" on God's Law when we get to the cross.

It just isn't true.

If you read closely the Gal 3 quote you are referencing you will find that the LAW IS pointing out sin - and showing us our need of salvation it WAS NOT a "another gospel".

In Gal 3 Paul does not say "But when Christ was crucified on the cross THEN we stopped listening to the LAW of God" as you suppose.

Rather he says "WHEN FAITH CAME" - at the point of conversion for each soul - our relationship to the law changes. The ongoing authorotative law of God that continues to define sin - condemns us as sinners - lost - UNTIL faith comes, we are led individually to Christ and THEN Roman 2:13-16 relationship exists "NOT the HEARERS will be just before God but the DOERS of the law WILL be justified" because the "LAW is WRITTEN ON THE HEART" in the New Covenant instead of "ignored and abolished".

It is obedience from the heart - not wholesale rejection.

Again - you apeal to ":Another gospel" a Christless spiritless gospel in which grow the giants of faith seen in Heb 11 "on their own".

You argue that a law-centered christless gospel was the way of salvation in the past. Paul said in Gal 3 that "IF that were possible then righteousness would be based on law -- (there would BE NO need of Christ)" Gal 3:21

Read Acts 21-27 time after time Paul is charged with changing the Word of God regarding the Jews - time after time he rejects that accussation saying that he is not making the very changes you "need" him to make regarding the Jews.

Start with 21:21-24, then 23:4-9, then 24:14-18 then 25:8,10-11, then 26:20-23 then 28:17.

You are simply on the wrong path here.

quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By not keeping Passover – (which I could freely “keep” today if I chose to according to Romans 14) – I am Romans 14 example of the one that “does NOT observe”.

This is very obvious.

I am the one that is “ignoring it” – I am not the example of the Romans 14 saint that chose to “Observe the day”.

Your idea of “still observing what you ignore” is an internally-conflicted position that your defense has forced you into.

It is not a logical position supportable from Rom 14 or Gal 4 or Matt 5 – “keeping what you ignore” is just not there.

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

#1. I am arguing that EVEN in your argument from Romans 14 - you have to admit that NOT keeping Passover is clearly defended as the case of the one that does NOT observe the day.

This forever ends your idea that not-keeping is really keeping.

#2. I have pointed out that NOT observing things like Passover on the basis of Heb 10:4-12 but NOT observing things about Adultery - or Christ the Creator's 7th day memorial is a problem for James quotes from the 10 commandments and then says if you break one you break them all. NOT observing those as you would NOT observe passover - is "a huge problem".

I think you see what I am arguing here.

"Obviously" you don't believe that because when you get to Romans 14 you freely admit that there really is such a thing as "not observing" and that this is just fine we can "not observe" them for they are fulfilled in Christ and they are only mere shadows.

You can't then go on to claim "not observing is a good example of Matt 5 deeper observiing".

Your argument is falling apart.


quote: Bob said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Matt 5 when Christ contrasted the letter and the spirit – keeping it in the spirit ALWAYS included and surpassed outward performance.

You have gone the to the extreme opposite were “ignoring” is a “spiritual keeping and observing”.

That position is so “conflicted” that it totally makes mush out of Gal 4- because even when you think you are “faithfully ignoring those pagan Seasons” you are still “keeping” by your definition and as Paul said in Gal 4 – lost.

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

You did not follow the point.

You argue that by NOT keeping them your are still observing them. Paul in Gal 4 only condemns the "observance" and you claim that even by not observing you are "observing".

Futhermore - you are messing up your own Romans 14 argument as well saying that all practices are still "observing" the days.

quote:Bob said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with your view that IF you can’t just trash the Laws of God wholesale – then you actually have to pay attention to it – and who knows you might have to keep it all (as horrible as that might be).

My entire point is that your view is correct to a point.

Instead of wholesale dismissal of the Word of God (because it pertains to the Word of God before the Cross) what we really have is “ONE” Gospel in ALL ages. We pay “close attention” to His word in Heb 10 saying that the Sacrifices and offerings were “put to a stop” by Christ.

In other words – it is God’s explicit statement that must be applied to each part – to show that it is no longer binding – and can be freely ignored.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. the Hebrews 4 statement shows that JUST as Sabbath AND Canaan AND salvation applied in the OT to the Jews (and they did not lose Sabbath and Canaan as soon as they came to faith as in the Heb 11 examples) SO ALSO the people of God are called to enter to the 7th-day Sabbath rest as SAVED people of God bound for heaven - not in rebellion against God.

Romans 14 defends "OBSERVING EVERY DAY and OBSERVING one day ABOVE another" it says of those that do not observe on one of those feast days - that it is fine. You claim that there is no such thing as not observing - since even ignoring the day is still observing it. Your argument fails there.

You argue the Gal 4 case with respect to the SAME days as Rom 14 - where in Gal 4 the "observance" is only "condemned" and no mention at all is given in Gal 4 about these "weak and elemental things pertaining to that which is no god" that "It would be find to observe them IF you did not also require others to do as you do" -- you simply "insert" that idea in the text.

quote:Bob said in response to Eric's statement about judging.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually this debate consists of you criticizing others for saying that the Word of God is still in force regarding the moral law to the point that it still includes Christ the Creator’s Holy day
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your argument from Gal 4 has been that if you keep Christ the Creator's 7th-day memorial of creation as something that "you just like doing" it is fine - but if you say it is a command of God - if you claim it is "MAde for mankind", if you argue that God includes it in His law that defines sin (the ten commandments) if you claim that all mankind is bound by it - then as we see in Gal 4 - you go lose salvation.

I have been arguing that such a view of the pagan practices (oops I mean "weak elemental things that are of that which is NO-God-at all) of Gal 4 -- applied to Sabbath or to ANY practice listed in Romans 14 - does not work.

In Christ,

Bob

 

No, it's not specific scriptures and my response, it's your own sensationalized interpretations of what "principle" you think my response establishes. If my responses were so bad or incomplete, that would not be necessary.

Yes we are "keeping" it. Christ is our Passover, and Communion is the NT counterpart to the OT ceremony. According to you, this part of the Law is just thrown away because you can find a NT passage that explicitly says it is not in effect, but the truth is, the Law was fulfilled, God did not just throw it out, and He is not demanding the OT Passover of us, so it is fulfilled in Christ. The intent of it IS "kept", though not in the letter. A lot of the problem is that you do not understand this. That is why you think I am just saying the law is kept in one place and that it is not kept in another ("strengthened/ignored" argument). You do not understand the concept of the letter and the spirit.

Because it's the same principle as Passover. You can argue it was not made at Creation like the weekly sabbath, but you need to stop arguing against the idea that stregthening can mean not "observing" [in the letter, that is]. "Strengthening" (In the Bible, "magnifying") is just another way of saying "spirit of the Law, as apposed to just the Letter", so the same principle that makes us not have to observe (in the Letter) the Passover, because Christ is what it was pointing at, also says that lust is what the adultery commandment was also getting at, and hatred and anger were what the murder commandment were getting at, even though the letter didn't mention them in the 10 Commandments. Those moral commandments become more binding, and the ceremonial one becomes less binding. You may not agree; you may not agree it extends to the weekly sabbath, but please stop accusing me of some unfounded double talk.

I argue that it is the one in Rev.22. That revelation supersedes the conditional pictures of Isaiah. I reread that passage, and the presceding versed DO, show sacrifices, (v. 20 seems to describe both a figurative ANd literal bringing of offereing), PLUS the priests and Levites. Plus, as I said before, the fact that New Moons are also mentioned, and it is about the name and lineage of physical Israel. You skip over stuff like that and then accuse me of just jumping to other stuff without answering you because I'm "out on a limb", etc.

 

You're the one who keeps harping about "pre-cross". Were the faithful Jews (including Christ Himself) keeping the feasts and other ceremonies in the Gospels "pre-Cross"? Were these still at that time part of "the commandmentS" that Jesus upheld and told people to "keep" if they loved him? Were the Jews keeping them in Malachi or any other OT book that didn't mention them? Of course, yes. But then are they still to be kept after the Cross? No. It's not me who "slices" up the NT. There was a big change in practice at the Cross. You yourself admit to not keeping all of the "commands" that were in effect when Christ spoke. Just because you can find a verse that more explicitly says that certain practices are no longer in effect does not change this, so you are actually arguing against yourself. So this too is a waste of time, and a distraction. Let's drop it already. The argument is whether the Sabbath in included in the fulfilled list, or is still in effect, not whether there was ANY change at all post cross, so let's focus on the former.

Those were great scriptures for the Arminian side. But my point was that you kept repeating your little scenario over and over, and everybody got it. They don't buy it, but you kept pitching it. It wasted time and space. If anything, it actually took focus off of the scriptural evidence, leading the Calvinists to continue to think our argument is more emotional than scriptural. (Actually, I didn't say you didn't use scripture, I said you[r emotional "scenario"] didn't CONVINCE them [in itself] of what scripture teaches. After one posting, it was no longer useful).

Notice, you cut out the answer in the very next sentence: "It's particular points of what hangs on them that may be commanded in one age, and repealed in another. But the principles of the two would still stand", and the previous "How these [the 2 commandments] are practiced does not always follow the literal 10, because the letter did not specify lust and hatred, or all oaths period, for instance. So it IS possible for some to increase in application, and one to lessen or be set aside in application".
How can you skip over things like this and then accuse me of not answering, or just repeating sopmething else? (you're the one repeating the same unproven assumptions)

I can see that this is your new hobbyhorse-- the stumblingblock. Paul is telling the more mature believers to have a yielding ATTITUDE to the weaker ones, to preserve peace and unity in the Church, regarding practices that were questionable to them. Like Rom. 14, these people legitimately had a conviction, regarding those things, and would be offended. In Gal.4, Paul is judging peoples' motive for rigorously keeping days, as if they were Jews still under the Law (as if Christ had not come). That calls into question their conversion (but still, Paul does not say they are necessarily going to Hell. That is another claim stuck in to try to magnify what they were doing to prove it must be as bad as paganism, but that just does not fit there. We can warn a person living in sin that they are living like the unconverted, but uit does not mean that they have "lost salvation".) So these are two totally different cases.
Even so, you should admit that a line has to be drawn where having strong convictions on things like that does cross over into the "bondage" of Gal.4. You are also on my side when you appeared on the music forum, and if you may remember, Aaron uses 1 Cor. 8 to prove once and for all that we should all completely give up all our contemporary music (both in church and even our own personal listening), but you have to weigh whether this is a legitimate request, or whether it is entrapment in bondage. In Rom.14 and 1 Cor. 8, it is legitimate, and in Gal. 4, (as well as the music issue, KJV, etc) it is not, but is bondage. In the former case, we should respect our weak bretheren and have the ATTITUDE of such concern that we feel like we could give it completely up for their sake--not saying that we must actually do that, else we wouldn't do anything, as people will find fault with anything, including those in the latter case who are not legitimate.

 

That's the problem. You are "putting together" things that tell us nothing about what is expected to us today in the Church age, and assuming it is posing some problem for the other side.

He uses the unit as a reference. That does not say that the Sabbath is still in effect. Now you're picking little words or phrases out of the verses and building whole arguments off of them. Then you expect some "answer" from me. The argument is not whether there was still a "unit", but whether the whole unit was still to be observed in "the letter". This goes back to the argument of the "we keep what we ignore", etc., so you can just answer that there, not here, please, to try and condense this discussion down.

They are all mentioned at one place or another. As for, the 3rd Commandment, "blasphemy" is condemned all over the NT, as well as oaths/false swearing violating the spirit of the command.

"Kept a secret" was your words, never mine. I never affirmed or denied that because it is moot, and another sensational tactic ("God keeps secrets? Are you saying He is shady or not straightforward?". And it was supposedly so wrong to say that God "hid" His sabbath that He made for all mankind, but then the clean and unclean is not said to have been "made for all mankind", so the same argument would not apply, according to your reasoning.)What I said was God did not have to reveal anything to man until He wanted to. You act as if Adam or Noah wrote their own accounts, but it was Moses who was given the Law. Gen.9:3 plainly says that all meat was allowed then, so whatever you read into there being a disctinction between clean and unclean, you cannot say it was mandated in their diet at that point.

"undoing"? I showed it in 2 Cor.6:17 "Touch not the unclean thing", and lPet.l:15, "Be ye holy for I am holy", where Peter and Paul apply the unclean meats laws to avoid unclean behavior and people. If you do that, then you've fulfilled the laws of clean and unclean. This is what those laws were for. You, on the other hand, cannot find any proof of any "health" code. In fact, that is really the argument of secularists trying to explain away the Bible as being inspired by God ("They made up thos laws back then because they didn't know how to cook pork and shellfish too avoid the diseases, but now we know how, so that law is unneeded.")> If that was true, then they would be right, and the meats would be "haelthy" because we now know how to cook them (In fact, shellfish is healthier than "clean" red meats, and even pork is now said to be better than beef and chicken (the unhealthy way they are raised today), or even the fattier lamb and veal.) And no, I'm not justifying myself, because I don't eat it. (Rom.14/1 Cor.8)

You're still overgeneralizing.
As we shall see now:

What I am trying to point out is that you, as immediately above, on one hand, argue that the Law can bever become "less restrictive", yet in the case of sacrifices, you admit it is: you can "ignore" it, because you have a verse that undeniably says it is no longer in effect. But then don't use "the law always becomes MORE restrictive" as an argument. It CAN become less restrictive, and the argument is if that included the weekly sabbath. Once again, can we let this round and round argument go? If I am repeating something, it is because you are not getting it.

And even though two of the 10 commandments are mentioned, and none of the ceremonial commands, still, the Bible does not make the distinction that you do, between the "Law", and "the other Commandments". When dealing with scriptures that say we are no longer under the Law, then "Law" means the laws EXCEPT the 10 Commandments. Now that we see "the Law" affirmed, it changes, and "the Law" IS the 10 Commandments, and not the rest. Whatever you say, Christians reading these letters knew they were not to observe the whole Law.

I never "admitted" any such thing, regarding man being "having" (keeping) it from the start. The problem is, you are "winning" an argument with yourself.

More senastionalized hyperbole that I never said or implied.